Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/October

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Free Picture from Live Aid Concert

Hello!

I don't know if this is the best place to ask but... can anyone find some free picture in Flickr or somewhere of U2 performing at Live Aid concert. I am updating the Timeline of U2 article and I need a picture. Thanks. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You could "cheat" by taking a generic Live Aid picture such as File:Live Aid at JFK Stadium, Philadelphia, PA.jpg and cropping it to just show the Live Aid logo. Would that do? I certainly remember watching U2 performing at Live Aid (it's been repeated a few times) but of course the BBC's coverage is copyright so that's no good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

But, the good thing would be having Bono singing to show the part of the leap of faith. Maybe someone (not a professional) took a picture and have it uploaded somewhere. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any free photos of U2 performing at Live Aid on Flickr, I'm afraid. Sometimes you can find a non-free one and talk to the photographer and convince him or her to release the photo under a free license... but even the non-free photos aren't very good (like this or this). Sorry. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :D Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Can this photo be released into the public domain?

I was just having a discussion about privacy and copyright tonight and now, curiously, I run across this example on the help desk. Nyttend backup released the photo into the public domain, but assuming the people in the photo are on private property and are possibly the owners and since they didn't seem to have been contacted regarding the release of this photo on the Internet, is the photo showing identifiable people actually allowed to be released into the public domain? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears the picture was taken from public property (eg the street in front of it), and as such, there's neither expectation of privacy nor issues with Freedom of Panorama (photographs of buildings in the US are not derivative works of the building's copyright), so it is appropriate for the public domain. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That does answer my question, thank you! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

From another direction, privacy issues don't affect copyright. They may limit what can be done with the photo, but they aren't copyright restrictions; even if the photo violates privacy, the photographer can still release it as CC-0, and people who receive the photo and edit it appropriately or are in jurisdictions with less strict privacy laws can use it without legal problems. (I said CC-0 because releasing a file as PD may not be legal in some jurisdictions and who knows how a court might interpret it as a license.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Keraunoscopia, note two minor things: (1) Nyttend backup is an alternate account of Nyttend, so I didn't get this notification until now :-) (2) More substantively, it was taken from the public right-of-way as Masem notes, and meanwhile, it's in a student ghetto (approximately 39°9′44″N 86°31′32″W / 39.16222°N 86.52556°W); none of the houses are owner-occupied. Also, Prosfilaes, remember that {{PD-self}} includes a statement that's basically "If your jurisdiction doesn't permit PD releases, I grant you the license to do whatever you want with this image, without any conditions". Nyttend backup (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to have alternate accounts, I think it's your responsibility to have email notifications on or some other way to be notified of changes to your talk page, not the responsibility of others to figure out how to contact you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, what are you talking about? There's nothing in the WP:ALTACC policy that says that, and people who go to User talk:Nyttend backup will see that it's a redirect to my actual talk page the redirect is fully protected, so only admins can leave messages there. I've complied with all three of the points suggested by the ALTACC page, too: anyone can realise from the "backup" name alone that it's not a primary username (and the image in question is credited to "Nyttend" without "backup"), the alt userpage links to the main userpage, and the alt talk page redirects to the main talk. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Photographs of Statue - Copyright Violation?

Are photographs (I took) of a statue copyright violations?

I received an e-mail saying they are and they have been nominated for deletion.

File Number One:

File:Passo di Danza ~ Step of the Dance by Manzu.jpg

File Number Two:

File:Passo di Danza Step of the Dance Manzu.JPG

Here is the reason stated for deletion nomination:

===

Staue is work by Giacomo Manzù, who died only in 1991, and thereby still copyrighted. As the U.S. have no freedom-of-panorama exemption for non-buildings, this photo violates the copyright of the sculptor. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

===

If this is correct, I will remove my photographs.

Please advise. Thank you - Patricia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia Petrat (talk • contribs)

It's not that they are copyright violations, but that they don't qualify as freely-licensable images; as the comment notes, photographs of works of arts installed in public places where the work still has copyright are considered derivative works of the copyrighted statue. As these files are at Commons, they require images to be freely licensable, and thus they need to be removed from there. There may be a possibility of using the files here on en.wiki under our non-free media allowances, which would be considers under fair use, but we have a high standard that in this case, we require that the statues be talked about by sources as to aid significantly in the readers' understanding of the topic. Looking at the article they are used in One Woodward Avenue I don't think they can be justified at this time. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, publication in the United States, without explicit permission of the sculptor (or other owner or legal manager of the copyright on the sculpture), of photographic (or other) reproductions of copyrighted sculptures are considered violations of the copyright of the sculptor (or other owner of the copyright), unless the publication of the reproduction is justified under one of the exceptions provided by the Copyright Act, for example "fair use" in a critical publication about the sculpture or about the work of the sculptor. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Patricia Petrat, there may be a way to have the images included after all; they've been deleted, but they can be undeleted if you prove the case. When were the statues installed in public places, and do they have copyright notices? If they were placed before 1978, and if they have no copyright notice, the statues are in the public domain, meaning that the images can be restored. However, note that "before 1978" is not sufficient by itself, and nor is "no copyright notice" — both of them must be true for the images to be undeleted, since a pre-1978 work with notice and a post-1978 work without notice are both still copyrighted. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

permission for images made by myself

I have sent an email as requested with my permission for File:Lorella e ombrello.jpg and File:Lorella Cedroni reads Bobbio.jpg, which are under detection threat in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorella_Cedroni Why the threat do not disappear? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicsofculture (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Those warning messages aren't automatically removed. Since you've gone and mailed the permissions and they are tagged properly now, I've removed the messages and they should be okay, pending the permission check. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I inherited a copyright

I have a photo that my mother took, and I am her heir. After her death I inherited everything. I want to use the photo in a WP article. What do I do? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Contact us - Licensing in the part relating to "donate content". I suggest you use email because I don't think your situation is one that can be handled in a routine way. Thincat (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The commons has a template for such situations called: Heirs-license that you could use by uploading the image there and getting this image deleted or you could use the template {{PD-because}} here filling in the necessary heir details. However the commons allows you to select any free licence while the one here is a PD licence. ww2censor (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I poked around Commons and Wikipedia, and I could find nowhere to paste either of those templates that Ww2censor messaged me. GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the link I provided above Heirs-license is the template on the commons, so I don't know why you cannot find it. You can only use that template in the image file if you upload the image to the commons. Or as I also stated you could use the {{PD-because}} template with the existing image. Just click on the links and use the template as shown on those pages; it is pretty well explained. Exactly which image are you referring to and I will add the template for you if you wish. Then you can then review it and add any additional missing data. ww2censor (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will try again. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If the photo was never published before, you can just upload the file normally to Commons and tag its description page with the free license of your choice, wrapped into the "Heirs" template as suggested above. Then you can display the file in the Wikipedia article with the usual wiki syntax. You seem to upload some files to Commons and some other files to Wikipedia. If I may offer a suggestion, It would probably be more useful for the other Wikimedia sites if you uploaded all the free licensed files to Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

There is also the straight forward commons template PD-heirs as well. NtheP (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

University of Oxford logo

Look at File:University of Oxford logo.svg. Do we have any clue when the circular logo (visible on the image's left) was first published? If the circular logo is a PD-old work, surely the whole image is likewise PD. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of the University of Oxford says (without reference) "The modern version of the arms in which they are not borne on a shield, but rather surrounded by a garter bearing the text UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, was designed in 1993..." so it would be in copyright unless they have released it. I see here they restrict download to staff so that maybe implies they regard it as under copyright (or not!). File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg may well be free because it has been self-drawn, presumably from a blazon and maybe one which appears to have been reverse-engineered by Wikipedians.[1] Thincat (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just noticed that hovering over the relevant image at http://www.ox.ac.uk/branding_toolkit/branding_marks_and_logo/secondary_device.html brings up a claim of copyright. Thincat (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Higher quality version compatible with OTRS ticket?

