Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/July

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

File:Jordandaley.jpg

Can this image be assumed to be "own work" and licensed as CC0 1.0? There's no EXIF data and in looks more like something created using some kind of software than a simple digital photo. Moreover, the image can be found here on Jordan Daley's Twitter account prior to its upload to Wikipedia. It seems to me that at the very least OTRS verification should be asked for just to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I've tagged it F11. We don't generally take people's word for it and the only reason I'm not tagging it F9 is because there is a semi-reasonable assumption that the person really is the author based on their username. --Majora (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Majora. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Offence rate in New Zealand 1970 - 2000.jpg

The file page claims this image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, Statistics New Zealand. But Statistics New Zealand licenses all its content (unless specified otherwise) under the Creative Commons 4.0 By Attribution International licence. The source URL throws a 404 error, so it can't even be determined if this image is licenced differently (which I think is unlikely anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abgar eabe ghu (talk • contribs) 09:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The page is archived by the Wayback Machine here and there is a link to a copyright page that states "Information obtained from Statistics New Zealand may be freely used, reproduced, or quoted unless otherwise specified. In all cases Statistics New Zealand must be acknowledged as the source.", which can be interpreted as PD but the same graph is currently found on page 10 of this document and there it states that the document can be published " without further licence" so a cc-by-4.0 tag appears to more restrictive but also likely ok too. I'll add the archive links to the file. BTW, newer stats are in this document, so it's worth searching around. ww2censor (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

British passport copyright

Hi everyone. I'm working on the British passport page and I'd like to use a higher quality version of File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg. That is currently tagged as copyright, protected by Crown copyright. However, there's another version of the passport cover on the Commons at File:British biometric passport.jpg, which is marked with Template:PD-UKGov. They're both the same design - just two different images. In theory, if the PD-UKGov template applies, then surely the first image should have copyright expired? The only image that is possibly copyrightable is the coat of arms, which was created way before 1967. st170e 21:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussions, for information:
-- Asclepias (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Thank you for this. Is there no uniform response to the issue then? Another editor uploaded various pictures of British Overseas Territory passports and they were marked as in the public domain (see File:British passport (The Virgin Islands).jpg). I'm not too sure what to do in this case. st170e 14:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the National Archives guidance. There are contact addresses if you want to enquire further. The coat of arms in particular are an issue see section 2.2. Nthep (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Is a map in a 1927 book now PD?

I want to include a map in the Early New High German article. The map in question was published in a book in 1927 and was not drawn by the author of the book but presumably commissioned by the publisher from an anonymous mapmaker, whether in-house or not is impossible to tell. Can the map now be safely regarded as out of copyright?

It is worth mentioning that this is an issue with many books on historical topics where the author of the text does not own the copyright of diagrams, maps and other illustrations. --Pfold (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Safely? No. More importantly, though, a free map can generally be drawn based on the information found on the original. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
But what's the rationale for your "no"? I'm looking for some reference to relevant law or policy. --Pfold (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Insufficient information to determine copyright status, therefore you can't safely conclude it's a free image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, we'd need to know where the book was published, and in many cases who the commissioning publisher was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. It was published in Germany by Elwert, a small academic publisher (which no longer exists). --Pfold (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
If it was published in 1927, even an anonymous map would not have been out of copyright in 1996, so it became copyright retroactively in the US. I.e. unfortunately it is not free to upload. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
It will be OK to use in six years however, as the US copyright expires then (1927+95+1=2023). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. As of 1 January 2023 an anonymous map will be out of copyright. If there is any specific cartographer credited though, copyright may even last longer because then the protection term in Germany would last for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. De728631 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much, everybody. I've now taken User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's advice and decided to recreate the map. --Pfold (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

