Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/April

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Unclear about what copyright to select

I got a couple of pictures from a website that I uploaded to wikipedia and added to a article and the copyright from on the site say "You can save the following premade images for your own use - including commercial use. " what should I select? Agge.se (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Does the permission allow the images to be modified (derivatives)? Remember Wikipedia is the encyclopedia everyone can edit. If this permission has not been granted then we still cannot use them as free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image questions

Would like to add an image to a newly-created page, Nick Perito. website photo The site has been used in the past as a source of many of the Perry Como images. Is the best license for this non-free historical, and also, with the proper rationale, would it be possible to add the photo to the infobox of Ray Charles (composer), since he is pictured also? Both Como and Perito are deceased; Charles is 92 years old at present. No idea if he is still active in music anymore at this point. Thanks, We hope (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Current practice with respect to WP:NFCC as applied to commercial photographs, especially of still-living persons, is rather restrictive, so it may be easier use only a photo of Perito himself, such as the one at [1]. It may even be possible to get a CC-BY-SA release via this page, as the image is said to be from a private collection, so the copyright holder may be reachable.  Sandstein  07:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

pictures/graphs!

I have some pictures I want to upload for my wiki page, but is unsure of how to classify the copyrights. I have made the pictures my self, on my computer - but the original pictures are from different books or papers. What do I do ? Thanks!

Anette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceng258midttveit (talk • contribs) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You may not freely use pictures that you took from other works such as books, newspapers or websites, even if you processed them on your own computer. These are called derivative works and remain copyrighted by the people who originally made them. On Wikipedia, they can be used only under the very restrictive rules described at WP:NFC.  Sandstein  07:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

license tagging

Need help in license tagging for File:Wellingdon Pavilion1.jpg Hashemi1971 (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the image from? —teb728 t c 11:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-free book scan licensing template

Non-free book scan licensing template

Is there a license template for non-free book scans? The image in question is File:Pasteur_Model.jpg. I know there are such templates for screenshots of television series, like for example the one found on File:Enterprise_Forward.jpg. Is there a similar licensing template for book scans? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the Template:Non-free 3D art license template. I am not sure if its appropriate though, as I think a non-free license template for the book is still needed. Any help is greatly appreciated. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I created a new template for that purpose, which can be seen at User:Toshio Yamaguchi/Template:Non-free book scan. This should do it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is now at {{Non-free book scan}}. Please could the experts here check the legal issues involved and the wording of the template before it gets used anywhere else! -- John of Reading (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am highly uncomfortable with this template, which seems to me to be ripe for misuse. There are almost never going to be fair use allowances for scanning pages from books...unless you are critically discussing the actual presentation of the book. I've nominated it for TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Template:Non-free book scan. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review

Is there some mechanism for requesting an image review in advance of taking an article to FAC? I cannot find such a thing, but it would be very helpful. It's quite disruptive to find at a late stage that images one thought acceptable have to be replaced, and earlier review would help one's planning. Tim riley (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a particular image you think may be questionable? If you are asking just on general principles, the Help desk might be a more appropriate forum for the question. —teb728 t c 08:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are two non-free images in Elizabeth David that I'd like checked... Tim riley (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt you can keep the book cover image File:David-mediterranean.jpg because the use of non-free book covers is normally only permitted in articles about the book and not in author articles. Besides which, there is no real justification for keeping it under the non-free content criteria. There is no discussion about the book cover itself that might justify its use, the fact that the book was published and that it took some time to find a publisher is not enhanced by including the image and is well described in the prose, so it fails WP:NFCC#8. The lede portrait is likely ok, because it is used to identify the subject of the article and some FA reviewers appear not to like any non-free images in FAs, but I suggest you put it into an infobox with other normal biographical details. ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Although the text does discuss the cover, actually showing the cover contributes little if anything to the text. Indeed the description of the cover is effectively a free replacement. —teb728 t c 21:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Sorry at the verdict, but better now than at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Image on Wikipedia page entitiled: Skyscraperman

On several occasions, I have attempted to upload the new book cover onto the Wikipedia page entitled: Skyscraperman

Though everything appears to be correct, the new image does not show up on the Wikipedia page. Please help.

Thank you.

Mimiken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimiken (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot tell what you are trying to do. There is already a cover for the book with a more-appropriate license here File:Skyscraperman-cover.jpg and I'm not seeing any major differences between that version and the version you are trying to upload.
I think the more direct answer is that uploading the image doesn't put it into articles; you actually have to type a link to the image in the article text to add it. But again, I'm not seeing the need for this new image you have. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) You added File:Skyscraperman-cover.jpg to Skyscraperman with this edit a little over a year ago. As nearly as I can tell you haven’t added your recent uploads to any article. If you were intending to replace the cover image (to change the subtitle), you could change the Image parameter in the infobox. (You could also have uploaded to the same filename.) —teb728 t c 02:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Blackpool postcards

Hi. I'm looking to work on a few Blackpool related articles soon, and I came across http://www.blackpoolpostcards.co.uk - a site which appears to be hosted by a dedicated person who has collated many images of Blackpool. The vast majority are pre-1910 (certainly the ones I'd want to use). I'm just looking for some advise about the best way to proceed. I'm planning on asking if he'd have any issue with them being put on Wikipedia, but before I do, I thought I'd ask about where policy stands on these images. I'm sure they're old enough to be public domain, and if they are indeed postcards they would have been published... right? My biggest question is whether the digital scan is under copyright as a derivative. BTW, I'm aware that many images are watermarked - I know they're not allowed. WormTT · (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't count scanning as adding any creative content, as it is a faithful reproduction of the original. So if there is no watermark or additions a scan of a PD work would still be PD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The copyright of these images is controlled by the UK copyright which is generally for 70 years after the death of the author, or for unknown authors, 70 years. Read the UK copyright information at commons:COM:L#Ordinary copyright for greater details but most of these images appear to be in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Thank you both for confirming. WormTT · (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Network Protocols and Algorithms

This article contains the following statement:

This is the first time I have seen something like this, so I wonder whether this indicates a problem or not. I'm going to PROD the article for notability reasons, but still would appreciate if someone who knows more about copyright could have a look at this. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason it says this is that the web site it copied is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. It is a problem because by clicking "save" the contributor also stated it was GFDL as well. The licenses are not the same, so one cc license does not imply GFDL is granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand this. Is this a problem that needs to be addressed and if so, how? Or do we just leave that statement? --Crusio (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not a problem and the statement should be left. Any original content contributed to Wikipedia by the copyright holder must be dual-licensed (CC-BY-SA and GFDL), but we can import content from elsewhere which is only CC-BY-SA compatible when the contributor is not the sole copyright holder. Wikipedia:Licensing update and Wikipedia:Copyrights touch on this, but off the top of my head I can't recall if there's a place where it is clearly spelled out all at once. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart Quote

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear has had a quote from Jon Stewart for the last 5 months that was recently the subject of an edit war over free use claims. The quote is not currently in the article due to page protection. Here is the version with it before the edit war. Some discussion has taken place on the talk page, but it seems stalled. I would appreciate some guidance as to whether the quote is acceptable, and if not, how much of it needs to be removed. I have explained on the talk page the rationale for the quote and the suitability of alternatives. Thank you. —UncleDouggie (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely part of the reason it stalled was the weekend. I do more rote edits over the weekend and the ones that require brain power are usually for Monday through Friday.
I'm not certain what portion of this is free to use; I don't buy that this is copyrighted material, but I'm no copyright lawyer. I do think the final version will be significantly pared down from the version that was up for five months, per the peer review done on the article a few weeks ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It's copyrighted automatically unless it is for some reason ineligible (and I see no factors that would make it so here) or specifically released. The proportion of text that can be used is highly subjective. Generally, we should use the least amount necessary to accomplish our purpose. Our claim to fair use is stronger if our purpose is transformative. Extensive quotes are forbidden by policy.
With respect to the pre-edit war version, I agree with User:Mildly Mad's conclusion at the talk page that "there's probably too much of the text replicated there right now, without much supporting text". The more critical analysis there is, the more transformative our usage is likely to be and the more we can take. That said, 471 words is probably more than we can sustain in any case, as it is quite a substantial portion of the original. While an extreme example, in 1985 a paper was found guilty of infringement for copying 171 words less than that from a 200,000 word memoir.(Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises) Other factors at play there, including that the memoir had not yet been published, made the courts very strict with a fair use reading, but it does give some food for thought. 471 words out of 1389, per UncleDouggie, is certainly a tremendously higher proportion. In terms of copyright, Stewart's words comprise the whole of our concern, not the rally in total, as each speaker owns copyright to what he says (unless reading a prepared speech, in which case the copyright is owned by the speechwriter, if not a "work for hire" situation). But even if he made other speeches and these were considered a single speech in terms of considering susbtantiality, it would still seem likely to be substantial. If I were cleaning a copyright problem listing, I would remove a quote of that length even if from a full length book as problematic under our policy. Ideally, some combination of paraphrase and literal quotation should be used to bring it down to a much smaller proportion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Stewart was the host of the rally and said several times more over the course of the 2 hour event. We could also request permission of course. —UncleDouggie (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Permission is always the holy grail in these situations. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out the status of this image

I am trying to figure out the status of this image:

GrubbEvelyn.jpg

It appears in a number of places on the Internet. I know it is of Evelyn Grubb (and the captions always verify this).

The thing is, I can't figure out if it is copyrighted or not, or if it has any other status.

See her Wikipedia article here, if you want to know who she was (she is now deceased): Evelyn Grubb

Telemachus.forward (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here also, is one of the places where the photo can be seen online--

1) On a Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=35990627181&topic=6708 Caption to this photo: Mrs. Evelyn Grubb fought what seemed a lifetime to learn the fate of her husband, USAF Captain Wilmer N. Grubb. Mrs. Grubb died of breast cancer in Melbourne, Florida on December 28, 2005.

And here is where it links to: http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v648/13/124/39905854/n39905854_31632261_7801.jpg

It can be found in other places too.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The image is almost certainly copyrighted, but with an unknown owner. You my be able to make a case for fair use as the subject is deceased. Since the facebook page is largely a copy, the poster probably does not know either. If you get your hands on the book or the newspaper, perhaps the photo was published there with credit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a bot leave a message after I uploaded an image, how do I resolve this?

Here is the message... Nuttster99 (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  Resolved

copying material that may not be copyrighted

Can a county office of education mass copy a grant funded project that was documented on a VHS? Here is my story. In 2001 a non-profit sponsored a group of people to document skills, lifeways, and information for cultural preservation to be shared with the schools, community, and libraries. Participants, schools, and libraries were each given copies of the final work. The county office of education would like to upgrade the old vhs material to dvds for modernization. This work was originally created through a Health and Human services grant.

The VHS tapes have NO markings, language, or label of copyright. I do know that the participants that were interviewed signed consent forms for their information to be shared with the general public. These tapes were created for education settings and teaching spaces as well.

So my question remains the same. Can we make copies of this material for our classrooms for our curriculum without permission. We would not market the dvds we just want to show them in our classroom from time to time. Thank you, Ray —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.150.41.147 (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we cannot offer you any legal copyright advise. Getting in touch with the original copyright holder, who is likely listed in the credits, may be an option you should pursue. ww2censor (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of St. John Coltrane

Why isn't the image of the icon of John Coltrane showing up in Sainthood section of John Coltrane wiki page? I have downed it with summary and rational of fair use and license. Why haven't the image shown up in the section but "file johnColtrane Wiki" and description but no image is seen?

File:JohnColtraneWiki.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacondukes (talk • contribs) 16:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Deacondukes (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone fixed the use by adding the .jpg extension. —teb728 t c 19:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Duh? Despicable me! Thanks 67.0.14.134 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need to copyright everything?

It just makes things complicated. I want to use a picture I own but I keep getting flagged because of copyright. That's stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hg3300 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you own the picture then you own the copyright to the picture, so if you license it correctly for use on Wikipedia then there is no problem.
Is it possible that the issue is arranging that licensing and using the correct license tags on the image? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is probably the issue here. How do I properly license the image?--Hg3300 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, please see this page: User_talk:Hg3300#File_permission_problem_with_File:Harold_Wagner.jpg--Hg3300 (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ummm, owning the picture does NOT automatically transfer copyrights to the image. A photographer or artist can produce a work and sell it without transferring rights. For example, they may wish to retains derivative rights. We can't assume the original author relinquished rights to the image just because they sold it. Further, just because someone owns a picture doesn't grant them rights to the image. I agree with the tagging of the image File:Harold Wagner.jpg. Permissions must be submitted to the permissions queue of the OTRS team. Failing that, the image has to abide by WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, then, how do I get these "permissions" and what do they consist of?--Hg3300 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Old image, author unknown

  • I would like to upload this image to commons but I don't know if it is in public domain. Although widely re-printed in Croatia, its country of origin, its exact date is unknown, but it can be assumed that it had been created in the 1910s or 1920s. I'm also unable to find the date of its first publication but I assume it was before 1949, which would make it PD in Croatia.
  • There is also [2] this image of the same person. This one was taken in 1912 in Croatia. First date of publication and author are unknown but it has been used in a book published in 1997. It may belong to a private archive but it is difficult to tell. Timbouctou (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use

Will it qualify for fair use to use ancient-looking pictures like this picture or this one on Emperor Gaozu of Later Jin? Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 12:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the images are reproductions from 892AD, so PD-China could apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

copy rights of photos

hi this is lisa valan.

photography is my hobby. i have photos of various places. do u need to have copyright if i want to upload pixs.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisavalan (talk • contribs) 12:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Lisa: If you took the pictures as a hobby, you would own the copyright. To upload pictures here like that we need you to grant a non exclusive license so that the images are free to use for any purpose by anybody. One way to do this is to add {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} or pick it from the dropdown list of licenses. The law states that copying is an infringement unless there is written permission, that is why you need to do something to grant the free permission. One difficulty is if the pictures have been published somewhere else before, then we need proof that you are the copyright owner. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
But please consider uploading them to Commons so that they are available for use on all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible change in licensing at the Atlas of Canada/Natural Resources Canada

I have been well aware for some time that the link found at the bottom of every page at the Atlas of Canada/Natural Resources Canada, Important Notices - Natural Resources Canada, means that the material is not compatible with Wikipedia. However, there seems to have been a change recently. If you scroll to the section titled "Download this map" the last sentence is a link to GeoGratis - Home. Now reading the section "Commercial and non-commercial Reproduction" it appears to be available under terms compatible to Wikipedia. Just above that section there is a link to Licence Agreement for Unrestricted Use of Digital Topographic Data. Also if you look at Ennadai Lake in the section "More About this Map:" there is a link to Topographic Licensing Guidelines which in turn has a link to the "Licence Agreement for Unrestricted Use of Digital Topographic Data". Does this mean that material at the Atlas which has a link to "GeoGratis - Home"/"Licence Agreement for Unrestricted Use of Digital Topographic Data" are now available under a compatible license? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been wondering this too, there is some great stuff in there. The Interior (Talk) 20:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Excellent question. It might do to submit this to the legal counsel for Wikimedia to get their opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I had a look but I can't seem to find a contact over at Wikimedia. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Freefoto.com

I noticed a couple of images quoting freefoto.com as source. Now the text to view is at http://www.freefoto.com/browse/99-05-0?ffid=99-05-0. Now point (1) says "any use" "in an online setting", and point (2) says CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. So am I correct in thinking that since WP files can be used anywhere, then point (1) is not applicable (because they might end up as printed copy), and therefore the pictures must be treated as CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, and cannot be used as free images?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That is correct, the license is not free enough for use here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'll sort it out.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What is policy here?