I found a superior quality headshot of Daniel Ingram online (here), which already exists on the English Wikipedia (here). However, the quality and resolution is inferior, and on top of that, is incorrectly uploaded as a .png file, despite being unsuitable for photographs. The file has been marked by a bot as being ready to transfer to Commons. My question is, will the OTRS ticket to which the image has been approved for free use still be recognized if I decide to upload the higher quality version on top of the inferior quality version? In other words, is this still recognized as equivalent free usage, and not as a derivative work? Apologies for the fuzzy wording. — Whisternefet (t · c) 07:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You may want to ask a member of OTRS what is written in the permission exactly. This looks like a typical situation where Wikipedia has a low resolution version precisely because a copyright owner did not want to freely release a high resolution version. Absent more information, the permission is assumed to cover only the low-resolution file uploaded to Wikimedia, not a non-free high-resolution file displayed somewhere else. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Shahrzad Rafati - CEO of BroadbandTV.jpg

Hello, I emailed further information about the rights to this image and haven't heard any response from permissions. The image is owned by Shahrzad herself (purchased from professional photographer), and has only been released to press with her consent. I was asked to upload this image to this page with strict permission from her.

How would I communicate the rights to this image properly? What would be the proper license?

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reignfall (talk • contribs) 18:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless the image is explicitly released under a free license, we can't use it on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I've sent emails to the permissions@ email, but have yet to hear a response. Is it normal that it has been 2 weeks? Sorry if this is not information that you would know. – Reignfall ^(talk) 9:18, 7 October 2013 (PST)

Well, it can sometimes take a month for Permissions to get to a particular e-mail, since they do have quite a backlog. In this case, however, it seems that you are not the copyright holder. The copyright holder would have to e-mail Permissions. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Route marker for Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail

Would the design of the Golden Pipeline Heritage Trail route marker, shown in a photo here, be public domain in the US (per {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}), and would it be okay to upload a clean version of the route marker (drawn in Inkscape or similar), applying that template? - Evad37 (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, would it make any difference if the arrow were excluded from the above design (which would be the very likely case for our intended usage) -- Nbound (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, this route marker would be ineligible for copyright in the U.S., with or without the arrow. But that's just my opinion. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Concern about File:Orphan by Uros Predic (1888).jpg

Is the painting in the public domain? I just want to know. Image2012 (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The painting is considered to be in the public domain in the U.S. However, most European countries will not consider the photograph to be in the public domain until 2024. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it in the public domain in its country of origin, Serbia? Image2012 (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a difficult question (all copyright questions are difficult). Here's my attempt at an answer. The present law in Serbia says copyright duration is 70 years after the death of the creator. Previous Yugoslav law was 50 years. Before that... ? And what were the transitional arrangements? Here, on Wikipedia, to be public domain in the US is sufficient so that is fine because it was published before 1923 (presumably). So, the fair use claim is not needed and probably should be removed. On Commons, US and Serbian law both matter and if there is doubt on Commons the image would be deleted. In Serbia, it is possible the actual photographic copy is also in copyright but again that is not so in the US. Thincat (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe free album covers

I've searched through the album covers and found some that can potentially not exceed the threshold of originality. Being not sure of all of them, I ask experts here. The albums are the following:

--ɴõɴəχүsƚ 20:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

One question to bring up early is that the UK (and others) has a very low threshold of originality, so something that would be PD in the US may well not be if it's from another country, and I note that (for example) Six by Seven is a British group. Chris857 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Many groups have had different US and UK covers. US TOO is useful for us on the English Wikipedia, as PD in the US means you don't have to worry about fair use rules. Non-US TOO would only matter if you were moving them to Commons, where they worry about the source nation copyright as well as the US copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We can still use {{PD-text}} for these since we are talking about how WP's servers would handle them. I do note that these PD-text/PD-textlogo statement link to WP:PD#Fonts that explain that when outside the US these images may not have free use (Commons does the same though I think they have a more specific tag for US PD-ness). We do have disclaimers that warn the reuser that they need to pay attention to copyright laws in their country if they intend to reuse the images, so we can still consider these free.--MASEM (t) 00:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ENVIRON

I received the following notification:

The Wikipedia page File:ENVIRON Corporate Headquarters Arlington Virginia.jpg has been changed on 28 September 2013 by Sfan00 IMG, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ENVIRON_Corporate_Headquarters_Arlington_Virginia.jpg for the current revision.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ENVIRON_Corporate_Headquarters_Arlington_Virginia.jpg&diff=next&oldid=574755161 to view this change.

it stated: If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

I forwarded to the permissions-en@wikimedia.org an email from the owner giving consent to use the image and for it to be free media within wiki, prior to the deadline and it was still deleted from the imagery gallery.

I need to know what to do next, will it be reinstated, or do I need to reupload the image. Who monitors the permissions email as I followed the provided instructions but it was still deleted?

Please let me know what I need to do next. Thank you. Caswivel (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem was that you uploaded the file clearly claiming that someone else owns the copyright (even if they are planning on a free license release). which flags a possible copyvio. You did part of the right steps to avoid that in emailing permissions to show that consent, but there was a followup step missing in that the image page needed to be edited to include that that permission was pending. I have restored the image and added the appropriate tag (and removed the speedy deletion tag); note that OTRS is a bit backed up and may take some time to process, but should be within the week. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Note also that you did not follow all the instructions, in that the copyright owner must contact permissions directly: we cannot accept what purports to be a forwarded e-mail from a third party. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I thought that I did follow the correct steps because I was told "or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org." which is what I did. For future clarification on imagery if an image is provided for free use what is the best steps and necessary items needed for upload. Thank you so much, as I continue to do research and reading through wiki it seems like there are multiple answers and steps and everyone is doing it slightly differently but I want to make sure I don't run into future problems. Greatly appreciate it! Caswivel (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a hard rule that the copyright holder must send the email. See Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed The instructions Caswivel received above say to forward an email is all right. I remember having acceptance of an email I simply forwarded (I sent it with full email headers not knowing whether this was helpful). I think it may depend partly on the individual handling the request and on whether there may be some reason to doubt that the email is indeed genuine. @Orangemike, can you indicate a policy that the permission must have been sent directly by the copyright holder? If you have received a letter giving permission, surely you can email a scan of the letter. No? Thincat (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't work OTRS myself; but in this era of spoofery, I am paranoid about such matters; and allege scans, in the age of Photoshop, are completely untrustworthy. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Are ISBN numbers in the public domain?

In other words, are there any applicable restrictions on their use in Wikipedia? Thanks! Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I cannot envision that, being raw data, that they are anything else but uncopyrightable/PD. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

<humor>Unless the ISBN is an illegal number.</humor> I guess it might depend on what you would do with it, but I'm reasonably sure that anything doing a correlation of "ISBN"<-->"publication info of a book" is merely a set of facts, and facts are not copyrightable. Also, ISBNs are utilitarian, so are probably not copyrightable there as well. Chris857 (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/10/judge-alito-and-copyright.html is a case about part numbers that would imply that ISBNs are uncopyrightable short phrases. Practically speaking, unlike the part numbers under question or Dewey Decimal Numbers, ISBNs have been understood to be universal property, that anyone can and should use a given ISBN for identifying a specific edition of a book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Question about encyclopedia dramatica's license

Does encyclopedia dramatica's license allow copying text of the articles into Wikipedia? Qnyx77 (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks as if the answer in "no"[2] unless the individual contributor has specifically allowed it or the material has a free licence for some other reason. Thincat (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Or unless the copied text is a legitimate short quotation with proper usage and attribution according to our guidelines (just stating the obvious to be complete). GermanJoe (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's good to say as well. Thincat (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Cambodian passport stamp copyright

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cambodia_bavet_passport_stamp.jpg

This is licensed under CC because it was pulled from Flickr. But according to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Visa_cambodia_Manfred_Werner.jpg , " as far as Cambodian stamps are reproduced, they each form a Decision / certificate of a Cambodian authority, which is not protected by copyright according to Article 10 (b) of the Cambodian Copyright Law".

