Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/June

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

New Image uploaded on Wiki: need help on copyright verification

I uploaded a merged file from two different photos: one that is in the public domain File:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg and another photo that Robert Lutwak has put into the public domain (he emailed me the photo). The merge of the two files is File:Early-CSACs.jpg.

I believe all the needs for verifying copyright status, but not sure how to remove the tags for this file that this is photo is due for deletion. Wjenning (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The permission should be sent to OTRS instead of pasting the mail onto the file information page. See WP:CONSENT for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Stained glass & Christopher Whall

What is the copyright situation with regard to photographs of stained glass windows? In particular, I was looking at these articles about Christopher Whall (1849–1924) and his daughter Veronica (1887–1970):

While I have no doubt that the contributor actually took the photographs, are the images out of copyright? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Any glasses made by the father is in the public domain in the United Kingdom since he died more than 70 years ago. Any of his glasses which were placed in a window before 1923 are in the public domain in the United States. Glasses placed in windows in 1923 and 1924 are presumably also in the public domain in the United States. For the later glasses to be copyrighted in the United States, they would (amongst other things) have to contain a copyright notice, which would make the glasses look ugly, so it is unlikely that they have a copyright notice.
All glasses made by his daughter are copyrighted in the United Kingdom since she died less than 70 years ago; all of the glasses will enter the public domain on 1 January 2041. Any glasses which were placed in a window before 1923 are in public domain in the United States, whereas later glasses enter the public domain 95 years after placing them in a window. You may sometimes take a photo of a work permanently installed in a public place in the United Kingdom regardless of the copyright status, see Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom. This right is a bit limited for 2D works, but it looks as if a stained glass would count as a "work of artistic craftsmanship" and that taking a photo of a stained glass would be OK. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

copyrighht?

Dear Sir/madam

I have clippings of newspapers/national dailies published in Pakistan. I would like to know whether they are free of copyrights? I have to upload them to wikipedia for an article on wiki. thanks MH Rana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehboobulhasanrana (talk • contribs) 13:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper articles and photographs are always copyrighted and must not be uploaded to Wikipedia. You may however quote brief portions of text from such articles and attribute that to the proper source and author. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Willie Nelson Armadillo Headquarters 1972.jpg

I uploaded the picture to the commons, but now I have doubts about the license. According to the Flickr description page, it was licensed as Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic, which is now called Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. I uploaded the picture to the commons with a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported.

My doubts:
  • Did I chose the right license?
  • If the license is not correct, can I upload the picture in Wikipedia as we do with the Fair use pictures?

It would be really useful to illustrate with the photograph the section of the music beginnings of Willie Nelson.--GDuwenTell me! 00:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have tagged the file for deletion on Commons. Non-commercial licenses are incompatible with Commons.--ukexpat (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Fine, but still, can this file be uploaded to Wikipedia (not Commons) with the license or it would be more proper to upload it under fair use?--GDuwenTell me! 01:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Non-commercial is also inappropriate for Wikipedia. I don't think it would meet all of the criteria at WP:NFCC to qualify for non-free use.--ukexpat (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

InPSC

HI I want to upload and place a logo of a company that I am forming call the InPSC but am finding the process confusing. Can you advise me as to how to process with placing the logo on the lead page of my wikipedia page. This is the page that will be linked to from my website - the design of which is near completion.

Importantly - I own and created the logo for the e-library component of a new web based knowledge portal

Regards Frank Username PMacGaol — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMacGaol (talk • contribs) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Before uploading the logo, you may wish to read WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:PROMOTION (items 4 and 5). Chris857 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Can images derived from non-free film stills be used under the "fair use" provisions?

I understand that unmodified, non-free film stills can normally be used under the "fair use" provisions in Wikipedia articles which discuss the film. What is our position with respect to film stills which have been modified by the uploader or by a third party? Wikipedia:FAIRUSE discusses only cropping a high-resolution image:

Another case may be where one small section of a large image needs high resolution to see details that are highlighted by the article text. In such cases, it may be better to crop the section to show the critical portion at a higher resolution than to try to reduce the full image. If this step is performed, editors should indicate the original source of the image and what modifications were made.