This web page is copyrighted but says it can be reproduced and distributed freely for noncommercial purposes. This editor wants to use a block of text from the page without rewriting or block quoting it. What exactly is policy here? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The policy is that we stay legal and free, so no copying blocks of text like that, unless it is fair use, in which case it will be quoted etc. It is legal for Wikipedia to have non commercial but not free, as it does not match the cc-by-sa-3.0 and gfdl license, so it is against policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

SMIJU TOM JOY

SMIJU TOM JOY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smijutom (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Threshold of originality question

I need your advice on File:ProdIG.jpg. The question is if the logo crosses the threshold of originality? It's pretty simple, BUT letters "IG" seem hand-drawn to me. Thank you! -- deerstop. 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Lack of notice for television broadcasts, 1978-89

What is Wikipedia's policy on the freedom of images taken from creative television broadcasts first aired from 1978 to 1989 with no copyright notice in the visible episode (and no subsequent registration of the particular episode). I have run across some game show episodes that might fit this criterion, and I want to know whether those qualify as free (for the purposes of uploading those images and of determining replaceability for other images). RJaguar3 | u | t 20:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that there is no copyright notice, perhaps at the end of the episode in the credits? Was the show aired in the USA or some other country? Your screenshot is a derivative. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
USA, and no (or defective) copyright notice in the credits. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Pre-1989, copyright notice was required on published copies of works. Publication requires distribution, and the public performance of a work, including a television show, is not, in itself, a publication. However, distribution of a copy of a work to a group of persons (like from a studio to a broadcasting company) for the purpose of a public performance is a publication. This latter case was probably the case here, and so a notice would be required; but we can't be certain.
More importantly, though, we'd need to know whether it bore a notice during that period 1978-1989; not in the later rebroadcasts where it is now being vidcapped from. There almost always was such notice in at least network and syndicated television programs. TJRC (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Max Shertz image

File:Max Shertz Photo 01.jpg

User:Damien06 uploaded the image. He then manually updated the file page to say it's licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and that the image "is not under copyright." This doesn't seem kosher to me, but I confess I still don't understand the process. Damien has added the image to the Max Shertz article, or at least he's tried to (he's having trouble with the syntax). I suspect Damien is related to Shertz, but that's a separate issue. Can someone take a look at the image file and what has happened thus far?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the work of a professional photographer, which the statement that it is a “Studio Photograph” seems to confirm. In that case the photographer would most likely own the copyright. I tagged it {{npd}} —teb728 t c 03:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Damien06 keeps changing his story. He removed the tag you added and has now declared that he owns the copyright of the image. He has also done the same thing with File:Max Shertz Painting 02.jpg and File:Max Shertz Painting 01.jpg. He gives no source for these images, but they all come from the max shertz website. There's too many holes here. Even assuming that Damien is related to Shertz, which now seems even more likely, and has access to various images by virtue of Shertz's death, it's not clear that he owns the copyright to the images themselves, or, in the case of the painting images, that he owns the copyright of the paintings, which would allow him (other than through a license) to then use pictures of them. The lack of full disclosure and the revisionist history are troublesome.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
The latest change Damien has made to this image and two other images he has uploaded is that the copyright owner has dedicated them to the public domain. I have tagged all three images with "no source" (no evidence where he got them from) and "no permission" (no evidence of permission from the copyright owner). Hopefully, that's the appropriate thing to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Next time, if there is one, you should formally tag them as possibly unfree using {{Puf}}. ww2censor (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I just had a next time, but I wasn't sure enough to add {{Puf}}. Same user uploaded File:DanaShertz.jpg. He gave no source information and just slapped an attribution 3.0 license on the image file. It was clear it should have an {{nsd}} on it, but in reviewing all the other possibilities, I couldn't find anything that said I was questioning that he is in fact the copyright holder of the image. So, I just put in the no source tag and left it at that.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the uploader (Damien) keeps changing the licensing information, and I'm swimming in the changing stories. For File:Max Shertz Painting 01.jpg and File:Max Shertz Painting 02.jpg, he's now claiming fair use. For File:Max Shertz Photo 01.jpg, he's now saying that there is an e-mail from the copyright owner giving permission and OTRS can verify it. For the OTRS one, I assume someone will actually follow up on it. For the fair use claims, does anyone review them, or do I (or someone else) have to do something to question it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No one automatically reviews non-free use rationales. The paintings could probably be used under WP:NFCI #7 if only there were (sourced) critical commentary. —teb728 t c 04:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the paintings are not being used for critical commentary, just as examples of his work. If I disagree with the non-free use rationale, what is the procedure for raising it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about a photo I took to be uploaded – Lamassu

I wanted to add this image to the Lamassu page. It is a picture that I took at the museum of the back of the Lamassu. What rights would I need to make the image on flickr so that I can use it here?

Avaviel (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To start with the -NC (crossed $) would have to be removed. The cc-by-sa-2.0 and cc-by-2.0 licenses or public domain can be selected and are acceptable. However the item that you took the picture of, is it old and out of copyright? (it looks to be so). If you upload it should go to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It is old, it's from around 883–859 b.c. Avaviel (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
While the subject of the image may be old the image has not been released under a free licence and we don't accept any non-commercial Creative Commons licences. Just change the licence on Flickr and then we can use it, otherwise it is not acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the license, is that the one you are saying that can't be used? I now have This license. Avaviel (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
That is a good license, the image can go to commons:commons:upload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful! I'll be uploading soon. Avaviel (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  Resolved

Uploading logos

I would like to upload the logo of the company whose page I am currently posting what type of upload form do I need to utilize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeBrilliant (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:LOGOS. – ukexpat (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My image has been erased!

To whom it may concern: I am new to wikipedia, as might be obvious, and I am trying creat a page for our organisation the Human Rights House Network. I have not published it yet but will soon but our logo has been erased. I added the image File:House.gif tag but it has been erased. It has no copyright but still we do not allow people to use it. What should I do? At least we should be able to use it for our wikipage(?). Thank you qvort — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qvort (talk • contribs) 11:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

File:House.gif is the link to the image. Qvort — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qvort (talk • contribs) 13:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Before we worry about the logo, please read the message on your talk page about conflict of interest and the problems with the current draft of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Using images from wikipedia

Can i use images from Wikipedia commercially? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctj20 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  • If they are not marked as non-free, then in most cases the images are available under a license compatible with commercial use. However, you must still be careful to review the license indicated on the image description page, and fully understand and comply with the license. Often times, it is not enough to just see an image is free and then use it. You also must sometimes give credit when you use it, for example. You must educate yourself about the license conditions before using it, else you will violate the license. Note that File:House.gif is marked as non-free, and you may NOT use it commercially unless you use it under legal terms available to you in your country, such as Fair Use in the United States. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about correct license to choose

I recently purchased an original camera negative of a celebrity on eBay and also purchased the full copyright. I am considering uploading this picture to Wikipedia Commons and then adding it to the subject's Wikipedia page. Two questions:

1) Which license should I choose? If I did upload the image, I would be willing to allow anyone to use the picture for any reason. I am not the creator of this photo, but am now the copyright owner.

2) Do I need to credit the original photographer in the photo's description?

Calm Seas101 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials help? – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I browsed thru all the various image copyright tags listed there, and {{PD-self}} appears to be the simplest to use. Does that seem okay? Also, what about crediting the original photographer in the photo's description? Do I need to do that? Calm Seas101 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
If there was no requirement to credit the photographer when you acquired the copyright, then I don't think there is a requirement to do so here. PD-self will work fine, but please upload the image to Commons so that it is available to all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
While photographic negatives are tangible objects, copyright is intangible, so I would like to know how the copyright was specifically part of the eBay sale of the negative. Was the negative being sold by the photographer or someone else? Owning or being in possession of a negative or a photograph does not confer any copyright to the person possessing it. Can you please clarify this? ww2censor (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The full copyright for the negative was an optional part of the eBay sale. I decided to buy it. According to the terms listed, a legal contract will be sent to me verifying my ownership of the copyright.
The eBay seller told me he purchased the photo archive from another person who had purchased it from the original photographer. Calm Seas101 (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Sounds good enough to me. ww2censor (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Does an image of a LE box have any copyright or trademark violations that prevent it from being CC licensed?

I ask because the box itself seems to be exempt per WP:NFC#In general "Some such as photos and scans of 2-dimensional objects and other "slavish reproductions", short text phrases, typographic logos, and product designs, do not have a sufficient degree of creativity apart from their functional aspects to have a copyright."

As you can tell from the image, its basically a black box with a red stripe. The lettering for the logos does not appear to be exceptionally stylized either, but since I'm not for certain, I'm going to ask as there has been a long-debate on brought by two indivisuals to my talk page. I would like to clear it up whether the image has any copyright protections for the product (it looks to me like it shouldn't since its just the box) and if it doesn't that there is no trademark problems with using on an article about the product.陣内Jinnai 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

All up there really seems to be too much for PD-textlogo, as there is that hexagon shape thingy and big lettering on the box too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Even with that would it be okay to use {{Trademark}}? Is the box's design simple enough to not qualify for copyright protection?陣内Jinnai 22:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
{{Trademark}} is additional to the copyright licence and independent of that copyright status. Besides which this image does not qualify as a 2D image, so slavish reproductions cannot apply. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Author of image wants direct attribution

The author of File:Kesha austria 1.jpg (and variants) wants his name and website to be included in the image's vicinity. However, some users are claiming that this is not required per WP:CREDITS which states "Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page." If anyone could help, that would be great. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was discussing this with the user, my view is per the text "is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page", attribution os given on the upload page, including it on the actual page seems to violate self promotion, Wiki is suppose to be free. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and I remove all such credits when I see them. – ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
But is it not up to the author to decide what form of attribution they receive? We cannot dictate what license they release their work under. If you look at {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} you can see it states "Those who reproduce the work must attribute it in the manner specified by the author or licensor". The CC licenses allow for authors to select the way that they are attributed. Don't like it? Don't use it. Wikipedia only accepts free content, and this file is free. It is allowed for commercial and non-commercial use, and the only possible restrictions are that you must attribute the author and release any derivitives under similarly free licenses. The fact that an author wants direct attribution in the vicinity of the image does not violate this at all. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The creative commons licenses specifically say that attribution must be given in the way the author specifies. Are we really saying that the language of the license doesn't mean what it says? Buddy431 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The actual language of the license is here; see specifically Section 4 (b) for attribution requirements. It says, “The credit required by this Section 4 (b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner….” The brief paraphrase which you cite refers to the content of the credit, not the manner. —teb728 t c 04:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, Buddy. [3] states "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." Case closed, I hope? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The case is closed if you agree that your quote is an imprecise summary of the actual license. Look down at the green line near the bottom of your linked page where it says, “This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license)” and look at that full license. With reference to the full license, the things the author or licensor can specify include the name or pseudonym of the original author and/or the name of another designated party and/or the title of the work and/or the URI associated with the work, but it does not include the way that the attribution is implemented, which the license explicitly say may be done “in any reasonable manner.”—teb728 t c 02:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I am the potographer of this picture/photo and this formulation does not refer to photo utilization within wikipedia. It does however apply to external utilization, e.g. other websites. Thereby I would like to prevent my photographs from being used without proper and visible credits. I am utterly satisfied with the handling within Wikipedia, especially since I uploaded and added most of my pictures to the articles myself. If someone has suggestions concerning rewriting my licence words to that effect: you're welcome. --Arne mueseler (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia favicon

What is the copyright status of the Wikipedia favicon? The store White House/Black Market appears to be using the exact same W. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. I'm new here.) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WPLOGO. – ukexpat (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:WPLOGO is silent on the favicon. That page is about the wikipedia logo. TJRC (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
PD-textlogo probably applies, but I don't think it is very ethical for them to have copied Wikipedia's favicon. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It doesn't look completely ethical -- to my eyes, that W is distinct and belongs to Wikipedia -- but the note on text logos seems to fit. Thanks for the pointer. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
That said, if a trademark also applies, PD-textlogo would not negate that. You would need to contact the foundation to see if such a trademark exists. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
According to WMF:Wikimedia official marks the stylized 'W' is a trademark. I would suggest you contact the foundation. The email address listed is communications wikimedia.org. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thanks again for your help. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Image on Wikipedia page entitiled: Skyscraperman

I've made several attempts without success to upload a replacement image File:Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg onto Skyscraperman. Copyright holder has followed Wikipedia instructions with regard to a release email and Wikipedia has confirmed. However, new image fails to appear. Ideas? Thank you. MIMIKEN 04:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimiken (talk • contribs)

If what you want is to replace the cover image in the infobox, edit the fourth line of Skyscraperman, changing File:Skyscraperman-cover.jpg‎ to File:Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg
You have also uploaded similar images at File:Book Cover for SKYSCRAPERMAN.jpg and File:Skyscraperman-cover.jpg. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What do I do to fix copyright on an image?

Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harold_Wagner.jpg

I commissioned a piece of art. I wrote to the original artist through email and he let me know it was okay. He said quote "You have my full permission to use any and all of the "pheagles" series of images as you see fit." so he is basically allowing me to use the image in any way I see fit. What can/should I change on the image page to show this properly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hg3300 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Either email Wikimedia yourself or have the artist do it. Follow the steps outlined at WP:PERMIT. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Two questions

  • The first one seems so obvious that I'd be surprised if it hasn't been answered. Since my hometown has a list of mayors article, can I go down to City Hall and photograph the plaques of mayoral photographs sitting on the wall next to the mayor's office and use those on here or no? I'm guessing no, seeing as how there are numerous photos on here taken on the third floor of the Alaska State Capitol, where the governor's office is and in the hallway there are rows of photos of former governors and lieutenant governors, yet as far as I'm aware, none of those photos are on here. Could also be that this is allowable and yet no one was thinking that far ahead.
  • This one isn't so obvious. I've been reading references in copyright law-related articles (both on here and elsewhere) about publications published between 1923 and 1977 not bearing a copyright notice, and that these publications are in the public domain if the copyright was not renewed. I guess I'm not familiar with how one would go about checking a particular publication to see if it falls under this status, and how one would go about checking such a thing. I have numerous older publications in my library I could use if I could determine that the publications are in the public domain.RadioKAOS (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • For photographs you don't know the photographer or when they were taken so you don't know if they were public domain or not. For fair use we don't allow masses of photos on list articles as it is excessive use.
    • There is a list around of the copyright renewals, I can look up the books that appear on the list, but from my checking of textbooks by major publishers, there are all listed. For publication without a copyright notice you may get lucky with pamphlets or posters which may not have bothered. A book probably has a copyright notice if you search for it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MarkP_jpg.jpg Could you please tell if the image I have uploaded has met the required copyright stipulations It was automatically flagged regarding this. It is a photo for a page being created for Mark Pretorius. Many thanks.