So should the other one be converted to PD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.167.84 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Both images are actually in the public domain. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Are they? Because to me it looks like the one is marked with a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. I think both of them should be public domain, but I don't really feel like I have the authority to alter copyright status (nor do I really know how to do so). 65.123.167.84 (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The CC license claim was made in good faith, but I don't believe it's accurate. I have modified the image description at File:Cambodia bavet passport stamp.jpg. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is also the passport to consider. Passports issued by some countries are PD whereas passports issued by other countries are copyrighted. What is the copyright status of this passport? Unless the issuing country, which is unidentified, doesn't protect its passports, then the image may need to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: File:Davie's tree in 1850.PNG

Dear friends,

I made a huge mistake. Yesterday I uploaded this scanned file which was obtained from "J.P.Lewis. "The captivity of Major Davie". Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Ceylon. 1923;XXIX (76).p 185" I was under the impression that the image was actually drawn by J.K.L Vandort in 1850. But when going through the image list of the journal I saw that it is attributed to "JPL -1914, after a pencil sketch by J.K.L Vandort in 1850". it seems the true author was J.P Lewis the author of the journal article. I can't find J.P. Lewis's year of death. What should i do? Shall i tag it for speedy deletion? Sorry for the negligence from my part. I am ashamed.

Thanks in advance. Nishadhi (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately i can't give you the complete answer (hopefully someone else can), but a few points: Via Google i found a publication of a J.P. Lewis in the "JOURNAL OF THE DUTCH BURGHER UNION OF CEYLON" dated 1928 (so + 70 will be a very close call, if that's the same "Lewis"). Also, you'll need an additional US-copyright tag to cover copyright both in the US and the source country ("PD-US-no notice" probably). This is a Commons image by the way, so you would have to request deletion on Commons. GermanJoe (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll raise the question in commons village pump as well. It seems he has passed away before July 1944. Here, [3] page 6 - last paragraph. Nishadhi (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@GermanJoe:Found. Hon. John Penry Lewis [4] (1854 to 1923)[5] see under author. Is it OK to keep the image? Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Should be OK (both UK and Sri Lanka have PD+70). However, you should add the Commons template "PD-US-no notice" to establish US-copyright and add the year of death to the author information. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Nishadhi (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You were (and are) acting with the best of intentions and there has been nothing at all to be ashamed of or anything like that. I'm glad it seems to be sorting out OK. Don't be upset by this. WE all make mistakes (but not everyone owns up to it!). Thincat (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A friendly Commons user has replaced the templates with more modern versions (which also provide a bit more information), but the image itself is fine. No worries. GermanJoe (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation

To Whom It May Concern,

Two images were removed from Professional Picture Framers Association page.

-File:PPFA Guidelines for Framing Textiles and Needlework.jpg

The reason was: m (Removing "2012-2013_PRINT_Competition_Piece.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Edgar181 because: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work: (permission must...)

- File:PPFA logo.jpg

The PPFA Board would be happy to sign a permission needed to publish both publication image and the logo. Could you please let me know what should we do in order to have these two photos back? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks. Mbboston (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:PERMIT has the procedure to follow to get a message to the OTRS team to show that you are authorised to release this under a free license. The logo could be used under fair use, but I don't know about the other image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The PPFA logo (based on the website linked from the article) likely fails the Threshold of Originality, and thus is uncopyrightable and would be considered a free image, so that shouldn't even be a problem. (I would presume that the commons deletion was based on misclaimed ownership). --MASEM (t) 20:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!I hope I did this right this time File:Professional_Picture_Framers_Association_Logo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbboston (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(I've colon-linked the image above so it doesn't so). Everything is good, though I did change the license to PD-textlogo on Commons, since that's more accurate, but otherwise no problems. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

YouTube BBC video links and copyrights

Is it allowed to link to a YouTube documentary from BBC, not part of the official channel? This article explains how BBC and YouTube deals with copyright http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6411017.stm Since they can enforce any copyright claim at YouTube, videos which are accessible can be considered tolerated by the BBC, hence no active copyright infrigement. Prokaryotes (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The videos are still copyright infringements, even if the copyright holder chooses not to take any action on it. I'd also question if a six year old article is current policy with the development of iPlayer etc. NtheP (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

But what if some users have the right to publish material? Is there a Wikipedia rule which clarifies on linking to videos? What exasctly is allowed what is not? Thanks. Prokaryotes (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically, we generally have to assume that any video put up to youtube is a copyright violation (even if fair use) unless we have reasonable strong assurance that the uploader is the copyright holder of the entire work. So only videos posted by the BBC using BBC footage could be linked to. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but how about for instance this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzmpWR6JUZQ which appears to be from the author. The content is educational, documentary purpose, would this be allowed? Prokaryotes (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The questin is how reasonable that is? It looks like an encoding of a broadcasted show, which would question whether the guy owns the copyright even if he wrote most of it. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The encoding is based on the YouTube video standard from 2008, which didn't supported HD or videos longer than 10 mins for standard users. The user profile image is one of the scientist from the documentary, why would anyone else use this profile image. Considering that this video is the only upload on YT and it hasn't been reported for a copyright infrigement within 5 years hints that the copyright holder wants this video online. Prokaryotes (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because he's in it doesn't necessarily make him the copyright owner (the fade out at the end to me is what trips the "part of a broadcast" flag). And just because it hadn't been taken down at any time doesn't mean anything to us: if he doesn't own the work, it's a copyvio that we cannot link to. You *coughcough* could still cite the original show that the documentary appeared in, with airdate, etc, but you just won't have a URL parameters filled in. --MASEM (t) 01:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

@Masem, there is no fade out, this is a 2 part movie with 20 something minutes length. The content is on science and education. Is there a rule in Wikipedia which gives some more guidance for judging vidoe, when authorship is not clear or is this just opinion? Prokaryotes (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The only advice we can give is that we err on the side of caution that material published on sites like youtube are assumed to not be by the copyright owner, and require reasonably good proof that one does own the copyright on the uploaded material, irregardless if the use of material would otherwise be seem to be fine under US fair use laws. (In this case, assuming that is the full documentary, that's already a strike against fair use, since it's using the whole work).

Here's a better question: why do you need to link it? I would believe that you are trying to cite the video (fair enough), so as long as you can validate that it was published and by whom, you can use a citation template that does not link to the video but refers to it. A reader that wishes to then see that video would have to search for it on their own, but that's no different expectation from most other print and off-line sources. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

EDUN products

I am working on this article and this one, can anyone find some free picture in Flickr or somewhere of some of the products by the brand? Like jeans or T-shirts. Any help it's very appreciated. Thank you very much. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, there don't seem to be any. But the good news is, clothing designs are not eligible for copyright, so anyone could take a photo of EDUN apparel and release that photo under a free license, without having to worry about whether it's a derivative work or not. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's dood. Anybody! If you have some Edun product please take a picture of it :D... Thanks Quadell. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You can also use the {{Image requested}} tag, but to be honest, it's not often all that effective. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

yes, Quadell, I've seen it doesn't work very often, we still are looking for pictures of Ali hewson, Arthur Fogel, Eve Hewson, and Morleigh Steinberg :( Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

gregory siff wikipedia

I added the appropriate tag i thought for the photo but wikipedia keeps saying i have not. i also emailed proof of usage for the photo from its owner. Please help!!!

{{art things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artthings (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you mean File:Greg_Siff_-_"Beauty_Is_Boring"_Portrait_by_Robin_Black.jpg, the copyright owner needs to give permission for all usages incl. usages off-Wiki and commercial usage. Unfortunately a restricted permission is not acceptable under Wiki-policies. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more info and a link to an example consent letter. GermanJoe (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have since decided on using a free work. I would like the photo mentioned above to be deleted from Wikipedia now. Is this possible? Thanks

{{artthings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artthings (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

How many non-free pictures...