1921 image

I'm interested in uploading an image file here that has been deleted from WikiMmedia Commons, citing unknown copyright situation and that there is no indication that the author would have died before 1947 - [1]. The copyright of this image (taken in 1921 in the UK) has been claimed by Gettyimages - [2]. I would assume that I can upload this here with the PD-US-1923-abroad tag, but just to make sure I thought I'd ask it first to be certain that it is OK to do so and use it in articles. Hzh (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can definitively demonstrate pre-1923 publication, I'd stay away from that. There's one wich clearly qualifies as PD here [3], although it could use a bit of cleanup. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
If it has been published, how do you show that? Do you just give the date and name of publication? According to Gettyimages, the photo was taken by a stringer - [4], and in this book - [5], it says that the photographer is unknown. I would assume that, because the author is unknown or uncredited, then it is public domain? Hzh (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Lord, no. That's very, very wrong. The 1927 map discussion, above, provides a solid counterexample. And just because someone who recently republished the image doesn't know who the photographer was doesn't show that the work is actually anonymous. If you can't identify the original publication, it's very hard to show that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't make myself clear and two different things get mixed up. Gettyimages which claims the copyright does not give the name of the photographer and credits it to Topical Press Agency and a generic "stringer". The book also does not give a photographer's name either (it gives names of other photographers where they are known), it suggests that the original photographer is not known. If the author is unknown then it would become public domain if it was published at a later date (or not published at all). This is separate from the publication issue before 1923, and it is simply a matter of looking through some newspapers' or magazines' archives if we can take the trouble to do so in libraries where such archives might be kept (we know what the event is and newspapers would publish it the day or a few days after). I'm therefore asking if I can find a publication that published the image, then is it just a matter giving the date and title of publication? There are actually a few other images for the same event for which this would apply and I am pretty sure there are many newspapers or magazines that would have published them. Hzh (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually a quick search of British newspapers' archive suggests that this and other photos had been published - [6] (Leeds Mercury, 25 April 1921), other images in London Illustrated News, and I'm sure more as it is a nationally important sports event. Hzh (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Limits of when we use non-free image

For the late Olympic diver Bruce Harlan we now have an available free-licensed image. However, it seems to me to be much less suitable for an infobox image than the non-free image we've been using. (Both are low-quality, but the non-free one shows his face much better.) Normally, policy says we always replace a non-free image with an available free-licensed image, but in this case I have doubts. Thoughts? Suggestions? - Jmabel | Talk 04:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Question was originally posted at WP:VPP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Slam dunk, replace it. And I don't think that an image of a diver diving is necessarily inferior, for our purposes, to a generic headshot. There are cases where the free image just isn't adequate -- an amateurish free sketch vs a clear photograph, a group shot of dozens of people vs a clear image of the individual -- but this is nowhere near such a case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with TBBW.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Wipeout logo.png

File has conflicting licenses and it's going to keep being flag for WP:NFCC#9 violations as long as it's tagged with {{non-free logo}}. Psygnosis, the company who developed the Wipeout (series), appears to be British so this might not be considered {{Pd-textlogo}} per c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom; however, it looks like it's probably OK to keep locally on Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Is there any reason why this needs to be non-free?　If there is, then a non-free use rationale is going to need to be provided for each use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That typeface is fairly heavily stylized. That pushes that logo into the "maybe" territory, to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It's still just a font, the letters haven't deviated enough from their function to become, say, pictoral, but are still completely schematic. I think it's easily PD under American law, so PD-ineligible-USonly would be appropriate (assuming Marchjuly is correct about UK copyright law being protective enough to cover this, I don't know). postdlf (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
UK copyright law uses a "sweat of the brow" principle to determine creativity, so is more restrictive to what it would be called "free". Since we cannot see how much of a regular font this is, we should definitely assume it's creative enough (that the studio either designed the letters as such and/or picked the way they've cased it to give the impression of speed - sweat of the brow) to be copyrightable in the UK. It just barely meets the US threshold of originality, and I personally would keep in non-free to play it safe (we can always take back a non-free logo to make it free, but can't reverse a free logo and later make it non-free). --MASEM (t) 17:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

is ".jpg" file acceptable to upload on wikipedia?

hi, is ".jpg" file acceptable to upload on wikipedia?