Infrasupra (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Dr Mark Pretorius took a photo of himself? Copyright cannot be avoided by saying it is not copyrighted as it will be when the picture was created. It can be made public domain in the USA. If the photographer or copyright holder has done this we need proof. One way is for a previous display on a web site to be labelled with that fact. Or else use WP:PERMIT to prove that it is. The creative commons license you put there is not correct as you have no attribution. You need to use a PD template like:

{{public domain|it was put into Public Domain by Dr Mark Pretorius who owned all right to the image}}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

how to add copyright

I have uploaded 2 images I have permission to use and have used them before. kennyaaronson1.jpg and kennyaaronson2.jpg. I have given both photographers credit as that is all they require. I don't understand how to tag a copy right and have tired several ways. I don't have a specific copy right number and both images are old. Please advise with step by step instructions. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellairec (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

When a copyright permission is granted it must be in writing. If you were granted a license to use the images it is not free enough for Wikipedia, as we need to have it free for everyone and free for all uses. You will have to ask the copyright holder John Kisch to grant a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license to allow anyone to use it. You have put the letters GFDL in there, and this also is a permissible license. Then you need to get an email as in WP:PERMIT to prove the license grant, since it is not your picture. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Stanley Holloway

There are several copyrighted images in this article. Is this the right place to ask whether they should be removed or not? Grateful for expert advice on this. Tim riley (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A better place to discuss these is at WT:NFCR but you can nominate the article for discussion at WP:NFCR, however most of the non-free images, especially the posters, have neither critical commentary nor fair-use rationales for their use in Stanley Holloway, so should be removed as failing WP:NFC#Images #4 and WP:NFCC#10c. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. I've now raised the matter on the page you suggest. Tim riley (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

free speech flag part 2

It says not to edit the old archived thread, so I guess I'll put this here. And in case you didn't know, this is about the Playstation 3 free speech flag image, which was uploaded based on a posted image at a Yale Law School blog, and then Wikipedia:Oversighted / suppressed. Links to the various discussion threads can be found here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg

FYI here is the message I received from the Arbitration Audit Subcommittee Apr 11 2011

"Dear Decora;

The Audit Subcommittee received two separate complaints about the suppression of File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg. After reviewing the circumstances surrounding the suppression of the file, the subcommittee has concluded that, while the suppression was done in good faith, it did not have firm grounding in the Oversight policy. The functionary who carried out the suppression is reminded that suppression is only to be used on copyright violations at the instruction of Wikimedia Foundation counsel, and that copyright violations are not suppressible on one's own initiative. The suppression has been undone and converted to a normal administrative deletion, and the matter has been forwarded to the Foundations' general counsel for further review.

For the Audit Subcommittee;

User:Courcelles"

Coincidentally, this is close to the same time that Sony dropped it's lawsuit against George Hotz for jailbreaking the Playstation 3, and the two parties reached a settlement. (SCEA v Hotz).

The flag is back.

File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg

Thanks to all involved. Decora (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Medium Season 7 DVD

Hello, I recently uploaded the DVD pic for Medium Season 7. Could you please re upload it, as I am not sure how to get it to size or fix the rhetoric that goes along with it. I am still new at editing, but I like to keep certain sites updated. For example, I take great pride in keeping the Medium (TV Series) page updated and it would be a big help if you could do the pic for me. Last night I tried and tried to upload it, but it turned out too large. Thanks Jdcrackers (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted the duplicate upload, and added the {{film cover fur}} for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Old Images

Is there any rules regarding more "tolerance" to old images on WP (few years old)? I ask because I have seen some obvious old images that I'm sure would not last a week if uploaded now. Typical things I have seen are (with some examples)

  1. Uploaded by Y, Photograph courtesy of X File:Colin Hampden-White.jpg
  2. Uploaded by Y, Author is Y File:Coffin Bay Channel South Australia.JPG and File:Callum and Emma.jpg
  3. Claimed permission from web site, which does not give it - but did it 2 years ago? File:Cocoattheglaadawards.png
  4. Picture of a artist's work File:Cocacola man by paul ro.12-05-07.jpg
  5. Picture of a newspaper, uploader "may" be the paper's author File:Coasts Ghosts 8.jpg
  6. Logos uploaded as CC-BY-SA, little or no evidence File:CAILogo.gif
  7. Links to company website File:Caitbig.JPG and File:CalCasTomBrown.JPG
  8. Picture of the person who claims to be the author - someone is behind the camera! File:Califhope12.jpg

I hope that gives enough examples as to what I mean. Do we intend to have the old pictures as of the same standard that we currently use? If so I could easily tag these with the right tag when I see them, would that be a CSD, Di, or FfD as the best option?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Old stuff should still be sorted out if you come across it. File:Coffin Bay Channel South Australia.JPG attribution "Jack Stradling" looks to be OK, users can attribute images to names other than their Wikipedia ID, in this case jts-sa looks to be using initials for user name anyway. For File:Callum and Emma.jpg it would need proof, but image is useless so it could go to ffd. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Graeme. Just because an image's upload date is way in the past doesn't (now) give it a free pass on our standards. It still must adhere to our constraints. Going image by image:

In general, feel free to aggressively go after images that do not meet our standards for inclusion here. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. That has made life a lot clearer... Tagging Time...  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The subject of a biographical article I created sent me a photo via e-mail attachment ...

I created an article on a living person and then e-mailed the person (her e-mail address is online) and asked if she had a non-copyrighted photo Wikipedia could use in the article. She sent me a photo of herself that was taken by someone else (I can tell that because it's also in the back of one of her books, with an attribution but no copyright symbol), but that she owns the copyright to because (A) it was a work for hire and because (B) she also holds the copyright to all the material in her books, which are published by her own publishing company.

Anyway, what exactly do I need to do or specify to upload this photo for use in that article? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to have her license it under a free license as described at WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 06:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I would put your contact in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation. See WP:PHOTOSUB. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
To Adabow: I would gladly do that but she is apparently completely inept at anything technological, nor is she a Wikipedia editor. I'd rather do this myself than try to explain to her step by step what to do over and over. It's confusing enough for someone who has been a regular Wikipedia editor for 5 years. :) Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
To TEB et al.: Can you or someone be more specific? None of those letters meet the specific situation here: This is not an online image, but one submitted to me via e-mail upon request; also this is a promotional photo, not a text and not a non-human photograph; this photo has not been uploaded yet; this photo is for use in a single article; etc. Also, would this photo need to be uploaded to Commons, or would an upload to the specific Wikipedia article work? Also why do I have to submit an OTRS when several images ([4], [5], [6] for example) of living persons have been submitted without any OTRS? Also which license is best to choose for a promotional photo of a living person? What's the difference between FAL and CC-SA? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You could ask that they place the image on their website with a note outlining the license it is released under. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
That would take years. Her website hasn't been updated since July 2009. Like I said, hopeless with technology. Softlavender (talk)
You said she emailed you the photo; so she should be able to follow Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission#If you would prefer just to send us the photo. —teb728 t c 07:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
That, again, could take years: "While we have a facility to accept images for upload by email, we have very few people to process these emails and it may take a long time before your image is uploaded if you email it to us." Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It takes days (maybe even a couple weeks). The permission has to go through those volunteers in any case; so there is no faster way. —teb728 t c 07:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What proof do you have that it takes days? It sounds to me like it takes many months, and they do not list their backlog status. Uploading directly is instant, and the OTRS is then listed as pending, so there is no waiting at all for direct uploading. Softlavender (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
After the email has been sent, you can upload with {{OTRS pending}}, but then instead of including the photo the email has to know the URL where the photo will be uploaded. —teb728 t c 10:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
In answer to some of your previous questions: Look at the thread directly above; the images there were uploaded without OTRS and are being proposed for deletion. Other non-OTRS images are uploaded by the photographer or marked as free on the source website. Any free license is acceptable, but I recommend CC-BY-SA —teb728 t c 07:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC) There is no such thing as uploading to an article; the choices are uploading to Commons or to English Wikipedia; Commons is better, because a photo there could be used on a translation to another language Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 08:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks, TEB. I've e-mailed her with the policy, and either she bites or she doesn't. Softlavender (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

UK Banknotes

Does the file at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bank_Of_England10.png need deleting or just the copyright reapplying for? The copyright notice indicates that permission for the file's inclusion ran out on the 3 February 2010... -Prince of Cats (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually doesn't need permission. It is used under US fair use law. (US law is applicable the Wikipedia servers are in the US.) —teb728 t c 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-old}}

Is {{PD-old}} applicable for this file. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the intention of the photograph is purely the reproduction of the 2D content of the book pages, and the accidental inclusion of some 3D details of the book itself on the margins seems purely a side effect, I'd say {{PD-art}} should be justifiable. The book itself is of course more than old enough for PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't sure if Pd-old should be applyd to the book (which was printed in 1604) or the photograph from the book. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 22:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Head East (album)

Dear Gentlemen,

I received permission from the Head East (band) webmaster to use the album art images for additions to an article in Wikipedia. I e-mailed them to learn if the images were copyrighted, etc., and asked permission to use them. I would like to upload the Head East (album) art to the following article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_East_(album) but after doing a little research into how to do so, I don't have the permissions to accomplish the task anyway. If interested, I can forward the e-mail with the jpeg image for insertion into the article so someone else can take care of it. Just provide an address to send it to or explain to me more about account permissions so I may try to do it myself.

Thank you, Glenn Moser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech5654 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about the album on this webpage. Until you are an autoconfirmed user, which requires you to be a registered editor for more than four days and have made at least 10 edits you cannot upload images, but after that you can do so yourself. Generally we upload album covers under the fair-use concept, however, the image must have an appropriate licence {{non-free album cover}} and fair-use rationale to comply with the non-free content policy, but we are always happy to get receive the copyright holder's permission because Wikipedia aims to be a free encyclopaedia with a minimum of fair-use images. When you are autoconfirmed, you can upload the image and have the band verify their permission by having them give us their WP:CONSENT directly. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
However, permission for use only on Wikipedia is not adequate. Unless the permission allows reuse by anyone for anything, you would have to use the fair-use concept, as described by ww2censor. —teb728 t c 04:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

AZ school photos – copyright status of district employee photos

I made this find, and it has images that would sorely enrich the Arizona high school article set, plus some school district articles:

http://www.azsfb.gov/sfb/photo%20gallery/Photo%20Gallery.pdf (from the Arizona School Facilities Board)

Are school districts' photos government works at all or public domain, or are they copyrighted by the district? (I'd know to appropriately source and template the fair use architect ones.) Raymie (t • c) 02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Works of the US Federal government are PD, but that does not apply to works of state governments like Arizona. I can think of no reason to suspect that those photos are PD. And (since you mention fair use) they could not be used under Wikipedia's non-free content policy, for someone could make replacement photos and release them under a free license. Sorry. —teb728 t c 04:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Khalid al-Mihdhar 1

What is the Copyright status on the image :File:180px-Khalid_al-Mihdhar_1.jpg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIGHSCHOOLFAILURE (talk • contribs) 07:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean File:-Khalid al-Mihdhar 1.jpg? If so, it is a garbled duplicate of File:KAlmihdhar.JPG. —teb728 t c 09:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Delete all of my uploads

Hi Wikipedia administrators, I am requesting that all of the images I have uploaded as a Wikipedia user be deleted. This is because I do not have all of the copyright tags necessary. This is the file list of all the images I have uploaded:

Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Username:Charlesaaronthompson

PD-AUS

A question has arisen at FAC here over the PD-AUS template. The images on George Headley, such as File:Headley head and shoulders.jpg are PD-AUS and the date of first publication has been requested as part of the review, as it may affect their copyright status. I do not have this information, but my understanding was that this did not matter for PD in Australia. However, the template on Commons (but not here) requests this information, which led to the query. Any help would be appreciated! On another related matter, Len Hutton has several images which I believe may be dubious as they are PD-Aus, but published after 1946. Am I correct that these won't be PD-US and so need to be removed? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this 1946 from, US recognises PD from Australia, which is photographs taken before 1955. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Now I know, the legislation behind the free trade agreement with Australia supercedes the Uruguay round rules though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Outline of simplistic character

I am wanting to know if drawing the outline of a Dragon Quest slime is concindered a "non-creative work". I will note that in Japan, it has entered the culture in that anyone who draws a slime will draw this the outline of the character (and possibly they eyes and mouth).陣内Jinnai 01:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just the outline would be too simple, and a line rough drawing of eyes and mouth would hardly be suitable for copyright, unless you reproduced every detail exactly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

PD flag

  Resolved
 – thanks to commons' help desk. Swarm X 00:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone accurately illustrates a flag and posts it on the internet. The flag is in the public domain. Is the illustration in the public domain? Swarm X 19:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Uh no. Something being displayed in public whether physically or over the internet does not mean it's public domain. Simply put, public domain works have no encumbering intellectual property rights. If a holder of rights to thing X places X in a public place where lots of people can see it, the holder doesn't suddenly become bereft of rights to that thing anymore than you parking your car in a public parking lot gives the right to anyone else to drive off with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Hammersoft, one of us did not correctly understood the question. I believe the facts are:
      1. There's a public domain flag.
      2. Someone made an accurate illustration of this flag.
      3. This same person posted the illustration on the Internet.
    • Is the file posted on the Internet public domain? My guess would be YES. --Damiens.rf 21:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Which is a guess. Would the OP please be more specific? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The illustration by itself will not be in the public domain. It depends on what flag it is, or where it came from, in order to find out for sure if it is PD. If, lets say, you make a flag based off of a public domain law or specification sheet, then the drawings will most likely be PD. If you didn't, I would suggest not to upload it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Damiens interpreted the question correctly. The flag (undoubtedly) is in the public domain. The question is will a accurate digital illustration of the flag also in the public domain? Swarm X 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you define as "public domain"? Could you be more specific about the image you're wanting to illustrate? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there not a general rule? In the United States, some state and local governments can/do copyright their works, and some cannot/do not copyright their works. Those that cannot (by state law) or do not copyright their works release them into the public domain, much like the U.S. federal government does. In the cases of flags created by a government whose works are in the public domain, accurate illustrations can be found on the internet. These pictures are not specifically created by the government. The question is: can these images be used on Wikipedia as public domain images, or does the fact that they were not specifically created by the government make them copyrightable? Swarm X 05:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Images CCI