What about other sorts of modifications besides cropping? What if the uploader indicates that they modified the image, but does not say what those modifications were? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair use may be used with a crop for a character in a film. If someone has modified a film screen shot, they should state what the source is and what the modification was. Otherwise we have an incomplete fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Stars And Stripes Forever

I have an original 78 RPM recording by The Sousa Band of this march. It is on the Victor Talking Machine label. It is simmply titled Stars and Stripes Forever.I have no idea of its value. The record itself is mint but the paper sleeve is tattered all the way around.I noticed that someone had made the comment to call it The Stars and Stripes Forever, but that is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.187.39 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And what is your problem concerning copyrights and potential uploads to Wikipedia? This page is not for discussing track titles. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe OP is noting that the article in Wikipedia is The Stars and Stripes Forever, rather than Stars and Stripes Forever. However, this forum is not the place for discussing that issue, the better place is Talk:The_Stars_and_Stripes_Forever. However, I urge the IP to read the move discussion on that page, discussing this very issue. SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture of George Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara

Would it be allowed to use a picture of George Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, for the article, Shooting of Trayvon Martin. The picture in question is from his website, http://www.markomaralaw.com/Attorney-Profile/Mark-M-O-mara.shtml, where it is used as a profile picture. I have seen it used in various media outlets before. We currently have pictures of Martin, Zimmerman and Angela Corey, all the major subjects of this high-profile case, but none of O'Mara. I would like to add the picture if it is possible. I uploaded it previously, only to have it deleted because I mis-labelled it as a website screenshot. Any guidance and suggestions would be appreciated.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark O'Mara is still alive and presumably making public appearances. The website doesn't have a free-content license (in fact, it's marked "all rights reserved"), so using the image would be a clear-cut violation of non-free content criteria #1. --Carnildo (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
O'Mara is indeed alive and makes many media appearances, would a picture from a public media appearance qualify for use?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Only if it is specifically freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
That really doesn't answer my question. O'Mara appears on varying news programs on media outlets, would a still from that interview work is what I want to know. Wouldn't it be fair use as I only want to use a still, not the entire interview. For example, here is a still on HLN's site where he gave an interview. http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/04/12/mark-omara-george-zimmermans-media-savvy-attorney -- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but no, it does not matter because the still image is no more freely licenced then the whole interview. Fair-use on Wikipedia is only permitted if the image complies with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines which are much stricter than the legal understanding of fair-use. If the purpose of the image is to identify Mark O'Mara then any free image can do that and because he is alive as free image could be obtained, so any WP:NFCC use would fail the very first requirement, i.e., it would be replaceable. ww2censor (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Barbra Streisand images

I've removed these images Special:ListFiles/Craignewcastle from the Barbra Streisand article based on NFCC #1 but can editor more knowledgeable about how Wikipedia handles image copyright issues tell me if they should be tagged for deletion? Most of them say something like "The owner has given me permission to use the image. Barwood Films." but I'm not sure that's "free" enough. Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 23:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unused no free media can take care of it. The Shot from The Way We Were could be used in an article, particularly the one about the film. Because it is counted as non free it matters little what the license granted is. The current license means that legally it could stay on Wikipedia, but our policy is to say no. So either it goes as unused non free or invalid license if it is pretending to be free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible derivative works