With fair use can be used in one article? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no hard limit; it depends on how many are needed for discussion. Some featured articles on musicians have something like 5 non-free files (including music samples). I am generally a lot thriftier with my non-free content, though in one article (Chrisye) I've used 3 non-free files. Some articles on artistic movements (particularly those after the 50s) have ten or more non-free images. Most articles, however, get by with no non-free images (or one at most). Of articles I've written (random examples), Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI uses only one, and Sudirman does not use any (despite being my longest to date). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Crisco -- Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

want to add an image to a page but have no clue

I created a page about Ruth Frances Long and would like to add her photo - she has one on her web page [6] or her twitter account [7] and I don't know if I can use either on her Wikipedia entry or not. I probably have one I took of her at a convention but it wouldn't be as nice.. so I was hoping to use one of these if possible. How do I go about something like this? I know nothing about photos and the related copyrights...--Antiqueight ^confer 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, sorry to tell you that neither of the images you suggest can be uploaded here unless you can get the copyright holder to verify they are prepared to let the image be freely licenced which means anyone can use it for anything including modifications and commercial use. Her website has a clear copyright notice and twitter accounts don't often show the copyright status of images, so we assume they are copyright. Your own image can be freely licenced and while it may not be as good an image the possibility of getting a copyright holder to agree can be quite low but you can try. They would need to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to better understand some of the copyright issues you face. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I was afraid of that but thanks for the links - I'll go read and see what I can come up with :-)--Antiqueight ^confer 22:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The page here is very easy to use. Put your image on your desktop or some other convenient place, then choose "Click here to start the upload form." On the next page, fill in all the blanks, upload your file, and then choose "This is a free work." Finally, choose on the succeeding page "This file is entirely my own work," and tell how and why you took the photo. Leave the Creative Commons attribution the way it is. Fill in your real name or your WP name if you want attribution. Don't bother to upload to Commons because it involves an extra step and is not as user-friendly. At the end of all this you will be greeted by a page that actually gives you a model line for you to copy and insert into any WP article, on the edit page. Very simple. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!--Antiqueight ^confer 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Artwork

If you are an 'artist for hire' in the US the client owns the oriniginal artwork and can reproduce as they see fit . However I was wondering is there another way I can allow them to reprint etc using my art without having the original ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.81.159 (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Well if you are the artist you can grant the license that you want, but if you or a potential copier do not have the original to copy it may be a bit hard to actually do something that you have given the right for. So you can keep original, give the customer a copy, and allow copying. If you do not want the client to have exclusive rights, you will have to organise a written contract to say otherwise. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We cannot actually give you any legal advise, just some general guidance, so you should consult an attorney who specialises in intellectual property. ww2censor (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted videos and sounds

Why is that one can upload a sample of a song for an article and cannot upload a sample of a music video for the same song? Just curiosity-- not that I want to do that--. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What it all really comes down to is whether fair use materials significantly improve the understanding of the reader, especially when details of the non-free material itself are discussed in detail. So, (and this may just be my opinion) if a music video is discussed in depth, and I'm thinking on the order of how paintings and the like are discussed, or a specific element from the music video, then a screenshot or short video may be appropriate. PS: Another thought about a sample (as opposed to a screenshot) of a music video, is that something essential must be present in the video that a mere screenshot cannot express. Chris857 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Problem to upload pictures

Hi guys!!! I just uploaded Mongolian Air Force's MiG-21's picture. ( My friend taked that picture. I told u guys. ) If there has a problem just tell me. I'm just uploading that pictures to Mongolian Air Force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mongolian_Air_Force%27s_MiG-21.jpg

Back in August you asked the very same questions about the same images and can read it again at: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/August#Problem to upload pictures. Your friend will have to verify his permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT as you were previously told. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

He just sent email to commons. Buuhai (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Question in regards to copyright

Is it possible to upload a picture of art that was purchased at an auction by a private collector? For instance these 2 pictures here were paintings done by Willis O'Brien back in 1960 for a cancelled project. http://www.icollector.com/Willis-O-Brien-concept-art-of-Kong-for-King-Kong-vs-Frankenstein_i11537029 and http://www.icollector.com/Willis-O-Brien-concept-art-of-Frankenstein-s-Creation-for-King-Kong-vs-Frankenstein_i11537031

All his concept paintings went up for auction a few years ago. Is it possible to upload these pictures to an article without violating any sort of copyright?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A few questions: is it Willis H. O'Brien? Do you know when it was first published according to WP:PD#Artworks? If it's first publishing was the creation of copies at this auction in 2011, then File:PD-US table.svg tells us that it becomes PD 70 years pma, or 1962+70=2032. If we are a bit more unlucky, it might take until 2047. So, unless some other circumstances exist that someone else can find, it would appear that copyright will last a while longer. Chris857 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was Willis H. O'Brien. It was for a 1960 project called King Kong vs Frankenstein. The picture of the Frankenstein giant was first published in black and white in a early 1990s book called Willis O'Brien Special Effects Genius by Steve Archer. Here is a scan from that book http://www.roberthood.net/daikaiju-antho/unnatural_history/images/kingkongvsfrankenstein2lb9.png But it was published in black and white. The color painting (alongside the King Kong one) made its first appearance at that auction.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this not essentially the same problem you asked about in 2010 about another sketch of O'Brien's showing the scale between King Kong and a human? Did you ever resolve that issue which concerned this image because the problem is virtually the same. What's the difference this time other than the publication you found it in is different? BTW, just to remind you that we had two discussion on my talk page about the same issue that are archived here and here. ww2censor (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference is, is that the previous question was in regards to a painting that appeared scanned in a book. This one is the actual paintings themselves that have been sold at an auction rather than a scan. Since the paintings do not belong to the Willis O'Brien estate anymore and are now owned by a private collector I believe the question is different here. Who would own any sort of copyright on these paintings?

And BTW you really do have an amazing memory. You actually remember a question someone asked you over 3 years ago?!! I completely forgot about that and I don't do nearly as many edits as you do. Heck I don't even remember what I did yesterday. I wish I had your memory skills.;-) Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the memory is still pretty good for now. I recalled something similar to this, so searched for the discussions. Anyway, the issue is actually essentially rather similar. Unless you can prove that the painting were sold with their copyright, ownership does not confer any rights to the person in whose possession it is. The copyright belongs to the author or his heirs. IIRC, his wife is deceased without any children so finding who now hold the copyright will likely be rather tricky. As Chris857 says it may be 2032 or even 2047 before this falls into the public domain. Sorry to not give you better news. ww2censor (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that one could get around any sort of copyright? For instance can it just be tagged that its a scan of a one of a kind painting and that this will not infringe on any copyright (which more than likely doesn't even exist. I don't believe O'Brien even copyrighted these paintings). And perhaps tag it as fair use with the captions The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as: it is of much lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality) and the photo is only being used for informational purposes. Wouldn't that be enough. If any sort of copyright holder (if any exist) complain then the pictures could simply be removed?Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot just skirt around copyright and if you want to make a claim under our non-free policy, the image must comply with all 10 non-free policy requirements and the one you will most likely run into is #8 that requires sourced critical commentary about the image itself, which, if it was in an article about the painting, would be relatively easy but in a biography is not so to justify. ww2censor (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to upload the painting to the King Kong vs Godzilla page to illustrate the first paragraph under Production. That paragraph explains the origin of the film and the painting would be the perfect illustrative point, as it shows an actual painting from that planned production. If it wasn't for King Kong vs Frankenstein there never would have been a King Kong vs Godzilla. If this could work I would rather use this painting here http://oi43.tinypic.com/2nsnybl.jpg or better yet the original scan in color http://oi39.tinypic.com/2qs3o04.jpg .Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't see how you can get around the fair-use limitations. The illo may be :"perfect" from your point of view, but mere utility is no plea against a lawsuit, since it is not vital to the article. Somebody is bound to have inherited or purchased O'Brien's intellectual property rights; and they could very easily be a litigious Hollywood person with an aggressive attitude towards collecting their due. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