Hi. There is a CCI concerning images, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822, that was opened in August and just has a handful of images yet to be reviewed. Can someone else who has experience with copyright help? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize this was posted about before, but there are still some images left. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Can I use this map (http://lacity.org/stellent/groups/lacity/@lacity/documents/contributor_web_content/lacity_005525.pdf) in an article on Los Angeles City Council District 10? It would be almost impossible to recite the boundaries in text, and drawing one from scratch would be out of the question. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why "out of the question"? A new map could easily be done. Take an piece of freely licensed www.openstreetmap.org material as a basis to work from, and then redraw the boundaries over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your flip answer, though I do appreciate the new information you gave me. I suggest you might be a bit more friendly in your approach to people whom you don't even know. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  • And you could exhibit a bit more good faith. There's nothing in what Fut.Perf. wrote that is objectionable. He also happens to be right. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute Future Perfect at Sunrise's good faith, nor his accuracy. I remarked upon an attitude — that is, "Oh, you silly boy, Why are you asking such a dumb question?" Thanks for your interest, Hammersoft, but if one person (me) finds any given remark objectionable, then I suppose somebody (me) has objected to it and it is therefore objectionable. I take this opportunity to laud Future Perfect at Sunrise's work on behalf of Wikipedia, which I have examined through his home page. By the way, I went to http://www.openstreetmap.org and found it impenetrable.(So much for "can easily be done.") I am still awaiting word whether http://lacity.org/stellent/groups/lacity/@lacity/documents/contributor_web_content/lacity_005525.pdf can be used or not. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the copyright notice in the lower left corner of the lacity.org map, it appears the map is not in the public domain nor under a free license. So per WP:NFCC#1 it couldn’t be used on Wikipedia, for a free equivalent could be created as outlined by Fut.Perf: Center the openstreetmap.org map on Los Angeles, and zoom in, keeping it centered on Los Angeles until the 10th district fills the map. Print the result, and draw the district boundaries on it.
I frankly don’t understand what you found flip or belittling about Fut.Perf’s reply. I don’t see anything that could reasonably give offense. Please reconsider whether you may have misunderstood him. —teb728 t c 02:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • @GeorgeLouis: You will note, of course, that Fut.Perf. did NOT say "Oh, you silly boy", etc. What he did do was offer you sound advice. I fail to understand what you find offensive in his words. Further, simply because one person...you...found his words offensive doesn't make them so. I could just as well claim your postings are the most offensive Wikipedia's ever seen, and since I'm one person that finds that statement to be accurate, it must be true. Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, TEB728. You get a Barnstar, your third if I am not mistaken. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

photos of modern areas of my city not yet showned in the article

i would like to post some photos of modern areas of my city not yet showned in the article. how can i do that? i took them and i would like to know if i can post them is lisbon, portugal, and i would like to show them to you first... thank you. Miguel <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.101.16 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have not created an account, you will not be able to upload images. If you create an account and go to commons:commons:upload you can put them there. Otherwise you can use the WP:FFU page to make a request, but you will have to put the images somewhere on the internet like flickr with a CC-BY-SA license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, you can follow the steps at Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission and email it directly to us. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of a 1979 newspaper article

Hi--I have a photograph of a 1979 article from the NJ Summit Herald that was sent to me by the person who saved the article and then photographed it. I'm allowed to use it, anywhere on the internet. I uploaded it, file was called "Summit Herald 12-13-79", but got deleted by MrKIA11 who wrote:"The reason it was deleted is because images that are said to be 'for Wikipedia use only' or 'used with permission' are in fact not allowed. They are only allowed when 'used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag'. I'm not very proficient in image fair use and copy-write permission, so I suggest going to this page and asking if and how it would be allowed. If you're lucky, I'm wrong, and there is some tag that you can place that would allow its inclusion." Any guidance you can provide would be appreciated. I'm hoping to include it in this page I'm writing. Thanks, Vzafrin (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Newspapers of the modern era (after 1922) are almost always going to be copyright. We cannot use it as a free use image. Generally, parts of newspapers are unlikely to be eligible for fair use. Exceptions might be where that newspaper edition has become famous, as in "DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN" or "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD". I just can't see how anything that happened in exurban New Jersey in 1979 would be likely to achieve that kind of fame.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, almost no kind of fame. I was hoping to use the image to substantiate a claim. Can I do the latter by providing a full reference to the article, even if it's not verifiable on the internet—but is, if you find the newspaper? Vzafrin (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that would be an offline reference. A lot of people think that only online sources can be included (as I did when I first started), but in fact, any reliable source can be used. Even DVDs can be referenced sometimes for articles about movies and whatnot. If you need help referencing the offline source, just let me know on my talk page or post here, and either me or someone will be glad to help, I'm sure.-RHM22 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, what RHM22 says is true. We are a compendium of all knowledge, not just that on the Internet!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Photographs of the University of Johannesburg

Hi. Images of the University of Johannesburg (UJ) are lacking from all articles. The Gauteng Tourism Authority has published photographs here: http://www.gauteng.net/attractions/entry/university_of_johannesburg/ The Agency describes itself as "an agency of the Gauteng Provincial Government" (http://www.gauteng.net/contact_us/about_the_gauteng_tourism_authority/) My question is: may we use these images in our articles? Thanks. Fintor (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence on that website that any of its material is freely licenced so that we could use it. Unless you can persuade them to release the images you want and give us their WP:CONSENT, it will probably be easier to get one of our South African editors, or more specifically Category:Wikipedians in Johannesburg, to go out and take some photos. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

filp camera

I Have A filp camera got in 2009 file disappear can u help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.74.203 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't sound like a media copyright problem. —teb728 t c 01:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't sound like a Wikipedia-related question, but we do have places you can go for help on technological difficulties. You might try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, where there are individuals with specialized knowledge in this field.-RHM22 (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of signatures

Are signatures on land survey documents in the Public Domain if original document was signed in the early 19th century--for example, those shown on this web-site. Am specifically interested on a signature dated Dec 13, 1827.--Orygun (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Signatures usually aren't copyrightable in the United States, being only written letters. There are exceptions, of course, wherein a unique or distinctive signature is copyrighted (Walt Disney for example). Still, since this document is so old, the signature would be public domain even if it was unique, since the author would have died more than 70 years ago. For the correct tag, you can check here.-RHM22 (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Image issue

Hi, guys. We've got an issue with an image template that's going to put a number of images at risk, unless origin can be determined. Specifically, following this PuF, I wrote to our attorney to ask if the OTRS release underpinning it and the template on it (Template:PD-PRGov-IPC) was usable. He indicates it is not, and that we need to determine the origin of each image in order to establish copyright status. There are currently 39 images so tagged; some of them may be PD, some may not. (See Category:Public domain images from the ICP.) The thing is, User:Marine 69-71 (Tony the Marine), who created the template and contacted the agency, is a really stellar Wikipedian and a nice guy who is out at this moment having a triple bypass surgery. Images are not really my area, but I'd hope to be able to secure any of these images that we can under usable PD defense. Are any of you able to help out with this? Let me know if you've been able to confirm the PD status of one, and I will bestow barnstars. Or not, if you don't like 'em. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the similar {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} valid? If so, files flaged with both would be OK. —teb728 t c 22:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, maybe so! It's a different situation. That would be great! :) I'll look into it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that's right, I removed {{PD-PRGov-IPC}} from images tagged {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} and replaced it with {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} a few places where the latter seemed appropriate. 28 transclusions of {{PD-PRGov-IPC}} remain. —teb728 t c 23:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. In the case of {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}}, we seem to be dealing with "work for hire", in which case they are able to release the material into public domain. But 11 images off the chopping block is fantastic. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
@teb728, could you explain what reasoning you used to decide which images to relicense those images? I ask because they were originally tagged the way they were after a rather rambling discussion (and more than a few assumptions, I'm afraid) at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 24#File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion y San Fernando of Toa Alta.JPG and I don't see why File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG for example was changed. Am I missing something? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I had a separate question concerning File:Juano Hernandez.jpg, whose status I raised in the discussion. This photo appears to raise the same issues as the Clemente photo. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
No image can be used under this rationale, according to our attorney. Unless an image can be verified to be free for other reason or unless a fair use rationale can be asserted, the images will, unfortunately, need to be removed. I don't know if WP:PuF or WP:FfD is the best avenue for listing those which cannot be verified or for which fair use rationales cannot be constructed. I think we need to be very mindful, though, that the people who've uploaded images under this license tag have done so entirely in good faith, believing that the copyright concerns were settled. I'd think any that are so nominated should make clear that circumstances have evolved since the creation of the tag. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I've found and uploaded a fairly good PD image of Juano Hernandez and have replaced it in the two three articles where used. I think that Damiens.rf, who raised this issue originally and was attacked for it, should get due credit for bringing this to the community's attention. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree with you there. I don't know anything about the attacks he may have received (I haven't even closely read the PuF listing, only enough to note that it was an attorney matter), but I understand how it feels. People aren't always happy when I come knocking, either. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and you know, the irony is that the template itself should have been listed for deletion, so the action that was taken referred to just one image and was mild. Wikipedia is the gold standard of determining PD files, and it's unfair to the actual copyright holders if these pictures aren't really free. Funny thing is that, IMHO, the indisputably free image I got of Hernandez is actually better than the studio shot. He certainly photographed well. Fine actor, much neglected, and the article doesn't do him justice. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
@VernoWhitney, I added the {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} tag where the files were (like those which had both tags) sourced to pdfs at pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/. I took that as an indication that they were part of the nomination to the National Register and hence developed as part of a HPF Sub grant sponsored by PRSHP, which is the rationale for the PRSHP tag. —teb728 t c 05:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hrmm...The catch with that is that in their communication they didn't say all of their NRHP work was PD, just that "Most of thephotographs were developed as part of a HPF Sub grant" (emphasis added) and so was PD. In particular, File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG that I mentioned earlier states (page 5) that it was prepared by the IPC and revised/edited by the PRSHP. Given that ambiguity I personally think we need to find at least some evidence (even weak evidence, but some) beyond the fact that they were submitted to the NRHP to presume they're PD too. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I interpret that quote differently than you: Basically it says that most of the photos in some unspecified class are PD. I assume that class is PRSHP photos generally. (Perhaps the message to OTRS can clarify.) Under my assumption it means (to paraphrase) Most PRSHP photos are PD; the PD photos include all those developed under the HPF Sub grant and all those nominated to the NRHP by the PRSHP. But I am not attached to my changes; so if you disagree, be Bold. —teb728 t c 22:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sursand

I've removed OCR'd-and-pasted book text from Sursand, but I've just realised the book was published in 1907. Does the age of the book make a difference in this case? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the contents of a book published in 1907 would be PD in the US, under {{PD-US-1923}}. However, it's probably still a good idea to give such material some closer scrutiny, for encyclopedicness, latent POV, outdated scholarship and similar potential issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks -- John of Reading (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Please note that if such material is used, while not a copyright problem, it does need to be properly attributed (e.g. via {{PD-old-text}}) per WP:PLAGIARISM. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible to transfer it to the Commons?

Hi, I wonder if it is possible to transfer this image to the Commons. I am not into the copyright in the US, so I hope someone can tell me. I even do not know if it is allowed to have it here at en-Wikipedia, because the image was certainly not taken before 1923 as you can recognize the The Pierre (which opend 1930) and the Sherry Netherland Hotel (which was completed in 1927) in the background. --Pilettes (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not possible right now because the copyright status of the image is not clear. The image appears from the source to have been published in 1930 per what appears to be a copyright notice (see bottom right of source image) but we need to know if that copyright was renewed or not, so we can determine if a public domain claim is true. Until then it cannot be moved to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • It is not possible to transfer it to Commons at this time. The image is not eligible for {{pd-us}}, as you rightly indicate the image is post-1923. Even the source of the image notes it is from "about 1930". I think the image's use here under WP:NFCC policy would fail. The intent would most likely be to show sheep in the sheep meadow. That's not possible now, as sheep are not grazing there now. However, there are older photos of sheep in the sheep meadow available. Consider this example. The image here shows a rather bereft skyline, and a very old style carriage, a personal use one at that not one for hire. Also note the woman on the far right is wearing a bustle, which would tend to date the image to the late 1800s. I think it's reasonable to conclude it dates from before 1923, though there's no image credit so we can't be absolutely certain. I've removed the license tag from this image, as it's obviously invalid, and tagged it with a missing license tag. I've notified the uploader. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the very detailed answers. I think I will get an older image with sheeps to upload at Commons. Best regards, --Pilettes (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the above assessment. The photo is labeled from its source as circa 1930, so it definitely misses the pre-1923 criteria, but I see NO evidence whatsoever that its copyright was renewed. As was common with photos of that era, copyrights often lapsed. I see no reason to delete the photo, but I agree we shouldn't transfer it to Commons without clearer guidance. If the photo is later proven to be still under copyright, it should be removed immediately. — BQZip01 — talk 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the source, this photo was part of a collection Herbert Mitchell donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2007. Was it published before then? —teb728 t c 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
According to law, being "published" back in the 30s was little more than the photo being seen in public. Again, I'm not contesting that the photo isn't copyrighted at some point, but we are playing a guessing game here on a lot of facts. I'm inclined to include it on WP for now since, even if it turns out it IS copyrighted, a fair use rationale would be apropos. It is certainly a unique, irreplaceable photo which candidly shows farm animals IN New York. Since it is notable to have an article on this specific subject, I'm inclined to say it is important enough to be illustrated with said subject. — BQZip01 — talk 02:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it is me again :):

  • I found this page with an image of a postcard from Thaddeus Wilkerson showing grazing sheeps in Central Park. The problem was the very low resoultion of the image. I found no higher resolution image, but this video on Youtube showing the postcard at 5:55. According to the page, the picture was made between 1909 and 1916, so I could upload it (the screenshot I made from the Youtube video) on the Commons under PD-US 1923, right?
  • I also found this page, which shows the sheperd with his dog. Could also be uploaded under PD-US 1923 licence, right?
  • And here is also an image of the Tavern on the Green. Here they say 1899 or older, and here you can see "The Sheephold and Barn. Now erecting on The Central Park", which I think means, that this drawing was made before it was constructed. According to this it could also be uploaded under PD-US 1923 too?