Thanks, SR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidneirohr (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. You may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. ww2censor (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Mass announcement card

A notice of the first mass of my great uncle, Father Vito Di Maio O.F.M. was deleted from my article, and I do not understand why. More importantly, how do I get it reinstalled as it is important to the article. The facts are: It is just a mass announcement card. It was made more then 100 years ago, 1907. My uncle Vito died in 1943. His personal papers were handed down to me which included the original of the mass announcement card. I am it's sole owner, so why can't I have it in my article?Floraalbert (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC) File:Fr.VitoDiMaioFirstMass.jpeg Record of Father Vito Di Maio O.F.M. first mass on Mount Calvary, Jerusalem

Let's see if we can help you but please don't post the same message 4 times; once is enough. So the image in question was deleted here on the enwiki, because it is an exact copy, though a slightly different title which is why it disappeared from the page. The same image is already on the commons that you uploaded back in November 2015. We don't keep both except in certain special circumstances. I've substituted the commons image in your sanbox as well as doing some cleanup per the manual of style. A point about your older images is that you claim to the author of the images but actually you just made a slavish copy; you probably do not know who made the original, so you should state that. I don't know the Italian law on creative originality but the mass card image is likely too simple to copyright so it should be fine on the commons. If you are concerned about the copyright the commons has a licence template c:Template:PD-heirs that you should probably use for it. ww2censor (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Questions about suitability for Wikipedia on 2 image files

Hello,

Please tell me if I may use either of the following images in an article draft I intend to submit. If not, please tell me how I could cure defects.

1. File:Keltner's_Celebration_of_Life_program_photo.tif

2. File:John_W._Keltner.jpg

Many thanks.

Luckybrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckybrian (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

They would have to be licensed under one of the licenses we accept by the copyright holder (i.e., in most cases, the person who took the photo). --Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Luckybrian: Files such as File:John W. Keltner.jpg licensed as non-free content cannot be used in drafts per WP:NFCC#9, so (as explained in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts) you should add such files after the draft has been moved to the article namespace. However, each use non-free content is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP and using it in an article at least one article is only one of those criteria; so, you will have to make sure all 10 criterion are met before adding the content to an article. FWIW, I think you should be able to use this photo as the primary means of identification of Keltner per item 10 of WP:NFCC as long as the information about its source is accurate and there are no other problems with the photo such as explained in WP:FREER.
Content which is in the public domain or which has been released under a free license by its copyright holder is not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and thus can be used in drafts. All such content, however, needs a copyright license or it will be speedily deleted per WP:F4. Even if there is a copyright tag added to the file, there should also be proper information about the origin/authorship of the image so that its licensing can be verified. In other words, you cannot take an image you find online, etc. and just claim it's a free or PD image; you need to have a strong justification/proof which shows that it can be licensed in such a way. File:Keltner's Celebration of Life program photo.tif is missing a copyright license, so there's no way to verify its copyright status. The file will eventually be deleted unless this problem is addressed. How you address this problem depends upon who the copyright holder of the image is and whether the copyright holder wants to release the file under a free license.
If you are the person who took the photo, then you can license it as your "own work" since the copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the photographer absent any official transfering of the copyright to another party. However, if you are not the person who took the photo, then you cannot claim it as your own work. In such cases, the explicit consent of the copryight holder is needed for it to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under a free license. A "free license" cannot restrict use in any way (including commerical restrictions) and cannot be taken back after it has been granted. This is why is some cases Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons require that this consent be submitted in written form to ensure the copyright holder fully understands and agrees to the terms of the licensing they are choosing so that there are no misunderstandings or to ensure as best as possible that nobody is inappropriately uploading and licensing someone else's work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Image license question

Something very strange just happened, a photo that I cropped was tagged as having no license by the license reviewer Fæ but if I am looking at everything correctly the license is 1)correct and 2)was uploaded by Fæ. No explanation was given, and I've found people on Commons to be not very responsive, would someone please look this over and let me know if I did something wrong? [7]

I removed the no license template, because I wasn't sure what else to do. Did I remove it wrongly? If the template is removed will the file still be deleted?