But if that happened (which more than likely never will as these pictures have appeared in numerous books through the years (as far back as Famous Monsters of Filmland in the early 1960s and without credit, and are all over the web (Just do a google image search on "King Kong vs Frankenstein") couldn't the offending upload simply be removed?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Promotional images

Hello
My question is regarding the use and upload of promotional photos. I was planning to upload a promotional photo of The Durutti Column, taken in 1998, as the main image of the article. What should I choose as "non-free use rationale?" (Basicly, I can say that I don't how to upload it as it does not seem to really fit in any presented option.) Besides this, the band is still active and I don't know whether it'd be a problem or not. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A question to ask, as it's not clear - is that photo of the current band members? If they are still a group of those musicians, then per our non-free content requirements, we'd not be able to use a non-free image since it should be possible to take a free photo of the band performing otherwise. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a photo of current members. However, if the band was fully disbanded, would the photograph be eligible for use in Wikipedia? (And if so, with which non-free use rationale should it be uploaded with?) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been an open question for years. Have we ever come to a consensus about this? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

concern about images

Advanced Format

http://www.seagate.com/tech-insights/advanced-format-4k-sector-hard-drives-master-ti/

Many images in common. On wiki Dougolsen marks the images as his own work. That can only be true in two cases, if he authored the seagate paper and created the images himself, or if seagate is using those images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.103.206 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As these are on commons, I've put them up for possible copyvio there. I do note they can be replaced with free versions (as it is just data, just needs to be redrawn by a WP editor to put out as free.) --MASEM (t) 18:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly free image

Although this, File:Wii U Game Banner.png, was uploaded under a claim of fair use, I think it might actually be copyright ineligible (although it is trademarked). The Wii U logo itself is in Commons, so I don't see how sticking it inside a couple of shaded curves would add that much more original authorship. It's best to be cautious about this, but is the rationale actually unnecessary? Dark Toon Link 12:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that this fails to meet the threshold of originality. I would consider the image copyrighted, just in case. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Tile logo.png

Would the logo for Tile (software), located at File:Tile logo.png, fail to meet the threshold of originality and therefore be in the public domain? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that a U.S. court would rule that this image contains creative content that can be protected by copyright. At least in the U.S., I think this can safely be considered PD. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I have converted the file's description page to PD-textlogo and added a move to commons tag. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rreagan007/television network logos

This weekend, Rreagan007 (talk · contribs) created the image File:Broadcast-network-logos.jpg and placed it on Commons under PD-textlogo licensing and added it to the articles List of United States over-the-air television networks, Broadcast network and Television network. On the first I reverted the image under the argument that the article is much more than about the big American networks and added no critical commentary, and removed it from the third because the article should have a world view, not just American-centric.

Rreagan007 reverted my edit under the claim that "no critical commentary necessary, they are non-copyrighted text logos", which I have reverted because I respectfully disagree with their opinion. They also changed the templates at File:American Broadcasting Company 2013 Logo.png and File:NBC logo 2013.png on the same justification, asking for a Commons copy. However I've had issues in the past about logos just being declared PD, and this weekend a logo for Disney Junior was removed from Commons as a copyvio by Fastily there (I reuploaded it here locally with the hope it stays solely on EN); I disagree that most television network images should even be on Commons in the first place.

I'm asking if my action was proper and meets WP:NFCC for the removals, if Rreagan007 is appropriate in taking these logo images PD, and if the combined Broadcast-network-logos.jpg has any use here at all. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 07:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Rreagan007 statement: Non-copyrightable logos that only contain simple geometric shapes and text properly belong on the commons and can be used in Wikipedia articles without any critical commentary under current Wikipedia policy. I do not believe I have done anything improper, as all of the logos are indeed made up of nothing more than simple geometric shapes and text. These logos are (I assume) trademarked, and they are labeled as such with the trademark template on the commons, but commons accepts trademarked images and only looks at copyright status to determine eligibility to be on the commons. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, even the CBS eye logo is considered uncopyrightable but trademarked. The image is fine as a free image (whether its appropriate in context falls outside the question of copyright) --MASEM (t) 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

iOS 7 icons

Hello, the reason I am sending this message is because that there has been rumors about the iOS 7 icons being made on Microsoft Word 2013, due to a YouTube video that was released. So, if the icons were made on Word 2013, does Apple Inc. have the rights to make it copyrightable when it was made from that program? Because if they don't, I'd be a good idea to make the iOS 7 icons that were uploaded here not copyrightable. --Blurred Lines 21:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The software you use to make an image does not affect the copyright status of that image. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's just say that I make a icon on Word 2013 that looks alike the new iMessage icon, does that consider to be a copyright? --Blurred Lines 01:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

That'd probably be too derivative, and since the purpose of the app icon is to show primary identification without tarnishing the subject it wouldn't stay up for long. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated question

Hello,

I am editing the Wiki listing for Archway Cookies. I am the former President / CEO and former owner of the company. Now retired.

I am trying to fill-in the history of the company, since it was only fragmentary and needed some help. I have many documents including several old photos of the Archway bakeries. All of the marketing materials I am attempting to load ... I created and approved. In attempting to load them into the Wiki listing and am getting kick-backs from Wiki managers about copyright issues.

All of the original documents are in my possession.

How should we handle this?

Thanks, Tom Olin Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolinjr (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Polly Thayer pictures

I've written an article on the painter Polly Thayer (Starr) which is waiting to be reviewed. I would like to include an image of her and several images of her work on the page. Is it OK to use a photograph of a self-portrait or other work she painted, as long as I took the photograph myself and give the source proper credit? Thank you. Dorothy Koval (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two kinds of photos on Wikipedia: free photos, and non-free photos. Free photos are always allowed, but non-free photos are only allowed in very limited circumstances. If you yourself took a photo of the artist during her life, then your can certainly upload that image to Wikipedia (so long as you're willing to release the photo under a free license), because it's a free photo. But taking a photo of an artist's painting is trickier. Since the underlying painting is copyrighted by the artist (or her estate), your photo would be a derivative work, and you wouldn't have the legal authority to release that photo under a free license.

There are really only three options. (1) Thayer's estate could authorize that a photo of her own work be released under a free license. That would mean that anyone is allowed to use the photo for any purpose, which most artists' estates are hesitant to do. But if that happens, then the photo is a free image, and we can use it. (2) You could upload a photo of the artist's work as a non-free photo. In that case, you could only use it if it complies with our policy on non-free content. In particular, the article would have to have sourced, critical commentary about the painting; viewing the painting would have to be necessary to fully understand the article; and the article would have to use no more non-free images than absolutely necessary for that purpose. (3) The third option is, of course, to not use a photo of her work at all.

I know our image policies can be confusing. I can help with this if you like. Just ask me on my talk page. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images on a "list article"

A few days ago I created an article for an annual professional wrestling event, titled NJPW Dominion. Yesterday, I added the official promotional posters for each year's entry, but they were removed by Werieth, citing WP:NFLISTS, which in my view does not absolutely prohibit the usage of non-free images on list articles especially in the way that I'm using them. They were again removed with Werieth not claiming that they lack "critical commentary" and "fail WP:NFC". I pointed him to an RfC, where it was concluded that the article doesn't necessarily have to discuss the artwork itself. Then the posters were removed a third time, with Werieth now pointing me towards WP:NFC#UUI #14, which states "[unacceptable uses include] a logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event. If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable". Each poster is clearly different from the previous ones and I don't see this would justify the removal of the posters. I asked him about that so he went back to the list argument, so since we're running in circles here, I came here to ask your opinion. I believe these posters meet all points in WP:NFCC.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The RfC only applies to cases where the primary form of visual identification is the image being used for the entire article (IE book and album overs). Not when it is used as part of a list or list like article. There is a long history of not allowing this type of usage. Werieth (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Werieth is right here. One image is appropriate for identification of the topic, but that's it; all subsequent images need to be the subject of critical discussion, and that's not happening here as you have it. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