Corrections and/or suggestions? Otherwise I will upload this stuff at the Commons. --Pilettes (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely! Glad to hear an alternate was found...I now support deletion since this file HAS a free replacement. — BQZip01 — talk 22:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, done it. File:Thaddeus_Wilkerson_Postcard_Sheep_Fold_Central_Park_NY.jpg, File:Detail_Thaddeus_Wilkerson_Postcard_Sheep_Fold_Central_Park_NY.jpg, File:James_Conway_Shepherd_Sheep_Meadow_Central_Park_NY.jpg, File:Sheepfold_Tavern_on_the_Green_Central_Park_NY.jpg. Thanks for good advive --Pilettes (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

diagram of dropping mercury electrode

please, anyone with the diagram of a dropping mercury electrode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.121.210 (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you need the image to illustrate an article, see Wikipedia:Requested pictures for more information on how to request it.-RHM22 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is the camera man

Its basu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbdgkn (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can not remove old image to update with a new image

The restaurant I work for has asked me to update the logo on the wiki page, but I can't figure out how. I have already uploaded into my commons, but can't find it or figure out how to change/remove the out of date logo. Please help. Foodie4life (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The name on wikipedia was File:F2ologo-1-.png. and your commons name one was File:Logo - Signage.jpg. The basic thing is to change the article to use that new name. There is a couple of problems with File:Logo - Signage.jpg, there is too much white space around it, so a crop would be a good idea. And 2, the name is not descriptive of what it is. Third is the format, .jpg has been used with lossy compression, so that there are jpeg artifacts around the edges of the letters. If the company would like the logo to look the best, it would be better to choose a less compressed image, probably with more bytes in it. Next is the copyright permission. This may well fall under PD-text-logo apart from the texture under the slogan. Since you added the OTRS, hopefully an email will follow up following the procedure at WP:PERMIT to prove the license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
When you have fixed the problem that Graeme identified, edit the infobox of Fresh to Order to point to the new image. Don't edit the article before you have fixed at least the white space problem, or the logo will be really tiny. —teb728 t c 22:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Flickr images

Are the images on flickr licensed under terms that are compatible with use on Wikipedia? Is a use of these images possible on Wikipedia? I remember to have seen images on Wikipedia that states something like "Image from flickr", but can't remember correctly. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The image has to be licensed under a Creative Commons license or other usable license. Often, an editor seeking to use a Flickr image will email the oploader asking for a change in licensing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
You can also check Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr for more information.-RHM22 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Image Tagging

What should an image be tagged as if I have captured an image of a subject using a camera and I own (or dont) the subject e.g. my own laptop, computer hardware, book frontcover, screenshots of software..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenperch (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the subject of the photo. If it is a photo of a creative work then use the tag corresponding to the licensing on the work. If it is of a person or building, you can license it under a free license and use the tag corresponding to that license. —teb728 t c 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
For an image which is not licensed under a free license, it is more difficult. For one thinng you need a non-free use rationale in addition to the tag. For example: For a book cover used to identify the subject of an article on that book use {{non-free book cover}} and provide a rationale with {{book cover fur}}. For a screenshot of non-free software where the screenshot is essential to understanding the article, use {{non-free software screenshot}} and use {{non-free use rationale}} for the rationale. —teb728 t c 00:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about Child Rights Information Network

About two weeks ago I removed some material from Child Rights Information Network as copyvio from [7]. Someone is now claiming on my talk page that they, as the copyright holder, have fully authorized use and have reverted my removal. I don't see any open licensing on the source page, and do not have OTRS access to check for any permissions that may have been provided that way. Can someone check to confirm permission has not been properly granted and take care of the page appropriately. Monty845 16:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I reverted back to the non-copyvio version. Anybody can claim to be the copyright agent for a given work. Doesn't make them so. They can submit their claim to the m:OTRS permissions queue, and the OTRS team can then post to the article's talk page regarding the content. No such OTRS posting exists on the talk page of the article, and until it does the information goes away. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    IMO it has worse problems than the copyvio: Even if it were licensed, it would be inherently promotional and inherently un-verifyable. It seems to me it is a mistake to tell people they can use promotional content from an organization's website if only it is licensed. —teb728 t c 04:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    Just because it CAN be used doesn't mean it will be used. You could certainly use such comments verbatim if they were properly released; you can't without it. Short version: it's a red herring. — BQZip01 — talk 22:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Image from facsimile

Hi, I have a question for you all. I'd like to include an image from a facsimile edition of the Lincoln Thornton Manuscript in the artice--at least one, of one of the scribe's signature remarks. The edition was published in 1977, and consists of photographic reproductions of the medieval manuscript. Can I do this? How much can I use? How many images can I use? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If the facsimile is a faithful reproduction, ie no extra bits added or enhanced you should be able to copy it as though it was the old PD text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
So--in a way we are bypassing the effort that went into the photography, the printing, the editing, etc? I'm being picky since I received a heads up from one of the experts. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think what MRG was saying was that the images (if faithful reproductions, which you said they are) are PD. Still, some people are sue happy, so they may just decide to sue anyway, even if it's unfounded. it seems doubtful that they would, since the images aren't likely to be controversial or anything, but you never know. At least I think that's what she was saying.-RHM22 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It is important that you don't reproduce any extra text that may have been added, and cropping will not be any kind of creative work. Printing in itself is not adding the the copyright of the original work. So that leaves the photography: if it used creative lighting, enhancements to make it look better or more readable, or combining things together then that could be creative. If you are in the USA you should be able to reproduce. Your example from the Bitish Library has a clear false claim to copyright they do not possess. They should have said that finding out the copyright to the material is your problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you; you've been very helpful. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm the Administrative Assistant for the California Arts Council and we are trying to update our page. I read the image guidelines and can't make sense of them. Must I "license" our logo before I can upload it? I see other pages for state agencies with pretty boxes containing logo & links, etc. - can't figure out how to do it. Don't know who set up our page to begin with, but the first chunk of text is "Image with unknown copyright status removed" - so apparently it contained our logo at some point and it was removed. Would like to avoid having that happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGol (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends largely on who created the logo, when it was created, and what it looks like. Works of the United States federal government are automatically released into the public domain, but since your agency appears to be affiliated with the state of California, the logo was probably not automatically public domain. Another way the image could be PD is if your logo was published before 1923 and has remained unchanged since then, because the copyright would have expired. Further, if the logo consists of just simple text, then it's also PD because a group of simple letters cannot be copyrighted. If the logo does not fall into any of the three categories, there's a good chance that the image cannot be used on Wikipedia without permission of the copyright holder. One exception is fair use, a process wherein a copyrighted image, sound or video is shown for the purpose of illustrating the subject or for critical discussion. Logos of companies are often uploaded with fair use rationales if no free use (public domain) equivalent is available.-RHM22 (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You do not need to license the logo. Rather you can use it under fair use. Tag it with {{non-free logo}} and provide a non-free use rationale with {{logo fur}}. You can create an infobox with {{infobox organization}} or maybe {{infobox government agency}}. —teb728 t c 01:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this information. (Diane, the original poster of the question) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGol (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your logo doesn't fall under the category of images that can be copyrighted since it consists of letters & simple geometric shapes. However, you have a SOLID claim to trademark on the image currently in use. — BQZip01 — talk 23:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

new york times

Hello, I have an article from the New York Times from 1980 that I want to upload. I bought a copy to use it. What catogary do I use to upload it ? Debbiereynolds (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You would like to upload images of the newspaper? If so, that would probably not be allowed except under fair use, as the the New York Times newspaper is copyrighted. You can reference certain sections of the newspaper if you'd like.-RHM22 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
See {{cite news}}. – ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you, that doesn't really help. I have bought an article from the New York Times, a review of a band, that I want to upload to Wiki image commons, then cite it, to verify that a band played a certain venue in a certain year. So all I want to do is upload a pdf. of that article from the newspaper. Can I do that? Debbiereynolds (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not what you do. To cite an article, you link to the article on the Web and cite it in a footnote. Don't link to any image. Put details on my Talk page and I will help you out. Or see WP:Cite, Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
All we need is the link. In the NY Times's case, it is best not to link to the article page itself, but to the summary page before it. That is because most people don't have Times subscriptions (I do, btw).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

America: A Call to Greatness Article

I have uploaded an image at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prominent_Guests.jpg that is under question. The image is owned by Paige-Brace Cinema and they have already given the correct permission for all of their images that I am using in my article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sinclairindex/America:_A_Call_to_Greatness_(Docudrama)

One of your editors, VernoWhitney very kindly handled this for me and I thought for the remaining photos used in the article. All the permissions should be identical.

At this point, I am at a loss of how to proceed. I would appreciate any help.

Thanks, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you interested in doing? If you want to upload more images that you also have permission for, just use the same stuff you did for the one you already uploaded (including the OTRS number). Make sure that the other images you want to upload are already documented in the OTRS e-mail first, though.-RHM22 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The image was missing license tags. I've added them. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

License Status

Um... Why do I have to have a "license status" on an image I created and uploaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srsrox (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we have to know how you want to license the image. You can release it into the public domain, which means that anyone can use it at any time for any reason without giving you credit, or you can license it under a CC-BY-SA license, which basically means that anyone can use it, but they have to give you credit.-RHM22 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You also did not indicate on the image description page, File:Megatard.png, the source (you) of the image or what it shows. So you need to choose a free license and edit the image description page and add the license tag corresponding to your chosen license as well as source and description. —teb728 t c 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

America: A Call to Greatness Article

Hi -RHM22

Thanks for responding. Permission was given for all of the pics currently up on my article site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sinclairindex/America:_A_Call_to_Greatness_(Docudrama). I believe that I have all the permissions with each pic. However, I keep getting a "bot" message that reads: You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. for my pic located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prominent_Guests.jpg#Summary. But the information there is the same as the others.

I'm actually finished with the article except for correcting this particular problem. All the pics show but I don't want to "move" the article and have the photos vanish.

Am I making sense?

Thanks for answering and for helping.

Best regards, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You omitted the tag on your upload. Someone has repaired it; so you can ignore the message. —teb728 t c 23:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Film in Internet Archive

I'd like to take some images off the Internet Archive download of Lying Lips, a 1932 film that is claimed to be in the public domain. Can this be done and what tag should I use? The IA page[8] isn't helpful. It would be great if this is usable, as it contains a photo of Juano Hernandez, a pioneering black actor. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the reason that the film is PD? I'm not an expert on copyright, but I believe that there are two possible explanations. Either there was no copyright notice on the film (unlikely), or the copyright was not renewed. If the latter is true, the tag would be {{PD-Pre1964}}. Don't take my word for it, though. I'm sure someone with more expertise will come by and answer for sure.-RHM22 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no explanation on the IA page. I'm assuming it's because the copyright was not renewed. I sure wish IA was more informative. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That would be useful! I believe that the government keeps a list of all the copyrighted films before the 1970s. I'll see if I can find a link to that.-RHM22 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
See wikipedia's Film Superlist entry. It looks like if you can consult volume 1 (1894-1939) and Lying Lips is NOT listed that it wasn't registered for copyright. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope, the website doesn't cover things that old.-RHM22 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not terribly more helpful, but this random website says, "“Lying Lips,” as with all of Micheaux’s surviving films, is a public domain title" so it's more than one source which thinks it's PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
These films would be a treasure trove of images for articles. Do you think it would be safe to use images from them and, if so, to use a "copyright not renewed" tag? ScottyBerg (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Another source, Desert Island Films, Inc., goes beyond just stating it is in the public domain. They are a commercial website which sells versions of Public Domain films. Their faq states, for their PD films, one of which is Lying Lips, "The films copyright registration was not renewed after its initial 28 years of copyright protection. Or, the film was never registered at all." Since their clients include Time-Life, Viacom, NBC, etc. I would say the claim that this film is PD is valid and you should be able to proceed. --Quartermaster (talk)
Thanks. That's a great resource. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
One more thing. I just viewed the beginning and end of this film at the Internet Archive, and there is no copyright notice whatsoever. Under copyright law, prior to 1989, omitted, incorrect, or incorrectly placed copyright notices meant this would be in the public domain. This film was likely never even originally registered. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point. But how does this jibe with the Films Superlist not containing this film? This is all quite important, you know, as Loose Lips was among the films created by a pioneering producer of race films, and it's entirely possible that the same issue is present for all the films. If we can safely use the images from the films, it would be quite a treasure trove. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Has someone actually gotten their hands on Film Superlist? To me it just sounded like that's another source to check to add to the evidence and figure whether it was {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It might be in libraries. Far too expensive to purchase. By the way, it just occurred to me that I may want to check with Commons on this, as that is where I am likely to upload any images I'd get from these movies. I checked on Lying Lips specifically and all I found was a poster with reference to the IA page. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion there, to see if we can get perhaps more input.[9] ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

<------------- Summary: If film is NOT in Film Superlist then NO U.S. copyright registration and it is PD in the U.S.; if film does not have valid U.S. copyright statement, then film is in PD in the U.S.. Those are two pieces of independent information which could be included in a template on the Commons; and anyone extracting images could use it to posit PD status. Nearest Superlist to me is about 200 miles away. You might want to use this WorldCat link, then put in your zipcode in the "Enter Your Location" box and you can see if there's a copy near you (call the library to make sure they have the volume that covers 1939 in this case). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I misunderstood your earlier point about the Superlist. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Postscript: The discussion in Commons didn't get much of a response, but there doesn't seem to be any objection there to accepting images from that film. So I'm going to be going through that film and uploading to Commons. Thanks to all who participated here. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Luke Mcmaster image - apparent copyright issues

Recently, I uploaded an image of Luke Mcmaster to a development version of his Wikipedia page (User:Petermeg) - The image is owned by Luke and was downloaded from his Facebook page - There is a message that the image will be deleted on April 22nd for lack of copyright info - PLEASE show/tell me where or how to find access to a page where I am able to update the required info - Like many people form whom i have sought help, I'm finding Wikipedia to be extremely difficult to navigate - Thank You

Peter Glen (<e-mail redacted>) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermeg (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, you're not going to like the answer. The image is from his Facebook page, but there's no statement there to indicate the image is free licensed or free of copyright. Under international treaty, anything created today by private entities that is copyrightable is automatically copyrighted. Therefore, this image must be presumed to be copyrighted. Wikipedia has a very strict policy against the use of non-free images on the project for depicting living people. There might be other qualifying reasons to use a non-free image of a living person, but if it's just for depiction, it will not be accepted. So, if you want to use this image, you're doing to have to get the copyright holder to release the image under a free license. There are instructions for how to do this at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
  • I will note that in a casual reading of the article, it does not at all come off as neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Are you associated with this person? If so, you may have a conflict of interest in writing about this person. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In direct answer to your question, if you have an appropriate tag for the image, the place to add it is at File:Luke mcmaster.jpg. —teb728 t c 06:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Your userpage should be about yourself and your purposes here; it is not intended to be used as a sandbox. Therefore, I have moved the draft article to such a sandbox: User:Petermeg/Luke McMaster. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about copyright tags on File:Nerds box.jpg

I happened to notice File:Nerds box.jpg, and not having worked much with files, was confused by the copyright tags on it. The page for the file seems to say that it is both copyrighted and in the public domain. I assume that the person who took the image is saying that the image on the box is copyrighted, but the image of the box is in the public domain. Is that the correct way to tag such an image? In general, is a photograph of a product's packaging under copyright of the company that makes the product, the photographer who took the picture of the packaging, or somehow both? Calathan (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, both. In the case of three dimensional objects, the object being photographed and the photograph itself are copyrighted. In this case, the author has released the photograph into the public domain, but the subject is copyrighted. In other words, the author's releasing the image doesn't really mean much, since you can't use the image except under a fair use rationale anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the FUR probably needs to be improved for the image as well.-RHM22 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Calathan (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Help

File:FGCS logo.jpg came from http://www.newhamlep.co.uk/find_your_school/Pages/ForestGateCommunitySchool.aspx but I don't know its copyright status. LordDarkPhantom (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you don't know the copyright holder or status, the image can only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.-RHM22 (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I added a {{non-free school logo}}tag and {{logo fur}} rationale. I think that is all you needed. —teb728 t c 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

claimed CC 2.0 attribution license on likely public domain image

i believe this image File:BostonMolassesDisaster.jpg, being published prior to 1923 in the U.S., has entered the public domain, yet the Boston Public Library claims a CC 2.0 attribution license and corresponding restrictions on use of the image. i left a note on the discussion page for the image, sorry if that was an inappropriate place for it. can someone please verify whether or not this is a valid claim, and correct if appropriate? thanks Shelleybutterfly (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can use it as long as you can prove it was published before 1923. Please note, however, that "published" doesn't mean created. You have to prove that it was published (probably in a newspaper) prior to 1923. Alternatively, you could also prove that the author died more than 70 years ago, but that seems unlikely since the photo was taken in 1919.-RHM22 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is hosted on the commons for over 5 years, so any discussion challenging its copyright status should really take place there. It may be a case of copyfraud whereby someone claims some copyright over images that are actually in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

biology

how does the xylem vessel support the flowers and fruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses464 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It transports water and nutrients through the plant. However, this is not the correct place to ask that question. The correct forum for biology questions is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.-RHM22 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Images on Australian property bubble

Several of the images on Australian property bubble have been copied directly from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) website. The editor concerned has claimed they are "own work". Are RBA documents subject to copyright?