I am working with an editor who uploaded File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur bottle.jpg and File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur logo.jpg. I believe they may be derivative works due to the logo. I am not entirely sure though because I see conflicting tags on similar images. File:Jack Daniels Logo.jpg is uploaded with a fair use rationale while File:Jack Daniel's Old No. 7 1,14l.jpg, File:Jack daniels 5cl.jpg, and File:Jack daniels.JPG are uploaded as free images. Is the editor allowed to upload the sweet revenge photos or should one be removed and the other given a fair use rationale? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, photos of labels that contain copyrighted works are derivative works. The ones on commons should probably be deleted. This doesn't mean the images can't be used on en.wiki, but they must be used under non-free criteria requirements. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Considering the non-free content criteria, one of the sweet revenge photos should be deleted as a violation of NFCC#3, correct? I would assume the logo would be removed and the bottle would remain. The logo does show slightly different information though. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Eh, its a personal choice, but logos are generally preferred over a photo, but if the bottle shape is important, that can be used. Also just as a note, in looking into the JD logos, there's a slim chance that they are the original logos and are out of copyright (assuming Jack Daniels made them himself, and its' 75+ years after his 1911 death, but that's unlikely). --MASEM (t) 04:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the bottle is important in that case to show the color of the liqueur. Maybe he could take a picture of the bottle without the logo. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Certainly filling a shot/glass with the stuff and photography that is going to be free, and particularly useful if the color is its unique feature. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Policy on "re-quoted" source

Hi, I've noted some articles (mainly biographical) so far, link to USENET postings on Google's Archive, but on checking those postings they seem to be 'requotes' of press clippings.

There was a recent UK ruling that appears to say that such clippings (not officially authorised) are copyright infringment of the publications 'requoted'.

I've tagged a few of the links as {{Notoriginal}}, but would appreciate someone that has access to the relevant journals to determine if WP:EL or WP:RS needs updating, and the links tagged {{notoriginal}} re-sourced :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide examples? Is it that we on WP are requoting without attribution, or the USENET requoting with attribution? --MASEM (t) 17:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
See the What Links here for the template listed Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Notoriginal, but to give an example:

How to cite/license derivative of existing commons PD material?

I created File:Map_of_Idaho_highlighting_time_zones.svg by editing File:Map_of_Idaho_highlighting_Owyhee_County.svg, the license for which says:

"I, the copyright holder of this work, release this work into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so: I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

What is the correct choice in the licensing listbox when uploading this file (or what license template is supposed to be included and where)?

Is this seemingly-common issue addressed somewhere? I spent time looking and didn't see any direct hits. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If the original is public domain, legally you do not have to credit it. However we prefer you to list it as a derivative with a link to the image it is derived from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you be more specific as to my questions above? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The license and attribution you provided are just fine. You may leave it as is. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's possible I missed it, but I don't think there was an easy, clear choice for this seemingly common scenario (derivative of PD) in the licensing listbox that appears when you first upload a new file (unless you are familiar enough with the details of copyright law, which I'll assume most people are not). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Photos from books out of copyright

Is it permitted to take pictures from books out of copyright which have been put online? There are some photographs in The Dover Patrol (Epub) which I'm interested in. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What year were photos and the book? --George Ho (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If the book is out of copyright and the image was originally published in said book, it is also out of copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

http://archive.org/details/doverpatrol01bacogoog (1919). It's the photographs of landing ships and amphibous tanks I'm interested in. Thanks. Keith-264 (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This book was published in New York in 1919, so it is out of copyright in the United States and scans from it can be uploaded to English Wikipedia. However, the author, Reginald Bacon, was British and died in 1947 which is less than 70 years ago, so the book is still copyrighted in the UK. According to the article about him, an edition of the book was published by a different publisher in London in 1919. This may mean that images can't be uploaded to Commons as images have to be out of copyright in both the US and in the source country. In this case, the source country (according to the Berne Convention) could be either the UK or the US depending on the exact date of publication in both countries. I would suggest that you upload any files locally to Wikipedia using {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2018}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Releasing logo into the public domain

An editor would like to seek permission from the manufacturer to release the logo of Sweet Revenge (liqueur) into the public domain so File:Sweet Revenge Liqueur bottle.jpg would no longer be a derivative work. I understand that the picture would be usable for commercial purposes; however, would releasing the logo allow other companies to use the logo in their manufacturing?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) .