Thank you, Seraphim System (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Indeed that's quite strange. Normally when using CropTool it transfers all the appropriate information into the new file including the proper license. I think Fæ just made an odd mistake and btw, you did not link to the file so they may not respond as they don't know what specific file you are talking about, and they do lots of image uploads and other media related work. I've checked the image source and it's license looks fine so I've added a good license review to the cropped image. Actually you could have just substituted the "no licence" template for a LicenseReview template and then a reviewer would have checked it, but no harm done so thanks for asking. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok thank you, I will remeember that for the future. Seraphim System (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Enakshi Rama Rau as Empress Mumtaz Mahal and Himansu Rai as Shiraz in Shiraz 1928.jpg

This image was sourced from the collections of the BFI National Archive (I'm a curator in the Archive). We're happy to allow the image to be used, but feel there should be a credit to the effect of 'image courtesy of BFI National Archive' - to affirm copyright status as well as identify the source. However, can't tell how to do this or if it's even permitted; nor can I figure out what copyright status to assign. Any help much appreciated. Apologies if I'm overlooking or misunderstanding some existing guidance on this. Thanks, Cheesemite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesemite (talk • contribs) 13:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cheesemite: Thanks but you have not given anything other than the very basic details with the image. I have added a basically blank "information" template that needs filling in and that's where you can add a BFI tag line but, you have to indicate a source, author and most especially a licence. Maybe it was a movie still, many of which don't have any copyright. Is in the public domain; the year 1928 is given but what country was it issued in and who held/holds the copyright? If it was a UK production then it depends when the image was published and when the author died which is usually 70 years pma, but in India it's 60 years after publication but British Instructional Films ceased operations in 1932. Some of our more knowledgeable cinematic editors will hopefully contribute. There are several unanswered questions and I did not glean any more useful details from this BFI webpage. Fill in what you can and post more details here when get any. ww2censor (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded image file template info

Hello,

I have updated the copyright tag info on this image but Wikipedia would not allow me to save the changes.

Here is the image: File:Keltner's_Celebration_of_Life_program_photo.tif

Please help. Thank you.

Luckybrian (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Luckybrian 10 July 2017, 1642 UTC