How can you have "critical discussion" on an image, much less a promotional poster? By describing it? Explaining why certain wrestlers are on the poster? That seems to have been enough for articles like TNA Genesis, TNA Turning Point, Destination X, Hardcore Justice, ECW Heat Wave, November to Remember and December to Dismember just to name a few to remain undisturbed for years? Do I really have to cut a decent article into five less than decent articles just for a policy that makes no sense?リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument - because all those articles fail too, and the post images will have to be removed. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ive cleaned them up. Destination X is an example where the primary logo is valid, while the separate posters are not. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And to just note: these articles can still be "prettied up" by adding free images of the fighters involved, as we do not restrict free images on list articles. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a shitty argument, but WP:NFC is far from clear and riddled with weasel words open to interpretation and it'd be easier to swallow this if the policy was actually clear and enforced across Wikipedia, without articles like WWE Rebellion, Guilty as Charged, Hardcore Heaven, Living Dangerously, Anarchy Rulz, Final Resolution, TNA Sacrifice, TNA Against All Odds, TNA Victory Road and TNA No Surrender being out there for years. When even the higher-ups can't agree what constitutes "critical commentary" or what the critical commentary should be aimed at (image itself or the thing it represents), something's wrong.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As a point, given that all the articles you give as examples above are from the MMA/Wrestling side, which lately has been identified by the rest of WP as a sort-of walled-garden, trying to include a lot of non-notable events and athletes from these sports and ignoring policy. To find their articles to be full of non-free is of no surprise. And as a point, we have no way to automatically enforce NFC, so there are probably many more articles with inappropritate NFC use that simply haven't been discovered yet; the argument they have been there for years is also a non-argument if there is a problem with NFC. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

License status of MakeHuman output

I hope this is easy, but I have to ask:

The owners of MakeHuman

have granted a CC0 license to all models created. See license information

Some of the output is used in MakeHuman, and I am trying to decide if it is correct that specific releases are not needed for each image, based upon the general license.

I hope the answer is yes, but I have some concerns.

First, I accept that the license means that I can download the software, make anything I want, and use it anyway I want. I don't need to get permission from them if I want to use a created image. However, am I prohibited from creating something, and then copyrighting it with a more restrictive license?

I think the broad license of the software means that I can use a CC0 license for some output, but does it mean I have to?

I'll suggest an analogy, which may or may not be apropos. Suppose a camera company was in favor of broad usage of images, and sold a camera with a provisio that all images taken would have a CC0 license. Could they? My guess is no. If I buy a camera, I can take and copyright a picture, and I don't think the camera manufacturer can prohibit me from doing so. Is that correct? Is that analogous?

If the answer is that all out put of the model is CC0, then I'll have a technical question about how to know that, although that may be a question for the software creators. It seems likely that the images on that article came from that software, but I don't know how to tell.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 14:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

By releasing the output of their software under a CC0 license, the MakeHuman team are not claiming any copyright on anything made with their software. (And even if some court says the MakeHuman team does hold a copyright, they irrevocably promise not to do anything to enforce it. Which is very nice of them.) They also state that there is no copyright at all on MakeHuman output. That's not a court decision, that's just their statement, but it's important nonetheless.

Now if I used MakeHuman software to create a model, could I claim copyright on it? I doubt it. Nearly all of the creative content in the finished product was created by the MakeHuman team -- this makes it different than a camera. (If I buy an action figure and pose it in a certain way, I couldn't hold a copyright on that pose: the pose was an inherent possibility in the toy when I purchased it.) For me to hold an enforced copyright on a particular MakeHuman model I made, I would have to sue a reuser, and a court would have to agree with me that my creative input was significant, copyrightable creative content. That court would also have to hold that even though I saw that MakeHuman believes the output to have no copyright, and even though I agreed to their terms of use, I still thought I could copyright the output myself and I had a right to do so. I'm not a judge, but it sounds dubious to me.

In this case, we have a statement by the primary content creator (MakeHuman) that the output is PD. And I'd say that's enough.

I'm not sure there is a way in general to tell if a given image was created by that software. If an image has a clear statements from its creator that says it was created with the software, that's good enough. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not quite sure it is this black and white, but it is certainly clear that the company has no intention of going after someone for copyright violation, and since the items in the article were created by the designer of the software, those at least are fine.

I noted your comment in a thread above that the choice of software doesn't determine the copyright, so I was hoping you would weigh in here. I am sure we all agree that Microsoft doesn't get to copyright words I might type in one of their products. But it also means I can assert copyright, even if Microsoft tried to claim otherwise. So the key appears to be who has control over the creative process. If I use Word, I do. If I use a camera I do. If I use MakeHuman, you suggest that I do not. I'm not fully comfortable with where the line is drawn. A predecessor to MakeHuman was MakeHead, a python script. Was the copyright status of that product governed by whatever rules were put in place by the writer of Python? I would think not. MakeHuman is written in C++. Surely the designers of C++ have no ownership of MakeHuman. So why can someone use C++ to make a program and declare that the output has a particular copyright?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, your there's nothing wrong with your reasoning; it's just a matter of degree. Is a MakeHuman user more like someone using C++ or Word, where there are infinite varieties of fully creative works that you can make with the product? Or is a MakeHuman user more like someone posing an action figure, or perhaps someone customizing an avatar in a game, where the user merely selects from a limited number of elements that were already present, in ways that were clearly intended by the product's original creator? You're right that it's not black and white, and I've never actually used the program, but it seems to me to fall on the "customizing" end of the spectrum, rather than the "writing a story" or "programming a software package" end... especially when you take into consideration the intent of the MakeHuman team, which was explicitly to make their output as reusable as possible. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent NBC logos

File:NBC logo 2011.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:NBC logo 2013.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:NBC Peacock logo 2013.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Are these logos eligible for copyright in the U.S.? Per commons:COM:TOO, even mere shade won't make much of a difference, especially for Microsoft Windows logo. --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the deletion discussions on File:Nbcnewyourknewlogo2011.png (at commons), these should all be uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at www.copyright.gov, I find two interesting registrations:
1. VAu000370850: "Logo, NBC". It says that the logo was created in 1996, but it is not at all clear from the article Logo of NBC which logo NBC created in 1996. The abbreviation could potentially refer to some other NBC; see NBC (disambiguation).
2. VA0000750604: "Previous Registration: Appl. states work incorporates the NBC peacock design used under license from and with permission of the National Broadcasting Company." This suggests that some kind of licence is needed for the peacock design, although it isn't clear whether this refers to copyright or to trademark protection. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation

Hello, I am working on the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation article, I uploaded various logos of the channel:

File:LBCI DRAMA.jpg.png

File:LBCI News logo.png

File:LBCI HD logo.png

File:LDC logo new.png

File:EUROPE FINAL.png

File:Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation America (logo).png

File:LBC Australia.png

They are getting removed from the page due to them "failing Wikipedia's non-free image policy", what can I do to fix this problem? A.h. king • Talk to me! 12:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. Using non-free images as you have done in that article does not comply with WP:NFCC.--ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there ANY way that I can make these files to be left on the page? A.h. king • Talk to me! 18:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. It's against our policies to use non-free images in this way on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not convinced that all of the logos meet the threshold of originality. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ahh, good point. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit a free picture

I am making some special edition of my userpage for Halloween, also the birthday of Larry Mullen Jr. So I was thinking about editing a free picture we have of him and make a sort of Halloween costume, like dressing Larry up as a vampire. But wanted to know if this is possible and what licence it should be released under. Notice that I will add a speedy deletion template to the image after Halloween day. Thank you very much! Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 12:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If the photo of Larry is released under a free license (such as cc-by-sa-3.0), you can just release your new image under the same license. What image were you thinking of using as your base image? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This one or this one. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 13:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh good. They are both released under a free Creative Commons license. Just be sure to credit the original photographer (atu2 or Clancy3434), and link to it in your image description page. So long as you release your new image under the same license as the original photo, there should be no problems. (I look forward to seeing what you come up with!) – Quadell ^(talk) 15:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the help Quadell, I will let you know when I've finished the pict hehe :D Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