Not if they have also registered the logo as a trademark. That would prevent anyone from using the mark in relation to the class(es) of goods for which the mark is registered.--ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
So essentially it could be used commercially for anything other than liqueur and/or beverages? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
That would depend on the classes in which it is registered as a trademark.--ukexpat (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have tagged the image as "{{Trademarked}}", just in case. --George Ho (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Minnesota state owned images

I would like to include some of the images from this page in User:Ryan Vesey/Ole J. Finstad. I don't think they are in the public domain, but I'm not entirely convinced that they're not. The source for the page says that the Minnesota Digital Library helped in scanning; however, the library neither adds nor removes any copyrights. Everything would still be to the state. In that case, would something from the 1945-1946 Minnesota Legislative Manual be under copyright? The earliest was from 1935-1936, is there something similar to {{PD-old-70}} for when the death date of the author cannot be confirmed and the image was posted over 70 years ago? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I found File:Mabeth Hurd Paige (ca. 1935).jpg which may be useful in helping determine an answer. I believe that the file was tagged incorrectly though. It could possibly be tagged with {{PD-because}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 June 2012

Copyright

I got an image from chrono wiki. Not sure if it is copyrighted or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goglogo2 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

All the images I looked at are copyright, so we can't use them. Only images that are specifically shown to be freely licenced can be uploaded here. When you click on one of their images there is a small icon to "View photo detalis" near the bottom right where you can see the image licence. ww2censor (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"Copyright" and "freely licensed" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, all freely licensed images are under copyright, though the reverse isn't always true. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Madonna's Celebration cover

Hi! I read somewhere that the cover for Madonna's Celebration album cover was made by mixing two photos from her earlier career. However, I don't know if I can upload them. Are there eligible for Fair Use since they're both uploaded?

Thanks in advance! Amzer (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eA7ZafYKvfU/S0K2BwgUt4I/AAAAAAAACeA/aEqWl7PfJ4s/s1600/Harper%27s+Bazaar+Germany+August+1990+Jean+Baptiste+Mondino+page+44+copy.jpg

http://www.servimg.com/image_preview.php?i=431&u=12402107

The article Celebration (Madonna album) already uses the album cover image File:Celebration cover double disc.jpg under a fair use claim and unless you can show reliable sources for the claim you make above you certainly would have no justification under our non-free content policy guidelines to upload the images which are likely copyright for many more years. ww2censor (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The article in question is here: «Celebration»: la compilation «ultime» et très pop art de Madonna, "Quant au visuel de la pochette (ci-dessus), il est l'œuvre de Mr. Brainwash, un artiste très inspiré par les graffitis et le travail d'Andy Warhol. Pour une création des plus pop art, l'artiste s'est inspiré de la fameuse photo réalisée en 1990 par Jean-Baptiste Mondino pour la couverture de Harper's Bazaar [...] mais il l'a «remixée» avec la coiffure de ce célèbre portrait pris en 1987 par Alberto Tolot."
In English : "About the art cover, it was created by Mr. Brainwash, a street pop artist inspired by graffitis and Andy Warhol's works. To make it more pop art than ever, the artist was inspired by the famous photo taken in 1990 by Jean-Baptiste Modino for Harper's Bazaar cover but "remixed" it with the haircut of this famous portrait taken in 1987 by Alberto Tolot." Amzer (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael F. Holick

Dear Wikipedia-Team, I uploaded and implemented the following photo after having gotten written permission from Michael F. Holick to use the photo for his article. I don't know precisely, which license to use this photo applies. Can you please choose the proper license category? Michael F. Holick didn't specify his permission for a specific license category, he just said he agrees with the usage of his picture for his wikipedia article. Thanks, --Matthias3110 (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: File:Michael F. Holick - Photo.jpg Thanks!! --Matthias3110 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We cannot choose a licence for you. That depends entirely on the copyright holder, who may not even be the subject of the image. You need to get the copyright holder to verify their freely licenced permission by emailing our OTRS Team directly. They can do that by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I've contacted Dr. Holick and sent him the consent-document and asked him to send it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. He should reply soonly! Best regards --Matthias3110 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for asking and using the proper procedure that unfortunately all uploaders don't follow. ww2censor (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Linda Sembrant