So @Luckybrian: what you posted does not actually show us what you did but only shows us what is on the image page now. This link shows the history and exactly what text you altered/added. The problem is that you have not added an actual free copyright tag per the type of permission given by the copyright holder, Maria Keltner. Also adding the template {{OTRS expected}} is no good because we don't have any such template, which is what it is redlink. I assume what you are trying to do is confirm that an email verification is/will be sent to the OTRS team, in which case you can add {{OTRS pending}} separately to the file with the curly brackets. Have the copyright holder follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT but please tell them to be patient as there is more than a month backlog. BTW there is no need to post the same question here twice. ww2censor (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Luckybrian. First a general comment about noticeboard use and then a specific comment about this particular file. When you post a question like you did above in WP:MCQ#Questions about suitability for Wikipedia on 2 image files, anything further related to the same discussion should be added there; you don't really need to start a new thread for each new post you make. Keeping all of the related posts togehter will make it easier for others to follow the discussion from start to finish and avoid any unnecessary repeating of information. A new thread is really only needed when you are asking something completely unrelated to your previous questions.
Now for this particular file, it seems you wrote "Copyright holder is Maria Keltner, John Keltner's widow. I have asked her for permission to use the image under a free license". There are two things you and Ms. Keltner need to be sure of in this case:
  1. You need to be sure that Ms. Keltner is the really copyright holder and not just the owner of the photo. Many people assume that physically owning a photo automatically means that they also own the copyright of the photo, but this is not always the case. For example, a photographer may agree to take your picture and then subsequently give you the photo to have as a keepsake, but they may still retain their ownership over the photo's copyright depending upon the specifics of your agreement with them. So, if Ms. Keltner is not the person who took the photo, she may be asked to clarify her claim of copyright ownership or show there has been some kind of copyright transfer agreement between her and the photographer, especially if it turns out that the was previously used in some publication or online, etc.
  2. Assuming that #1 is not an issue, Ms. Keltner cannot only give "you" permission to use the photo; she needs to understand that she is giving everyone anywhere in the world permission to use the photo. She also cannot limit this permission to only the draft article about her husband you're currently working on; she is giving permission for the photo to be used in pretty much any manner,including ways that she or other members of her family may not personally approve of or agree with. Once she release the photo under a free image, there's really no way to cancel the license. The photo can be deleted from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, but the license will live on and people who have downloaded the photo under the free license will continue to be able to use it as such.
You and Ms. Keltner need to be fairly sure of the above because if you have any doubts, you should probably not upload the file under a free license. A non-free image may be a better choice sinc it can be uploaded locally to Wikipedia for use as the primary means of identification in an article written about her husband; it just cannot be added to the draft your working on per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. For what its worth, whether the draft you're writing is eventually approved and upgraded to article status is not going to depend upon whether there are any photos in it; it's going to be assessed to see whether the subject meets WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. In other words, it's going to be the subject's Wikipedia notability (or lack thereof) which determines the fate of the draft. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again,

Re: :File:Keltner's_Celebration_of_Life_program_photo.tif and my draft: John W. Keltner

On July 12, 2017, the copyright holder, Maria Keltner, used the Interactive Release Generator to give permission to use the image under a free license. Is there anything further she or I need to do at this point? And do you have all the info you need except her permission?

Thank you for your time and patience.

Luckybrian (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Luckybrian

  Resolved
Processed and updated - VRTS ticket # 2017071310002045 Nthep (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Annals of Al-Tabari

I found this picture from the Annals of Al-Tabari on printerest, stated to be taken from the Topkapı Saray Museum in Istanbul. Is it public domain, cause of it's age or not? I do not understand how to present the specific image, told in the previous page, without uploading it first, so I hope it's fine to give a link here: https://www.pinterest.de/pin/486177722259265868/ Thank you for helping. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Any template to avoid good-faith removal of apparent copyright violations, when the other source copied from Wikipedia?

I'm pretty sure I've seen this template somewhere, but can't find it.

Continuity of Government: How the U.S. Government Functions After All Hell Breaks Loose is a book published by the vanity press Lulu Press; it was first-published December 27, 2016.

The text on page 119 is near-identical to text in Presidential Succession Act; you can see that it was in the Wikipedia article (even closer to identically) at least one year prior to the book's publication (revision as of October 29, 2015).

Is there a template that can be placed to keep well-meaning editors from erroneously removing this text from the article as an apparent copyright violation, when in fact the misappropriation is the other way around? TJRC (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are looking for Template:Backwardscopy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes! That's the one. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Are these copyvios?

Yesterday I found an editor adding links to articles that went to a site that allowed people to view pirated copies of films that are currently in theaters. They person was blocked based on my post here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spamming. I still have a question as to whether the edits should be rev/del'd. I would think that there existence in the edit history would be a copyvio. If I am mistaken that would be good to know as well. Any information that anyone can provide would be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 23:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that links to a site that only exists to serve copyright violations added to any page of WP should be revdel'd, just because the legalities of deep linking are not yet 100% clear. Links to copyvio videos on other sites that otherwise are generally legit (eg YouTube) are less problematic; the link should obviously still be removed, but revdel is not as serious a problem here. --MASEM (t) 01:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Published reproduction of 1908 color transparency

Hermann Minkowski presented his famous lecture, "Raum und Zeit", in 1908 before the 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicians. He died of appendicitis in 1909.