See advice to editor. I have also noted on the talk pages of the images themselves.

I am concerned about the images in this article generally. This one for example, looks like it's been scanned in and the image page says the source is "Own work Morgan Stanley". I would be grateful if someone could take a look. --Thepm (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, the RBA copyright says

You may download, display, print or reproduce material on this website in unaltered form for your personal, non-commercial use or within your organisation, with proper attribution given to the Reserve Bank of Australia. Other than for any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.

That being the case, it would appear that the images are in breach of copyright. --Thepm (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
All the images, except these two File:Chart comparative population growth 2010.pdf and File:Household Prices and Debt 1980 - 2010.pdf, are hosted on the commons and you will have to nominate them for deletion over there, but they all seem to be copyright violations and if they are based on public information new images can be created that are freely licenced. If you don't use the commons, just ask here and someone else will do it for you. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't use commons and wouldn't know how to go about nominating something for deletion there. Can someone do this for me? ---Thepm (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Uconnwomenslogo.png

File:Uconnwomenslogo.png is a logo used by the Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team as a secondary logo to File:Connecticut Huskies.svg. I originally uploaded this image under the license {{PD-textlogo}}, as in my opinion the image, which consists of an blue italic letter "C" over a red circle with white lines resembling a basketball, did not meet the threshold of originality needed to be copyright-protected. A couple of other editors have questioned this license; if people could take a look and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. –Grondemar 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • It's perhaps borderline. I could see arguments either way. It might be useful to contact UConn regarding their stance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, the basketball makes the image an original creation. If it were just the "C", it would be fine, but I think the basketball pushes it over the edge.-RHM22 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with RHM22 as the baseball image add a threshold of originality; it is not just composed of plain text and simple graphics. ww2censor (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
<cough>Basketball</cough> I'm leaning towards PD on this one when comparing it to some of the examples at commons:Threshold of originality#United States. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with RHM22. Keep in mind real life people! If that was really PD, anyone could use it, in combination with the word "Connecticut" which is the name of a state. And sell merch. And yet we know that isn't going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I would think that the selling of merchandise would be restricted more by trademark protection than copyright. There is no dispute that this logo is trademarked. –Grondemar 01:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup, it's my understanding that something can be PD but also trademarked. The Coca-Cola logo, for instance.-RHM22 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I stated it carelessly. I still tend to think the basketball gets it by the threshold.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree this is past the threshold of originality, but, then again, I'm the rabble-rouser that started this at FLC ;) The basketball is more than a basic circle, which makes it more than s simple geometric figure, which would be pd-ineligible. Courcelles 10:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • With the far majority feeling this is past the threshold of originality, I've retagged this image as non-free. Grondermar, it now needs a rationale and to be used in the main article namespace, or it faces deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Using a copyright screenshot from another website under fair use

  Resolved
 – Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to illustrate Tagged#Controversy over bulk email invitations with a screenshot of one of the spam emails sent by Tagged. I understand this would be permitted under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The problem is that Tagged are no longer sending those emails, so there's no way I can take a screenshot myself. A screenshot is available at this page on Snopes.com, a copyright site that states, "This material may not be reproduced without permission." Can I take a screenshot of the Snopes page, crop it to show only the spam email, and use that under the Non-free content criteria? I couldn't see anything in the criteria that would forbid me doing so, but I wanted to check here first, given that the subject that's being illustrated is Tagged, not Snopes. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it, but I think that the FUR might not hold up for this. Not because you took it off a website, but because the image could probably be conveyed with text and without an actual image. Like I said, just my opinion, and some more expirienced users will probably be able to tell you for sure.-RHM22 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think it would matter where you got the image, as long as no new copyright is created. If the Snopes people modified the image in any major way (such as added wording), then you probably couldn't use the image. If it's just a straight screenshot of the spam e-mail, then it would probably be ok, assuming that the FUR would stand up.-RHM22 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, RHM22. I'd be surprised if it failed Criterion 1 due to being replaceable by text. There's a lot in the image: the way it implores the recipient to click; the frowning face to guilt-trip them into replying; the inconspicuous presentation of the opt-out notice; the manner in which it brazenly and falsely states the "sender" sent photos... It seems too much to convey by text alone. I can't see any reason to think Snopes modified the image, so I'm glad you don't think the source matters. But I'll wait for further comment before uploading the image. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Make sure this is not just your original thoughs about the image. I mean, find some third part discussion about all these aspects, to avoid making the article to reflect your personal views. --Damiens.rf 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course. The article cites several sources discussing the spam, and I wasn't proposing to describe its appearance the text, apart from a staid description in the alt text. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
My hunch is still that there's no creativity involved in taking a screenshot of generic spam, so Snopes should have no claim on copyright, but given that neither I or RHM22 are 100% sure on that, I'm still hoping for a third opinion. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that Snopes has no claim on copyright, as long as that is the exact appearance of the spam e-mail and as long as you crop out everything from the website.-RHM22 (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. The more I think about it, the more I agree. Snopes' Fair Use of the image does not give them any special rights, any more than Wikipedia's Fair Use of a copyright album cover gives Wikipedia any special rights. Marked resolved. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

FROGSMILE's Garrison cap photos

I've been helping User:FROGSMILE in making some edits and citing references to the Garrison cap article. The user also has a collection of pertinent photographs. I've been trying to work out whether they'd be okay to use from a copyright point of view but, even after having read up on relevant policies, don't feel that I can say with any confidence. It would be a shame to say no needlessly.

They have asked if I can seek guidance for them. Their talk page discussion from around the 14th March gives the background. Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Doddy Wuid (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Complex GFDL/CC question

Hey all. I'm trying to assess the conditions which must be met for text (sorry, I know this is MCQ, but it's still a good place I think) to be imported from [10]. They switched licensing from GFDL to CC-BY-SA in March this year. Given that that's outside the relicensing period, is it even legal? And presumably it means we can only import creations after that date with no GFDL-only elements? Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, no, it's not legal unless they got every contributor to re-release their content under CC-BY-SA. To make it even messier, their "detailed" Copyright page has nothing on it, and their general disclaimer still only indicates GFDL, so they're giving contributors contradictory information. I don't know that anything is clearly licensed enough to be usable here. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to proceed

I would like to use this map (p.23) for the Bloody Sunday (1972) article. That map is part of a report that is under Crown copyright. A current map of this section of Derry, Northern Ireland would be too different. The buildings colored black are more or less where key events occurred. Just the names around those, and some street names would then make a valuable visual reference for the article's subject. Just point me in the right direction (Map Lab didn't seem to have much in terms of tutorials). Thanks for your help in advance, Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Crown copyright lasts for 50-years so you can't use that image and because someone could draw a map containing the essential elements without being a slavish copy or derivative work you can't use it under fair-use either. I don't see any suitable free map that could even be modified in the article other than an 1937 map which I presume is not what you suggest. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I am assuming now that I should proceed by making my own copy of that map. The original has a grid so I think I should be feasible even for me. When I am done is it good practice to show it here (or somewhere else) as to make sure it isn't a "slavish copy" or "derivative"? Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
For example, for the purposes of discussing development of the article, is it alright for me to have uploaded this image with the associated fair use rationale? My intention is to make a better quality image entirely of my own work. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you did not understand the above response, but there are several reasons why this image is not acceptable here. It is still crown copyright and the fair-use claim is not acceptable either because the image is not used in any mainspace article (fails WP:NFCC#9) and replaceable (fails WP:NFCC#1), so I am tagging it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I know I was being lazy but hoped there was more wiggle-room. I'm making a version from scratch, I'll run it by you guys here when I'm done. Thanks! LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Posting a picture

Hello I am trying to post a picture from the Nature magazine. However, i was able to view this picture on the nature website for free. So is it acceptable picture? That is the link to the picture: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6865/fig_tab/414799a_F2.html#figure-title) Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshadid (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that image is copyright. You need to draw an image with the essential elements of that image or get some one else to do so. ww2censor (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How to post a photo of my father who was an indian politician and was a member of legislative assembly to Tamil Nadu Assembly . His Wiiipedia page already exist

How to post a photo of my father who was an indian politician and was a member of legislative assembly to Tamil Nadu Assembly . His Wiiipedia page already exist. I wanted to post his photo to his page. I don't know how to obtain license . His photograph was taken by us and it is been with me for many years. Please advise how to proceed. is Since this photo belongs to me, do i have to obtain any license ? if so what is the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsamy2008 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a clear case of {{pd-self}}. Just upload. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If you need more information on uploading pictures, see Help:Files and Wikipedia:Uploading images. You can release the image as pd-self, described above, or you can choose one of the Wikipedia compatable licenses. The recommended license is to dual license the picture as GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0, an option for doing so is part of the image license pull-down menu when you try to upload an image. --Jayron32 04:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Oops. I should have remembered those other licenses. It doesn't really matter anymore, as it's been uploaded with CC-zero. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User SandBox

Is it possible to use non-free images in a user sandbox to rework or format images, if the intent is to improve wikipedia and the target article?--JOJ Hutton 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 permits non-free content only in article space. But if no one objects, you might get to do it for a few hours or even a few days. For test purposes you could use File:Example.jpg as a substitute for a non-free image. —teb728 t c 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

PD logo?

File:Jm logo.tif was uploaded as a non-free logo, but should it be {{PD-textlogo}}? The part of it that I thought might meet the threshold of originality is the "m", because of the variation in colour and size across it, but I'm not sure. January (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, it would be {{PD-textlogo}}. The M isn't original enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with image at backlog

file page As the FUR indicates, this is a Library of Congress image. LOC says no known restrictions, so this should be a free file. What type of tag(s) should the file's license be changed to? Thanks, We hope (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the tag to {{PD-old}} and replaced the rationale with an {{information}} template. —teb728 t c 00:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much!! We hope (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Generic Public Domain rationale

A number of public domain images have been disputed by User:Hammersoft with the comment:

"contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright." (italics in original)

Since I was bombarded with 30 image dispute tags, I obviously can't deal with each one without cut & paste responses. However, I responded to one image's opposition [:File:Taylor_Dean,_James.jpg ], with the brief explanation:

"Such "direct evidence" for publicity images is almost never possible. As the image rationale indicates, such images are assumed not to have a copyright, and without evidence that they do have one, it's reasonable to consider them PD on a legal basis. For typical vintage movie photos, Copyright is what requires "proof" not PD."

In addition, the image, like the others, have a detailed and well sourced rationale to support it. This image is a different type of obvious publicity still, also tagged and justified for deletion for the same reason. But the "deleting" editor simply repeats the above stating "You do not know for a fact the image is free of copyright." Hence, the discussion goes nowhere. This is obviously an important legal issue for numerous images, and the reasons stated in voting to delete them are in effect overruling U.S. copyright law and its interpretation by many experts. Review would be appreciated. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that you need proof to prove copyright and not the other way around. That may be true when using the images in real life (newspapers, books etc), but in Wikipedia, I think the burden of proof should be on the uploader. Caution is paramount when dealing with potentially copyrighted material.-RHM22 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Guess what? Wikipedia is "real life". The legal interpretations DO have merit in WP. If an image is PD in the real world, it is PD here; no matter of regulation on WP will ever change that. It doesn't magically change from one format to another (the concept of "fair use" is another issue altogether. — BQZip01 — talk 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood. My meaning was that you could probably use it if you wanted to self publish a book or something, and it's likely that no one would complain. Still, when uploading to Wikipedia or Commons, extra care needs to be taken. We can't just take your word that the images are PD without any evidence. Of course, we assume good faith, but if you don't have any evidence, then there's no good faith to assume, if you take my meaning.-RHM22 (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't mean to get off the original topic, but your conclusion about "self publishing books" is actually the reverse. Only a non-profit use like WP, which is also a research site, is allowed to use non-free (Fair Use) images quite easily. Before the new 1978 law revision every copyrighted item had to have a notice of copyright posted up front; before 1963 they were required to file an official copyright registration, like a patent or trademark, for a fee, which only then gave the image legal protection for 28 years (after which they could renew for only another 28.) Unless those rules were followed, an image or text automatically and permanently fell into the public domain. So unless an image is PD, self-publishing for profit is not allowed under fair use.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't mean fair use. What I meant is that you might get away with using an image that is probably free in your own published book, but you have to be very careful to prove copyright (or lack thereof) on a high-traffic website like Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
All copyrights and renewals since 1978 are available online. Luckily, I have a copyright depository nearby for the earlier years.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If you want to address the abstract issue of this copyright question, fine. But, dragging this debate from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16 to here is forum shopping. To the abstract issue; If we have 1,000,000 photographs that, as a group, have been declared in the public domain via a given vehicle, there's no contesting they're in the public domain. If we then come across another 100 photographs that are of the same type, but not specifically covered under the other declaration, we would then have to act on presumption that since they are similar, they are therefore PD too. Imagine a photo opportunity, where there is a subject and two photographers. One photographer produces their work and that work is subsequently released by the copyright statements you refer to. The other photographer takes a very similar image, but they choose to retain copyright on the image. Your stance is that the second photographer's rights are void because the first photographer's rights have been released. In fact, you've done this by asserting that since this image is supposedly free (very debatable, but I'll let it stand for the sake of argument) that this image is therefore free too. That's guessing. You don't actually know. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    Asking for more input is, by definition, not forum shopping. Please understand, I am not stating whether this person's statements are correct or incorrect. — BQZip01 — talk 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The question of being allowed to use a "generic" copyright rationale has not been answered so far. In the meantime, I added a relevant copyright section to Movie still, which expands on this subject. It's also worth realizing that the topic of movie stills is mostly a subject involving Hollywood films and American legal experts discussing it in terms of U.S. copyright law. Some of the editors who dispute the generic nature of this issue may be looking at it from the perspective of their own country's laws, which could be totally different. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Trying to determine if an image is OK to use

I asked this on the Help Desk and was referred here. I believe someone attempted to answer me there by saying "No derivatives is not an acceptable restriction," but that is very confusing to me.