But Quadell, what about if Larry sues me fr doing a realistic picture of him with scars and wounds as costume? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, Larry is a public figure, so that kind of a lawsuit would be very weird and unlikely to succeed. There is about a 0% chance that he would try to sue anyway; even if he saw it, I'm sure he has a better sense of humor than that. And if he did sue for defamation, you'd just have to take the picture down... which you're planning to do anyway! So it's really not a problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Quadell Phew! What a relief! Imagine how would be that the drummer of your favourite band sues you for a picture of happy birthday and halloween that you've made... That remainds me of an episode of Drake And Josh where they meet Oprah... People says that Larry has a dry sense of humour so I don't know how he would take the picture if he sees it; just out of curiosity... if he do sue for defamation (OMG I am shaking) wouldn't I have to pay a lot of money --which I don't have-- as well as take the picture down? Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No. I'm not a lawyer, but I can assure you that's pretty much impossible. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Quadell. I am almost finishing Vampire Larry, but I will upload it on 31 October, to have to have it the less time possible on-line. I am making another special page for xmas with Bono and a Santa hat... Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 15:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that once an image has been freely licenced with the appropriate source and author information, there may be no good justification for deleting it. I wonder how you intend to justify its deletion. Besides which the image may be legally copied from here to other sites so that even deleting it here may not mean it has actually been removed from circulation no matter how short a time it is available. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

ww2censor I will justify the deletion, because it is an image for userspace use only, and it's used only on a certain date. But, thinking about what you've said, I better not upload it. Miss Bono^{[hello, hello!]} 14:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

How to classify promotional images from one's own company

Hi- Im trying to upload a logo from a company that I am an owner of. The copyright for the logo technically belongs to the company. As and owner and VP, we are happy to make it freely available, but it is still our copyright. How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohaus82 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Out of the Box Publishing. One option would be for the company to release the logo under a free license, such as the cc-by-sa-3.0 license. If you do so, your company will still hold the copyright to the logo, and your company will still hold all trademark rights. It would just mean that, for copyright purposes, you preemptively allow other people to copy your logo and use it however they want, without asking your permission first. (They still couldn't use your logo to promote their product, or to associate your product with theirs, since that's a trademark concern. But they could use your logo in any Wikipedia page they want, or in other projects.)

It's totally up to you and your company, but if you do choose to license the logo under a free license for copyright concerns, simply e-mail Wikipedia to let us know you're willing to do that. Send an email from an address associated with Out of the Box Publishing to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation, ideally using the email template at WP:CONSENT. If you have any questions, just ask me. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. This also applies for any other images you might want to use in the article, such as photographs of the individual games. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It is my opinion that you should not license it as cc-by-sa-3.0. Of course, you are free to, but if the only intended use is on the main article on the English Wikipedia, the image can be used under fair use provisions. If there is an expectation that the logo would be used on articles in other languages, or other articles, then the free license makes more sense.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Beijing International Studies University Revision

Hello, regarding the image use in Beijing International Studies University, I understand that I should have removed this one as it is not directly related. But what about File:Beijing International Studies University 1960s.jpg and Image:Beijing International Studies University 2000s.jpg? I reckon they are images with iconic status or historical importance to the article as the uni has engaged in major reconstructions so the campus is not the way showed in the two photos now. Or is it more of a copyright concern? Hope someone could clarify this. Thank you.

Corphine (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Both images are copyrighted and non-free, and here on Wikipedia, we can only use non-free images under very limited circumstances. In particular, anyone could take a modern photo of the campus and release that photo under a free license, so Image:Beijing International Studies University 2000s.jpg is "replaceable". Since we can't use replaceable non-free images, we'll have to delete that one, at least. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Kelvin wake pattern trigonometry.jpg

User:Duduong drew a simple diagram and at 22:22, 21 June 2009 he uploaded it as File:Kelvin wake pattern trigonometry.jpg to illustrate a point in Wake#Wake pattern of a boat. Unfortunately, he did not include a licence, but in its first edit comment he stated clearly "I draw this simple trigonometry pattern on 6/22/2009". As he drew it and was its author, surely he had permission to upload it; but at 21:22, 16 January 2011 User:HJ Mitchell deleted it as "no licence". But text in Wake#Wake pattern of a boat still referred to and needed this image to illustrate a point, so I have undeleted it; we better discuss this matter here to get it regularized. (6/22/2009 is after 22:22, 21 June 2009, but he can be excused a typo or misreading a calendar by one day.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the original author, Duduong, has edited just last month, it may be best to ask him. Alternately, it looks like it would be a very easy image to recreate and explicitly license. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm of the opinion that this is probably {{PD-shape}} or something similar, whether it was explicitly licensed or not. It's four lines, a right angle symbol, and the letters A,B,C,D. Alternatively, User:Duduong is just barely active, so we might be able to get his input.Chris857 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chris857. This WP:TOO simple. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note in User talk:Duduong. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Anthony, did you mean User talk:Duduong? Chris857 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes :: I have corrected the typo. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Single ladies logo.png

Is the image eligible for copyright? I see only text with shiny background. --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How do I categorize this? Can you do it for me?

I don't even know how to show you the files below.

Plan of a settlement call'd Dunlaps Station

"ACQ: Harmar Papers. References: Brun 708. Note: Signed at lower right: B. Shaumburgh. Ground plan of fortified settlement with table of references identifying types of buildings. Additional note discusses changes made to roofs of the houses. Physical Description: 1 ms. map ; 32.5 x 20 cm. William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan" http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/005561778

File:Clements Library Permission form

"The Copyright Law (United States Code, Title 17) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified by law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a reproduction [including that made by electronic transmission] for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement."

Their Director signed the form above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsonbill (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If a file is legally in the "public domain", you can upload it here. I'm having trouble understanding what picture you're referring to, but if it was published in the 1790s then it's in the public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

File:PATCO Speedline.svg

Registered trade-mark? Yes. Original enough for copyright protection? I dunno. Useddenim (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the stylised "P" in the red oval thing is probably enough to tip the balance towards originality.--ukexpat (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I too would assume that was copyrighted. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Nederlandse spoorwegen logo.svg

OK; then what about this one? It’s simpler. Useddenim (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably not copyrightable - "simple shapes and symbols".--ukexpat (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

could non-free use suffice - image of festival listing

I have a screen shot of a portion of an electronic edition of a national newspaper that I would like to use in an article to illustrate some planned text in the article.

The planned text would note the inclusion of an artistic event far from the publication location of the national paper, illustrating the growing recognition of the event as being of national importance.

The full article suggests not-to-miss events to travelers. The screen shot is a snip of that notation of the event in this contemporary column published electronically by the paper, which contains an image provided by the subject event in press releases. I presume that the image being broadly circulated for publication would qualify it for non-free use.

Are there any rules that would apply to this that I should know before uploading the image of the listing in the column? 83d40m (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC) The page from which the snip is taken may be seen at http://www.intransit.blogs.nytimes.com 83d40m (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a need to use the image here - you can just cite the newspaper's article to show the event without including non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use an image that includes the notation and the image with part of the paper showing -- as one image, if it would not be against rules regarding the use. Would there be any rules against the use of a partial screen shot used to include these? Other opinions? 83d40m (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, what you're saying is that you want to show that this festival was noted in this other paper. While the image/screenshot of the paper showing that does just that, that's a non-free image, and for all purposes, replaceable by a citation template to that online article. In the prose you can note that the festival was recognized by other papers, using that citation. This is based on what I'm guessing your use is, but I may have mistaken that, and there might be an allowed use, but you might need to explain the reasoning of why showing the image is more important than just referring to the paper's article. --MASEM (t) 19:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It is an evolving travel list that is changed regularly. That is why I would like to use a portion of screen shot I caught while it was the first item on the list. That shows the entry at its best as well as the source. What would be an allowable use? Where would I have to note the reason for adding the image? 83d40m (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is the case that the list changes and the old entries are lost (which is a weird way to run a blog, but...), you may use a web archival service to take a snapshot, of sorts, of that page as to lock that version down, and then use that as a text citation. I would recommend doing this irregardless of an image, if what you say is true. I recommend, is Website: [8]; you pass it the details of the page, including URL, and it will churn out a unique URL that contains the stable version of the page on the date of citation. This would then serve as something you can cite on wikipedia without having to resort to using the picture, as evidence of what you're looking for. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't prove the file is mine. I think.