A color reproduction of a transparency that he used in his lecture appeared on the cover of The Mathematical Intelligencer, Volume 31, Number 2 (2009). A copy of the cover image of the transparency appears in the free edition of Space and Time: Minkowski's Papers on Relativity, published by the Minkowski Institute.

A link to a screen capture of this image is here in my Google Drive space: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1P2I2bmtkbOUjFwT1hDQ2F6NHc

What is the copyright status of this image?

Thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Think that the color transparency firmly comes under "slavish copy" and thus is not granted any copyright. Re: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. As Hermann died in 1909, the copyright in his his artwork has also expired. Me thinks, this is certainly PD. Any further comments? Aspro (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought that would be the case. But there was just that tiny bit of uncertainty... Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sidney H. Chang

Dear Editors:

Please help to resolve the copyright issues with the following two image files that were removed from the article that I am currently editing and that is almost ready to be moved to Wiki main space. The title of the article is "Sidney H. Chang" and the photos are from his private archive. His sons have given me permission to use both photos in digital format. The b&w portrait was made in December 1979 and a family friend took a digital picture of it. The photo was printed in the newspaper obituary. I would like to use the portrait for the Wiki article as well. The second photo has the attribution (author, date, place). I took a digital snapshot of it to upload in the Wiki article. Both were removed and not restored despite my protestations. Please help in a constructive way to make this article better. Instead of removing photos provide feedback on how to make it work. Thank you very much for taking the time to resolve the issues.

File: Sidney H. Chang in December 1979.jpg
File:Sidney H. Chang (second from left, holding a camera) with members of the Missouri Branch of Chinese Students Association greeting Milton J. T. Shieh in Columbia, Missouri in March 1959. Photo by Noel E. Tomas.jpg

California Historian (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of a photo does not confer any rights to the person possessing it and making a digital image of such a photo is a derivative work. The copyright rests with the original photographer and it is their permission you need to upload these images under a free license, unless they have died and their heirs give permission or they are dead for the required time for copyright to have expired, which is usually 70 years. The images were deleted because they did not have any evidence of permission. Based on your information I don't know if you are able to fulfill either of those requirements, but the sons may have more details to help you. The article Sidney H. Chang seems to indicate he was quite well known so it would seem that some freely licensed images of him should exist, otherwise, for a deceased person, under the strict non-free media policy requirements you may be able to use one of the image in the article so long as it complies with all 10 of the requirements. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to that explain the issue you are having as well as most other scenarios you may encounter. ww2censor (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Liu Xiaobo.jpg

The file description says it came from AsiaNews, a commercial news agency. Is this image acceptable? --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It is the subject of the source commentary. So in that regards it is fine. However, the person just died a few days ago. I seem to remember a discussion on waiting a few months to at least attempt to find a free image. Death does not immediately negate WP:NFCCP #1. --Majora (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Wait, Majora. The source said the image came from Apple Daily. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Almost forgot, the proposals to expand WP:NFCI's #10 criteria failed. --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The specific phrasing of the CSD criterion in question is Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; and may be deleted immediately.

The image is the subject of the sourced commentary so CSD doesn't apply. I'm looking for the discussion on death negating NFC policy (and how long you have to wait though). I'm pretty sure the consensus was to delete such images anyways. --Majora (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well prove me wrong then. I guess the image itself is ok? --Majora (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... What about WP:NFCC#2? --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Our use of it here doesn't necessarily negate commercial opportunities. The fair use carve out in US law most certainly allows for it and the upload here doesn't stop the copyright holder from selling it elsewhere. So I believe that criterion is met in this instance. --Majora (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

File:George Sodini.jpg

This image is used in the "2009 Collier Township shooting" article. Does it still meet NFCC? I see details about the perpetrator, but I don't know whether those details are necessary to readers. --George Ho (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Headshot of Anne Ewing.jpg