First, can I just link to the Flickr page in question for ya'll to look at? That would be the easiest, but I'm afraid doing so might be a copyvio in itself.

If not, then here's the description given on the image. Maybe you can tell from this: "Some rights reserved. You are free to Share-to copy, distribute and transmit the work under the following conditions: attribution— You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work."

Sorry, but I am really ignorant in the ins/outs of licensing...it's all so confusing. The image is for the article Red Bluff (Mississippi landmark). Thanks Quinn ✩ STARRY NIGHT 17:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The only permission which Wikipedia accepts is a free license. Such a license means that images may be reused by anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivative works. The license you describe does not permit derivative works: “No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.” Is that what you wanted to know. —teb728 t c 18:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that clearly answers my question. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, by that criteria, there does not seem to be a free image of this landmark that I can find, so I suppose I will need to take a road trip and bring my camera. Thanks again. Quinn ✩ STARRY NIGHT 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo copyright - George Cornelius Gorham

The aticle about George Cornelius Gorham contains an image of him. I own the original of this, having inherited it from my father (George Cornelius is my great great grandfather). I have discussed its use with my siblings and we are in unanimous agreement that we would waive any copywrite that might exist anywhere globally. I'm not sure what to do or how to indicate this or if it is even required given the age of the original. I'm also not sure how to prove that I own the original other than to maybe take a photo of me holding it!

Also, given the file size (253 × 275 pixels, file size: 12 KB), would it be useful if I uploaded a better quality image?

Any feedback on this would be appreciated. Thank you.

I can be reached more directly at <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.92.58 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gcg.jpg was taken in 1850; so its copyright on has expired; so you do not need to worry about licensing it. It is correctly tagged {{PD-US}}, and its size is appropriate. —teb728 t c 19:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait, hold on there. Were these images ever published? That is, printed in some sort of publication, or copies made available for sale, say?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, should not matter unless the photographer lived until 1941, most unlikely.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
We can always use better quality images, so if you have a higher resolution scan, I see no problem uploading it. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Derivative work of item in an Indian museum

File:SatyendraNarainSingh.JPG

I have had a conversation with an image uploader at User_talk:Sunny_singh9128 regarding permissions for File:SatyendraNarainSingh.JPG, which is currently up for CSD. The uploader says that this is a photograph taken by them of a "portrait" created in 1987 on the subject's 70th birthday. The original which the user photographed is apparently on view at a museum in honour of Mahatma Ghandi in Patna, India. That museum's website is copyrighted but the uploader insists that the derivative work is free of copyright and that the museum exists for "educative purpose". Further, that the museum permits photography (although it does not say so on its website). The uploader also says that this image has never been published before but I think what is meant by that is his/her photo of it has never been published before. It actually looks like the sort of photo one would see in a newspaper or magazine and certainly is not what I would call a portrait in the formal sense of the word.

I have explained to the uploader that I think WP needs to receive permission from the museum in order to use the thing but that I would ask someone to review the conversation as I may be wrong. Can someone please do that? I have the feeling that there are other images uploaded by this person which will have the same potential issue. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Complex explanation aside: A photograph of a copyrighted photograph is not free use, the copyright of the original photograph is inherited. Sorry, but this needs to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but the uploader says that the original is not copyrighted. Hence I advised that WP would need to see proof of that from the museum. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No worries. I see that it has been deleted now. I suspect the same problem exists with other photos s/he has uploaded. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In my experiences, many people don't understand copyright, and think that because it is online or because it is on a wall and can be photographed, it must be free. However, an image created in 1987 would have to have been expressly released into the public domain, and it looks very much like that was not the case. I am not familiar with Indian copyright, so I don't know if some works are automatically released into the public domain (in the U.S., many government works are released into the public domain). Nothing I saw indicated that the image in question was released as such. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Indian copyright is, apparently, 60 years but texts of laws etc is free right from the start. I'm just quoting what the uploader told me about this + what s/he has used as an explanation of permission on some other pics. I'd like to see some sort of proof for this but somehow I think the uploader is going to be a little unhappy with me right now. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The uploader claimed on his talk page that the photo should be treated the same as a statue on public display. I left him a message about freedom of panorama. —teb728 t c 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I meant to go back to that point. I wanted to keep things focussed at the time and so used the WP:OSE argument, otherwise I could have been dealing with an awful lot of images from an awful lot of uploaders before I knew what was happening to me. And I'm not hot on copyright issues. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded photos from same permission (source)

I have uploaded two photos: File:Cassidy_Rae.jpg; and File:Rutherford_Cravens_as_Ben_Franklin.jpg; that all come from the same source (Paige-Brace Cinema) with their permission which has already been received by Wikipedia. They have actually given permission for a significant number of their photos. However, not all of course, are usable.

I loaded the two photos in entries absent of photos but where Wickipedia was looking; e.g. - For actor Cassidy Rae at [11]

...and for character actor, Rutherford Cravens at: [[12]

I though that I'd copied all the correct tags from prior loadings. If I need to get addition permissions from the source, I can.

Many thinks, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that whoever added the OTRS ticket did not confirm the copyright tag agreed by the copyright holder. I suggest you ask VernoWhitney, Moonriddengirl or any other en OTRS volunteer listed here to review the ticket and fix it or find out what the issue is. ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

rayman origins boss

can i upload the image pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon davies (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if you were trying to write about yourself, and perhaps we don't want to see a picture of you in underwear. You are only a couple of edits away from being autoconfirmed, so if you do some more editing you can upload images. However bear in mind that the images should have a use here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

PD Text?

I was wondering if File:BjorkArmyOfMeUSCDPromo.gif would qualify for {{PD-text}}. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a little too complex for PD-text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese Government PD?

Does this photo (referring url) fall under any Vietnamese PD copyright policies since it appears to be from the official website of Quảng Ngãi Province (English version)? Goodvac (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked information, if any, at Commons on Vietnam? Please remember the US is exceptional in letting its works be PD. Few other countries are so generous.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No, I hadn't checked Commons, but it looks like there are no special copyright policies for Vietnam except the 50-years-after-author's-death rule. In any case, I just emailed them to see if they'll release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0. That's probably the safest route to ensure I'm staying in line with copyright laws. Goodvac (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Is the text at Template:PD-VietnamGov incorrect then? Commons:Template:PD-VietnamGov also exists and is very similar. —teb728 t c 01:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure. To be honest, while the existence of this template instills hopes in me that the above image is in the public domain, I'm not an expert in image copyright, so I'm going to check with Carcharoth (talk · contribs), who I know to be an expert in these matters (I've seen him review images in articles at FAC). Goodvac (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I very much doubt you can claim this image is PD because it may be a government photo. Remember that not all photos on government websites are government works. The image can certainly not be considered to be: Legal documents, administrative documents and other documents in the judicial domain and official translations of these documents per the templates referred to above. ww2censor (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I know very little (OK, nothing) about Vietnamese copyright laws. I would suggesting asking around on Commons (at their equivalent of the village pump), or following up with whoever created the templates mentioned above. it is also worth bearing in mind the difference between the image policies on Wikipedia and Commons. On Commons, you need to satisfy both US and Vietnamese requirements. Here, you only need to satisfy US requirements. At least it was that way last time I looked (which was admittedly not that recently). Also, despite the kind words above, there are people who know far more about this than me - they hang out at various image copyright places where you could ask them. I would say ask at 'Media copyright questions', but I've just noticed the title of this page... Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You might like to discuss this further with Jameslwoodward who added the Vietnam info to the commons licencing page a few months ago. You may find it useful to read the " Law on Intellectual Property No. 50/2005/QH11 of November 29, 2005" linked on this WIPO page. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt, TEB728, ww2censor, and Carcharoth for your comments. I've contacted Jameslwoodward on Commons. Goodvac (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of those templates is that the law does not apply to images. There might be grey area if the images apprear in government reports or other documents, but the templates use the word document, which is generally considered to be a primarily text medium, and the templates do not address images at all. Sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with backlog file

File page. According to its FUR, a copyright search was done and it was not renewed. This appears to then be a PD not renewed free file. Can we re-license as such? Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I confirmed this book copyright not renewed, the author did renew one other work though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! We hope (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Images downloaded by me

I confirm having loaded all the images till date on every article edited by me only. I also confirm here that not even a single image have been taken or copied from internet. All these images are created by me using Nokia 2700 classic. The record of each and every image has been saved by mende in my personal computer.There is no violation of copyright at all.Since I have been in the independent research process since 1985 and I know how to cooperate with a team work. If you can help me in improving the quality of image it will be your obligation unto me. But for God's shake I may be excused for my limited sources. I am a person who left the honourable for my mission in this field.This is what I am to say. Your's Krantmlverma (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your photos have several problems:
  • So far as I can tell, none of your photos identifies the subject that you photographed. And most if not all of the subjects seem to be the creative works of someone else. You must identify subject of each underlying work and the person who created it—not only so we know what it shows but also so we can determine if the creator has a copyright on the underlying work.
  • So far as I can tell, none of your photos has an image copyright tag; all photos hosted on Wikipedia must have such a tag. Depending on the copyright status of the photo, the tag identifies reason the photo is in the public domain, the specific free license which permits Wikipedia to use the photo, or the reason why Wikipedia can use the photo under fair use.
  • Several of your photos are so blurry to be of little encyclopedic value. —teb728 t c 09:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploding Picture

How i upload a picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.75.66 (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See Help:Files —teb728 t c 07:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Honolulu Advertiser renewal

Can someone check my work on this? I was looking at File:Obama birth announcement.jpg, which is currently used under WP:NFCC. Curious if the August 1961 paper was renewed, I checked the online catalog at the Copyright Office [13] for a renewal entry in 1989 or 1990. I could not find any indication of a renewal. Thus, I'm planning on retagging as Template:PD-US-not renewed, but I wanted someone else to check to make sure I'm not missing anything as to why copyright would still be valid despite the apparent lack of renewal. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As a suggestion, you might want to see if other newspapers show up in the index for their daily editions, or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Any guidelines on mass deletion requests?