Bit of a Catch-22 here. I uploaded a CC portrait of myself (File:Yintan, sep 2011.jpg) for my user page and Teahouse profile. I use the same image on other sites where I have accounts (CD-Baby[9], SoundCloud[10], BandCamp[11]) and listed one of them as a 'previously published source'. Within a few hours it got tagged for deletion because "there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license". Eh, what? I tried to explain my situation to the tagger but that didn't help a lot (discussion here[12]). I can't "send an email from an address associated with the original publication" because that site (bandcamp.com) doesn't provide email addresses. And now I need to provide "evidence" that the bandcamp page is mine. Which of course I can't, although I'd say that the identical username and the fact that I'm linking to it from my user page are a dead giveaway. How am I going to solve this? Yintan 19:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:OTRS drop them an email, should be able to straighten it out. Werieth (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

OTRS wants proof of identity, basically forcing me to out myself. I'm not doing that. Yintan 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Anything you send to OTRS is confidential.--ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Once I've got this red tape out of my hair, I'll just upload another, previously unpublished, one. Yintan 20:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Towson Birds Eye View

I recently received a notification on my talk page that the birds eye view photo I added to the Towson, Maryland Wikipedia page may not be in fair use. I accredited Towson University, the source of the photo, when uploading the photo. Can somebody let me know how to address this issue? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbaron43 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately we cannot accept this non-free image because, under our fair-use policy, it must comply with all 10 non-free content policy criteria and per point #1 this image is easily replaceable by someone taking a new picture from a plane or helicopeter and releasing it under a free licence. You might be able to persuade the copyright holder to release it under a free licence by having them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I use these images?

Hello, I've been editing an article on the history of a Chinese university, and one of the events is related to a publication created by the uni staff. I found an excerpt from the newspaper which published part of the content (China Daily 1976) and a photo of the book cover, the title of which was inscribed by the then Chinese President (1978, captured in 2009). Can I upload any of the two? Corphine (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

These images will not be free as they are too recent to be public domain. Also I cannot see you making any kind of case for fair use, so that will not apply either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-free image and its Commons' counterpart

Orignally posted at Wikipedia:Help desk#Non-free image and its Commons' counterpart

I found this image File:VillaSavoye.jpg in en-wiki to be not-completely free ('Do not copy to Commons'). There is however File:Vista exterior Villa Savoye.JPG in Commons, which shows very similar view of the same object. How should I tag the enwiki image? Template {{Duplicate}} doesn't seem to be applicable here, also {{Now Commons}} is not appropriate as that is neither an 'exact' nor a 'scaled copy', but I couldn't find a template to say 'there is a very similar image in Commons to be used instead this one'. --CiaPan (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If the reason it can't be moved to commons is due to France's limited on freedom of panorama, the image at commons should probably not be there or tagged that it is PD in the US only, as the same concern applies. You probably want to start a deletion discussion on commons (pointing out the state of the en.wiki version), and if that commons one is able stay, there's no reason the one here on WP can't be moved either; alternatively, if the one at commons is deleted, then there's nothing to do here, the image is otherwise appropriately marked. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The file VillaSavoye.jpg on en.wikipedia is tagged correctly as it is. As explained by Masem, it has a tag Do not copy to Commons because the current situation on Commons makes the stability of such images there uncertain. So, it is better to at least keep a copy of each image on en.wikipedia, where they can be more stable, no matter if there is also a copy on Commons or not. That said, it would be useful indeed to have more images of that building available on en.wikipedia. So, this is what you (or anyone) can do, if you want:

You can upload to en.wikipedia a copy the Commons file Vista exterior Villa Savoye.JPG
You can ask a friendly sysop of Commons (either personally or on the page Undeletion requests) to temporarily undelete files that had been delted from Commons, so you can copy them to en.wikipedia. The files will get the template Temporarily undeleted on Commons (don't mind the reference about fair use, as the same logic should apply even more obviously to free images like those we are speaking of here) and then you can copy them to en.wikipedia. Looking very rapidly on Commons, I found the following deleted files. Perhaps more files can be found if one looks better.

File:Villa Savoye interieur.jpg
File:Villa Savoye toit.jpg
File:Villa savoye cote.jpg
File:Villa Savoye face.jpg
File:Villa Savoye Chambre.jpg
File:Villa savoye avant.jpg
File:Villa Savoye - Poissy, France.jpg

Also, if you want, you can ask a similar temporary undeletion to a friendly sysop of fr.wikipédia, about the deleted files there. (Explanatory note: fr.wikipédia has a complicated policy about images of buildings. It normally accepts without problem all those free images, just as en.wikipedia accepts them, but it doesn't accept the images specifically of Le Corbusier buildings because the commercial agency that represents the heirs of Le Corbusier has specially requested that those free images not be displayed on the Wikimedia websites. En.wikipedia does not accept that sort of requests for deletion of free images, but fr.wikipédia does and that's why those particular files were deleted there.) Anyway, the files are:

Fichier:Villa Savoye arriere.jpg
Fichier:Villa Savoye face.jpg
Fichier:Villa Savoye escalier 2.JPG
Fichier:Villa Savoye escalier.JPG
Fichier:Villa Savoye Piliers.jpg
Fichier:Villa Savoye rampes.jpg
Fichier:Villa Savoye salon.jpg
Fichier:Villa Savoye toit.jpg

Two files have identical names in both lists above. They may be the same images or not.

All of those files uploaded to en.wikipedia should be tagged with their respective licenses and also tagged similarly to VillaSavoye.jpg with the Do not copy to Commons etc. tags

-- Asclepias (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Jazz images

I am trying to get an article done on Stan kenton's album "Adventures in Jazz" from the early 1960s. The University of North Texas has some outstanding digital images that relate to those recording sessions (from Capitol Records in Hollywood). I have tried to use these in Kenton recording articles before and images got delated. What do I need to do? What permission/license do I need to obtain for UNT archive images? I did not do this correctly before. Any advice?

Thanks,

Jcooper1 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I need to know more about these images in order to know how to proceed. Are these images available online? Can you link to them? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We normally accept images of album/song covers in articles about the album or song under our policy of non-free content criteria so long as all 10 requirements are met. You appear to have done this properly for File:Sixth Floor Jazz CD cover.jpg but other copyright images need to be freely licenced by the copyright owner, or if you claim fair-use they must comply with the 10 NFCC requirements. You would need to justify having the images in the article and maybe you could comply with the point most likely to give to problems which is #8: Contextual significance - this usually requires some critical commentary about the image itself - the image needs to be there for the reader to understand the article and it would be detrimental to their understanding if it were not there. Yes, this is subjective but images of a recording session are unlikely to be necessary to understand the article. It may be easier to get the copyright holder to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. You may also find it helpful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

File use

Dear Editor:

I should like to use a file from Wikimedia commons (File:Stamp Blue Alexandria.jpg) in my Wikipedia article on the Alexandria Blue Boy stamp. (It would undoubtedly enhance the article). However, I do not know how to determine if this image may legally be used in the United States (it was clearly uploaded from Russia). Please advise, if possible. File:Stamp Blue Alexandria.jpg

Sincerely yours, BFolkman (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is stated to be public domain so it is freely usable.--ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The source is supplied on the description page : [13]. As can be seen, this image apparently has a claim of copyright by a publisher. However, a claim of copyright on this type of image may not be considered valid by Wikimedia. In short, use your own best judgment to determine the status. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The same stamp on cover File:Scott 1X2.jpg is also freely licenced and is used in the Spanish article about this stamp that you might find useful for details. ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)