Can we assume good faith with respect to this file's licensing or should OTRS verification be requested? The same photo can be seen used in this newspaper article about Ewing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:FAL files

I was looking at some of the images in this category and I am wondering if their licensing is correct. I'll admit that I'm not too familiar with how a Free Art License, but it seems a little strange that images such as File:Mgm channel nl.png, File:Nativ-logo.jpg, File:MWHOFBLOCK.jpg or File:Petros Chadjopoulos photo.jpg can just be tagged as FAL without any kind of verification. The Wikipedia article about FAL states it is "copyleft license that grants the right to freely copy, distribute, and transform creative works without the author's explicit permission". If this is true, then that would seem to pretty much make anything currently licensed as non-free content eligible for conversion to FAL, wouldn't it? Are there specific criteria which need to be met for a FAL license to be considered appropriate? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Jumbotron images

What is the copyright status of images broadcast live onto a jumbotron, for example, at a rock concert or sporting event? In other words, if the person has seats in the nosebleed section and takes a photo of the action from the jumbotron, is it subject to copyright (like taking a photo of a TV show would be) or not? What if the photo does show the actual event, but also has the jumbotron in the image, with a visible image on it? Can anyone enlighten me on this one? Montanabw(talk) 09:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC) For example: if the image of these horses were a photo that **I** took (instead of that of a federal employee), would it pass muster? What if the image was only of the Jumbotron, like, perhaps, this one of the football players? If one cropped out the elements that made it clear it was a screen, would it be a no-no? Montanabw(talk) 09:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Working on the assumption that the image displayed on the Jumbotron is copyrighted and not freely licensed, then the principle of de minimus applies. If the jumbotron image just happens to be in the shot, but the image is clearly focused on other actions in the image, then we consider the small amount of copytaking of the copyrighted jumbotron image to be acceptable and call the image free (if the photographer was willing to license it that way). On the other hand, if the jumbotron image was the focus, then that would be a derivative work of the copyright of the image of the jumbotron, and would be non-free. That's clearly the case for the second image above, and should be tagged for deletion at commons. On the other hand, the Marine picture is a bit harder. The shot is composed to include the Jumbotron (its not incidental), I would consider the entire image non-free, but one can crop down to the mounted Marines to create an image that is free. (An example that is considered acceptable is File:1_times_square_night_2013.jpg, despite all those animated adverts and the like, they are clearly not the focus of the image, and thus de minimus applies. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Image upload!

What should I write about the image upload in copyright?? If it's my own image??!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Nishant Saini (talk • contribs)

If you took the photo yourself you can use {{PD-self}} or one of the acceptable creative commons licences, such as {{cc-by-4.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} depending on your preference. Click on each template link to see how to use them. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Picture from Org Facebook,

I'm a board member of the Antelope Club, and have been given permission to use club-owned pictures in the Wikipedia article. I keep running afoul of the copyright monitors, and I want to make sure I understand the process and that I'm doing everything right.

Most recently, I posted this picture. It is club property, but I saved this copy from the club Facebook page. How can I ensure that the correct license is used and that I've properly recorded everything necessary?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheariner (talk • contribs)

  • First, we do not accept images on a "permission to use on Wikipedia" basis. There are two ways in which we accept images here; (1) free license/public domain or (2) under terms of fair use. If the latter case, then the image must comply with WP:NFCC. In your case, you're attempting to have this image accepted under the former case. Now, with this image you have indicated it is the property of the club. Ok, fine so far. You've also indicated the image is available under a cc-by-sa-4.0 license. Ok, still fine. However... there needs to be more. Since you are not the copyright holder of the image, then we have to have proof that the image is available under the license stipulate. Simply saying that permission "Evidence: Will be provided on request." is insufficient. The way to handle this is to read through Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Ok that's long, but the short of it is we have to have permission sent to us from the copyright holder themselves indicating that the image is being released under cc-by-sa-4.0. Such permission can be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. That is, once the image is uploaded to Commons, which is where it should be uploaded if it is free license. I know this sounds complex. If there's anything I can do to clarify it, let me know. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-free identification of albums in artist's main article