About 21 non-free and PD images I uploaded were tagged by an editor, all within a few minutes of each other. The images came from different and unrelated articles, had appropriate rationales, and the FfD requests were noticeably short, some just cut & pasted within seconds of each other. Obviously, finding and adding images to articles takes time and adds significantly to many articles. Is it acceptable for any editor to simply create mass deletion requests in this way? It took the requester only a few minutes of tagging, but it will take much longer to respond, especially when the rationales are questionable, at best. Are there some guidelines about using FfD tags in this way? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. So as a matter of policy non-free content may be used only if its use would significantly increase reader understanding of the article, and it may not be used if a free equivalent (including text) exists or could be created. I looked at the top four FfDs, and all of them merely decorate mentions in the text that are perfectly understandable without the images. —teb728 t c 19:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, but that does not answer the question.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I don’t think there is any guideline on that subject. But it makes sense to do it that way. Indeed it makes it easier for everyone (including you) to consider together images that have a similar problem. All your non-free use rationales (with the exception of the Cazalet and Pissarro photos) are clearly invalid: (Just because a non-free image shows something related to text in the article, that reason is not sufficient for using the image. WP:NFCC#8 allows use of non-free content only if it significantly increases reader understanding.) I would preferred, however if he had not mixed the disputed PD claims with the disputed non-free use rationales. (BTW, the typical length of his nominations is comparable with that of the other nominations on the page; several of his nominations are the longest on the page.) —teb728 t c 06:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think there should be a revolutionary new guideline for this kind of blitz-tagging, maybe something like WP:CommonCourtesy. Feel free to use some of the so-called rationales from the list of 21 for things not to do: Avoid sarcasm, ie. "Non-free image of an ancient British politician." or "There are free images of this guy," for a world famous artist. But apparently no one sees a problem with tagging 21 images over a few minute time span, which inhibits an editor's work in trying to improve articles and make them more readable. Not to mention the irritation, annoyance or distress in trying to respond and/or fix the problems, ie. deletion of File:Lumet-Award.jpg after just 24 hours. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Lumet-Award.jpg was deleted by me as an immediate speedy deletion case. It was a commercial news agency picture. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything inappropriate with these "blitz taggings". If an editor finds problems with some images of an uploader, it is not at all uncommon to check many, and sometimes all, of the uploads of the editor. That's why we have the contributions history for each editor. Look at it from the view of the person conducting the analysis; would you have them limit their reviews to X per day until they're all the way through your uploads? That could take weeks, even months. We tag problems as we find them, and move on. There's nothing inappropriate being done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for at least being the first person to comment. Although merely a peasant editor, I'll be somewhat redundant and disagree in part:
  • "Blitz-tagging" IMO is inappropriate on its face, as it overwhelms an editor's ability to respond in a timely and thoughtful manner. "Blitz-taggers," of course know this, and by supporting that kind of activity (disruptive?), it invites potential abuse and more of the same. There are less disruptive ways to remove images by using proper ettiquette, and accepting an obvious violation of the Golden Rule is not among those;
  • Failing to provide the required notice on the image, where used within the article, is related to the above, as it requires someone else do it. According to the tag templates used, such a notice to others is required (I assume.);
  • Your assumption that the tagger used some "analysis" when tagging is disputed by the fact that the 21 images tagged were done within 60 seconds of each other. There was obviously no adequate time to review the article and how the image supports and is necessary to the commentary, part of the rationale used for most. That's also why the FfD rationales were so brief if not outright incorrect.
  • The fact that no one, including you, has observed the tagger's potential targeting of an editor's images in a clearly disproportionate way does not set a good example for anything, is odd.
In case anyone else agrees that "blitz-tagging" should be prevented, the solution is simple: create a guideline against it and demand that the tagger remove all such inappropriate tags. The guideline against WP:Blitz-tagging could start with a dictionary definition from Webster's: "a sudden overwhelming bombardment." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • You're presuming that blitz taggers "know this" and are therefore using the system against uploaders. Facts not in evidence. That he tagged all of them within 60 seconds of each other doesn't mean he didn't consider them. I frequently perform edits in this manner. I once voted "delete" on 25 images in a single post [14]. Does that mean I didn't consider all of the deletions? No. Looking at Damiens.rf's work on the day in question, I see significant gaps between groups of taggings. I don't find anything inappropriate going on here. I find nothing at all about his 'targeting' of your uploads. It is precisely why we have contribution histories publicly available, so that other editors can review a contributor's work. Maybe some of the images you have uploaded will be deleted. But, that doesn't stop you from uploading them again if you do so by addressing the concerns raised in the FfD request. I'd also like to note that looking at some random selections here; File:Sagan in Time mag 10-20-80.jpg, File:Sagan in skeptic magazine.jpg; Damiens happens to be right. Rather than complain about his tagging of your images, I recommend you review our policies on non-free content and be more careful with your uploads. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I am presuming some know this, especially when it's already been brought to their attention on ANI. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • By the way, I voted delete on 21 of these images. Damiens happens to be right. The only image that gave me any pause to not vote delete was File:Cazalet - Grabski.jpg. You can see my comments on that deletion request for why. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The first four indicate you actually found no supporting commentary in three articles. All within 60 seconds! Can you recommend a good speed-reading course?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • And there you've highlighted part of the problem in your analysis. In this diff, I voted to delete on one thing. The next diff is 17 minutes later. I voted to delete on 5 things. The next diff is 13 minutes later, 6 things. After that, 12 minutes and 9 things (the problematic nature of the uploads became patternistic]). So, 42 minutes for 20 things; a little over 2 minutes per item. I'm confident you're capable of reading that "fast". --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I frequently work in tabs, so that I have a dozen Wikipedia pages open at any given time. As a result, it isn't unusual for me to click 'save page' on several related pages at the same time. For example, I might make changes to an article in one tab while typing a long explanation on the talk page in another tab. If you only look at the timestamps, you might believe that I can type 500 words per minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
All 3 fixed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome. But since you've spent so much time reviewing numerous articles and writing rationales for image deletions, maybe you can take a few extra seconds to speculate on why the earlier ANI discussion about this entire subject, AKA "machine gun" tagging, appears to be irrelevant? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I reviewed that sub-thread. Is it relevant? Yes. The problem here is multiple fold. First, WP:AN doesn't set policy. Whatever decisions that are made there are not policy. So, even if they came down in unanimity that a given editor X was wrong for doing something, if another editor Y came along a year later and did the same thing, Y isn't in the wrong by default. Please note that despite that thread there's been no modification of the instructions at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Of course, we're talking about the same editor here...which leads to the next point. Damiens is not under any editing restrictions, nor was he so three weeks after the discussion you referenced ended (see 2 February 2010 version). Damiens is also not under any active arbitration sanctions, nor can I see that he was ever under any ArbCom restrictions or brought to ArbCom over any behaviors (see index). What I do see is that on 8 January 2010 he was blocked for similar behavior to that which you are concerned about, and less than a day later he was unblocked by a different administrator with the reasoning of "lack of consensus for block and concerns over blocking rationale". He has not subsequently been blocked for this sort of behavior. So yes, the thread is relevant, but it just further shows that finding fault with Damiens for his actions is not something the community agrees with. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
My initial post on this topic made no reference to Damiens, but only on the subject of "guidelines" about mass taggings. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Your initial post in this thread contained a link to a deletion request made by Damiens.rf. Further, your link to the January 2010 WP:AN thread is a reference to Damiens.rf's behavior at that time as well. Regardless, even without the association of Damiens.rf to this, the answer is the same. That earlier thread, plus the lack of any changes to the instructions at WP:FFD just goes to show there's no standing in policy to sanction anyone for conducting work in this manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Requiring the use of common sense should then be the standing policy on this issue. No editor should have to deal with a swarm of mass deletions. I'm still adding support details to the Cazalet-Grabski image, used in a lead, but there's no adequate way to properly support 30 deletion requests. It took many hours to find, upload, describe, and add those images to articles. But it took the deletionist only a few minutes to tag them all, most of which are still being debated. Your earlier comment that "it makes sense to do it that way," doesn't make any sense except in extreme circumstances. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Notice that you are getting no sympathy here for your objection to multiple FfD nominations. And the closure results so far (19 deletes, 1 keep, 3 still open in the first batch; 6 deletes, 1 keep in the second) confirm the correctness of the nominations. —teb728 t c 00:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thorium

It's near impossible to get an image for thorium, because (1) no non-free images are acceptable because it should be available as free image and (2) it seems very difficult to find a free image. I found http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/thorium?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=thorium&sa=Search#906, which has a picture of thorium in a glass ampule sealed under argon atmosphere: is it free? (I hope so...) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Most unlikely because we cannot establish the copyright status. What makes you think it is freely licenced? Based on the attribution on these two webpages images [18] and [19] they came from here over four years ago but it was deleted per this deletion discussion and there is no indication where it came from originally. Perhaps a US government website will have a similar PD image you can use. ww2censor (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think that image was free, I was only hoping that it was. Any example of a US-gov website for the elements?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If any government agency would have a (PD) picture of Thorium, my guess would be the USGS. I'll also see if my University has any that I could photograph. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It doeesn't matter anymore, as now we have a thorium image: File:Thorium sample 0.1g.jpg. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-1978 public domain and scans from magazines

I have seen the {{PD-Pre1978}} used with a number of magazine adverts e.g. File:1972 Chevrolet Vega Ad.jpg. Pictures are taken from magazines published before 1978. Although the advert (as scanned) has no copyright claim on it, the magazine itself will have clear statements in the small print section (where you find the usual publisher, ISSN, contact details etc.). Does that statement of copyright by the publisher apply to only the editorial content or to every page in the magazine? If it is the latter, then this is not a valid licence to use on magazine advert scans. (I also posted this same question at Wikimedia Commons [20], but this seems a better place to ask. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that I have tagged a number of images for deletion today - Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 April 27‎‎ - which are not taken from magazines (as in my first question) but from corporate brochures. I contend that a selective scan of a piece of corporate publicity can be done in a way that will hide any copyright claim. I cannot believe that, in these cases, an automobile manufacturer like GM would publish brochures without asserting copyright in some form. The pre-1978 public domain tag only applies where the publisher has failed to assert copyright. Without clear proof from the uploader that there is indeed no such claim I believe we should err on the side of caution and delete all those images. In fact the uploader in this post on my talk page actually acknowledges that the images were copyright by GM/Chevrolet (presumably he has the actual brochures) and is therefore misunderstanding the PD claim - thus the images should be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Many magazines, especially free ones (Playbill for example) did not have a copyright statement back then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think you are over doing this one. I recall a long issue with Vegavairbob, now Barnstarbob's uploads a few years ago when Quadell, a very experienced copyright admin who is now retired, was involved. Vegavairbob was well admonished and blocked for his disruptive uploads, some, if not all of which, are the same ones being tagged for deletion now. It appears most of the images you now nominated were those, Quadell, I and others, worked with him on back in 2009 and I have no reason to renominate them now, so think your nominations are appropriate. Quadell's response confirms that such ads in magazine are public domain if there is no specific notice on the ad, as also are publicity material without notices. A magazine copyright does not cover such provide material, per this FFD and this userpage post. You may well suggest that cropping brochures can hide a copyright notice but you should also WP:AGF as I would now but not then until things were explained to him. I think he learnt his lesson two years ago and appears to me to be pretty much on the straight and narrow uploadwise. ww2censor (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It did seem pretty clear cut to me, but I was asking here because others know better. I wasn't aware until after I posted all the pics for deletion that they had been deleted/restored before - but to me that shows that others had the same doubts. Quadell may have restored them but that doesn't mean he was correct, just that he made a decision on the balance of probability. If it can be proven beyond doubt that there is absolutely no copyright assertion made in these magazines or brochures then fine, but until then the doubt still exists and in my opinion that means that the images should be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
If you look at pre-1978 magazines on Google books you will see the most ads don't have a copyright notice. Tobacco companies were an exception; they put notices in their ads. My field is vintage electronics and semiconductors; 90% of the ads don’t have a notice. Texas Instruments always uses a notice. If you assume bad faith on a General Motors ad, go check a few contemporary online magazines.
You would be surprised by the amount of brochures and flyers that were published without a copyright notice. I always upload the complete brochure so you can check for a copyright notice. Microsoft Windows 1.0 Motorola Microcomputer Products 1978 -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, advertisements published in collective works (magazines and newspapers) are not covered by the copyright notice for the entire collective work. Pre-1978 advertisements without a copyright notice are public domain and are allowed on Commons. Explanation from Image Casebook.

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

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

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@Biker Biker: if you really want to verify each image, then it will be necessary for the uploader to supply full scans of all pages in any brochure from which an image or promotional material is taken. I doubt this can really fall within the terms of WP:AGF but if you really insist on getting this, then it is more a policy type decision that requires wider community input. IMHO, there are many more images that are blatant copyright violations that need our attention rather then focusing on these ones which appear to be proper. BTW I regard promotional material and advertising as falling within the same category of material generally produced by advertising agencies, so the pre-1978 PD applies to all. ww2censor (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Swtpc6800 for the Commons:Image casebook link, which clearly answers my question on magazine adverts. The brochures are another matter, but as the whole brochure hasn't been uploaded we can't tell if it was published with a copyright notice - however this set of scans on Flickr of a 1975 Chevrolet brochure do not have an copyright claims so perhaps it is safe to assume that other Chevrolet brochures of the same era are the same. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

More than likely it does not, BB. I've used that exception, as I've said for images from Playbills, and I mention on the image page that I've looked through the item and there is no copyright notice. I've also had good fortune with political brochures, even those sold at nominal cost (see for example this image (that sold for one dollar though I expect in practice most were given away). If an editor says he's looked through it and it's clean, we have to AGF unless there is a good reason not to.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvios - Second opinion wanted

I came across several images in User:Multichill/Free uploads/2011-04-26 that are very likely not the property of the uploader, but were released PD-self. Can someone take a look at all three images at C.S.I Ellis Memorial Church;

Among the things that concern me are the lack of metadata, the discrepency in filetype tags, and that these are clearly scans but the source is "Own work by uploader".

Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

They are certainly fishy. Well, conceivably, they might just be family possessions that the present uploader inherited from the original author. Or they might be PD (at least the family photo is probably from the 1920s or 30s). But without a clearer description of their provenance it certainly doesn't look too good. I've left a note on the uploader's page because of this and related article problems; I guess PUF would be the proper place for a formal hearing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: I now notice that in the deleted history of [21] he was actually calling himself a great-grandson or something of the person shown in the family image, which would lend plausibility to the idea they might genuinely be his. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Scan of a Thai driving licence

What is the copyright or FUR to be used for this document to be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article about drivers license? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can read Thai, this might have some information on the copyright status of the image. Sorry that I can't be any more helpful than that.-RHM22 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Public domain images

I am trying to upload an image relating to the article EcoBot, which is my own research work, but cannot find an appropriate licencing agreement from the drop down menu. The images that I uploaded in the past, have been released to the "public domain", but I cannot find this description anywhere on the upload page for the new file. Any suggestions?IAIeropoulos (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You use {{PD-author|author name}} template here for that purpose, please also include a link to the page that proves this release. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Experts please weigh in on PD-USGov

Cross post from Wikipedia talk:Public domain#White House Enterainers not PD. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

JNTO Photo Library

I would appreciate an expert's opinion on these type of images. Basically my questions are:

  1. Can we use these images on wikipedia?
  2. Can these images be uploaded to Commons or only to English Wikipedia?
  3. What licence should be used when uploading?

Thanks. bamse (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I responded there, it does not look good for you. Will add additional update soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. bamse (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, many thanks (though a shame), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this really PD?

File:Tri-Rail.svg, is it really PD? I'd think it's a bit too elaborate/has unique design elements, and wouldn't be PD. I'll defer to everyone else on this though, just saw it and thought it was iffy. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

ant images for new article

Hello! I'm a student at Rice University and the final project for my biology class is to create a new Wikipedia article on an insect of our choice. I've written an article on Leptanilla japonica but the majority of my images are taken from the research papers I used as references. The papers are open to the public on antbase.org and can be used if properly referenced. But what about the images? Here's a link to a paper with many of the images I'd like to use: http://antbase.org/ants/publications/4434/4434.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akt2 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even though there is a Creative Commons licence at the bottom of several pages of the antbase website, it is a non-commercial licence {{cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}} that is not free enough for us to use. Did you search Wikimedia Commons commons:Category:Formicidae for suitable freely licenced images you can use? ww2censor (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What if I directly contact the researcher and ask his permission to use the photographs in his paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akt2 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You can do this, but proving it is more troublesome, follow the procedure in WP:PERMIT. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to get permission, but in case I don't get it, what if I drew the photographs of the research paper and then used those images instead with the original source cited? Akt2 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Image I Own for my Wikipedia Page

Hello.

I'm trying to submit a picture of myself, Tom Kraeutler, for my page, but it keeps getting deleted. I own the rights to the photo. How can I get it to stick?

Note: in the past I have uploaded the photo directly... Would it be better to link it directly to my page somehow?

The photo can be seen here: http://www.moneypit.com/wikipedia_images/Tom_Kraeutler_Home_Improvement_Expert.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayak (talk • contribs) 16:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Tom Kraeutler.jpg was deleted under F4; typically that means that it did not have an image copyright tag, indicating what right Wikipedia had to use it. File:Tom-Kraeutler-Host-of-Money-Pit.jpeg was deleted under I11; typically that means that it had a tag, but proof of permission was not sent as described at WP:IOWN. It is not possible to show an image hosted elsewhere. —teb728 t c 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I looked at both files, and neither had any copyright tag.-RHM22 (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy re: self-portraits

Have 2 cases of this at backlog: File:ChesterBrownSelfPortrait.gif File:Crumb self portrait.jpg. Both are living subjects. Are they considered to be the same as photos of living people re: non-free files? Thanks, We hope (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on the purpose of the use. The principal issues are: Would a free photo (which could almost certainly be taken of a living person) serve the same encyclopedic purpose? And if that purpose is something other than to identify the subject of the article, how else would the use significantly increase reader understanding? —teb728 t c 22:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

One is being used as the infobox image, which to me, should be of free use, since the subject is living. The other may turn out to be an orphaned file. We hope (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither qualifies for fair use because they can both be replaced with actual photos since the subject is alive. If the articles were about the images themselves (IE, if the article "Self portrait of Robert Crumb"), then it would qualify for fair use. In other words, an image can only be used under fair use if no suitable replacement can be found, and that is never true for living people unless the image itself is the subject of the article.-RHM22 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The Crumb one is now the only one at issue. Other has become an orphaned file. We hope (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2011/April&oldid=1089276695"