I am never quite sure about the actual consensus (I know it has been controversially discussed in the past): are non-free usages, i.e. in the discography of Sharry Mann, to identify multiple albums in the artist's main article allowed or not, when the albums have no stand-alone article? GermanJoe (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Has been resolved in the meantime, thanks to JJMC89. GermanJoe (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

UPDATES

HOW TWO UODATE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:922e:15ea:6cd3:6dca:ee3d:dabf (talk • contribs)

  • This being your only edit, it's impossible for us to understand your question. Could you please explain what you are asking? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Uploadingrrct Copyright Info.

Where should I upload my copyright information! As it is my image i know that I have to just add {{PD-self}} ..... But Where????? Direct me Please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishant Saini (talk • contribs)

  • @Nishant Saini: I presume you mean on File:Nishant Saini.jpeg? Go to the file, and click "edit" at the top of the window. Add {{PD-self}}. remove the {{di-no source no license|date=23 July 2017|help=off}} statement. Click "Save changes" below the editing window. You're done. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

File:BillyHughes.jpg

(xposted from WT:FFD per recommendation)

I'm pretty ignorant of Crown Copyright, but on the face of it, the statement that the source allows non-commercial use and the claim that it is in the public domain seem self-evidently contradictory. Maybe that's a problem with the file description and not necessarily a problem with the file. Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The source link on the page is broken, but I've found it's new location see here "Permission should be sought from DPS AUSPIC for third-party or commercial uses of this image." - X201 (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
But, but copyright has expired on it because it was published before 1967 - X201 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Well this is possible the original image. Nthep (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Paytm logo.png

Would File:Paytm logo.png qualify as a trademarked public domain logo, as it is only text? Thanks! Daylen (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that {{PD-logo}} would apply (along with {{Trademark}}). Mojoworker (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Chung-in Moon @ CogitASIA.jpg image uploaded, now threatended by deletion.

Hi, I uploaded the following, but it has went south, almost immediately. The image comes from here: Image location and is covered by this licence: [8]. It seems to be a creative commons licence, which I linked to in the wizards, but a bot came along and setup a deletion for Saturday next.

What do I need to do, to fix it. scope_creep (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No longer under deletion. The bot tagged it for no license, because the bot looks for license templates, and you had written the license as a line of text. Templates offer better coordination so they are preferred. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Finnusertop, thanks. Iscope_creep (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ineligibility for copyright on File:CGP Grey stick figure.svg

This image seems to be simple enough for {{PD-shape}}. Currently it's licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

MennasDosbin (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not a clear cut case, so we should exercise caution. It has many creative elements, some of them quite complex and beyond simple geometrical shapes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Escape the Night Series Logo.png

This file seems simple enough for {{PD-logo}}. Is there any reason it needs be licensed as non-free content? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Hammersoft. I converted the licensing to "PD-logo" since this does seem to be a logo of some kind as opposed to "PD-text"; however, if that was incorrect, please let me know and I'll tweak it accordingly.
Do you have any opinion on whether File:St. Lawrence Saints.svg, File:Metro logo black 2014.svg and File:Lexoo logo (lawyer marketplace) - 24 June 2015.jpg also need to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The last two are blatant. The first is likely as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again Hammersoft. My only concern about the Metro and Lexoo logos are that they both are for UK comopnies, and the UK has a much lower TOO than the US. I think they are fine locally as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but not sure about converting them to {{PD-logo}} and tagging for a move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In both of those cases, they are just pure text that one could type, so I think they're ok even by UK TOO. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Understand. I have converted both to {{PD-logo}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2017/July&oldid=1083557627"