What do people make of this: http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/view/image/4-gulroeda-i-gulblaa-startelva-mot-norge-113039 ? I'm not familiar with this website but the photo seems to have been released under a creative commons licence, can we use it here? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the photo appears to be a cc-by-3.0 licensed image. It is not clear what the attribution is, and the link http://www.tyresoff.se/Damer/start/public/article/54831 gets a 404 error. If you can comply with the license, which includes attributing the author, then you can use this image here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Photos of a part of a piece of jewelry

Can someone help with a photo question here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yogo sapphire/archive1. It's about a photo of just a Yogo sapphire part of a piece of jewelry known as the "Conchita butterfly". We're having trouble sorting it out. Thank you.PumpkinSky talk 19:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Clindberg answered on commons.PumpkinSky talk 00:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Improv-a-ganza logo.png

This image consists of only shapes and text; no other creative things were consisted. Is it eligible? --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is enough there to be copyrightable, after all the text is not at your normal angle. But is is close. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, rats, I forgot to include the licensing with my photo, so now what do I do?

Hello! I downloaded a bunch of images today, and lo and behold I missed the licensing on one of them. Why in the heck can I not go back to the image's page and add a licensing item? This is agravating beyond belief. Thanks for any sensible help.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Sarnold17 can help. Then click "uploads" while you can. --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Head to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:BenedictArnoldJr.ArnoldBuryingGround.20110722.jpg&action=edit and place your license; perhaps {{CC-BY-SA-3.0|Sarnold17}}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Emi Meyer live in Japan June 2012.jpg

To whom it may concern,

I uploaded the image File:Emi Meyer live in Japan June 2012.jpg earlier today after receiving permission from the author to do so and selecting a license when uploading directly into Wikipedia. I then received the message below in My Talk to explain that more needed to be added in the information on the image description page. After much time reading various help sites and wizards, I could find no answer as to what section to edit on the image description and what to enter, so instead I used the wizard in Wikimedia Commons to overwrite the file.

I'd like to check if this has resolved the issue. I also have an email from the copyright holder which I can forward if needed.

Regards, Robert User:readyforlara

File source problem with File:Emi Meyer live in Japan June 2012.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Emi Meyer live in Japan June 2012.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You should use the information template which follows, filling in the fields. For this picture we do not know where you got the picture from, who took the picture, who owns copyright, and evidence that any kind of permission was given.
{{Information
| description = Emi Meyer plays live in Shimokitazawa, Tokyo, June 2012.
| source      = 
| date        = June 2012
| author      = 
| permission  = 
}}

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Photos do not have "authors", they have creators. Who was the photographer? She or he is the person from whom permission must be obtained. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:ESPN - Sunday Night Football.png

Is this copyrightable? I see only geometrics and text. --George Ho (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I too, to me this is {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Rupesh_at_Liverpool.jpg

I wonder if someone could please advise about the copyright situation of File:Rupesh_at_Liverpool.jpg? The up-loader claims to be the copyright holder, but I've found the image used at alllightsfilmmagazine.com—which has a message at the bottom of the page: "Copyright © 2012 All Lights Film Magazine". Can the image be used on WP (e.g. at the Rupesh Paul article)? Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬  23:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there appears to be some knowledgeable editors around at the moment, I wonder if someone could resolve my question please? GFHandel ♬  05:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The uploader appears to have been a newb, and an SPA whose sole purpose was to create and edit the article where that image appears. Most such accounts have little knowledge of how the Wikipedia image use policy works, so I would be inclined to believe that the image information page isn't correct. There also exists the posibility that the website you found the image at also doesn't understand how images at Wikipedia work, and cold stole it from us. Those are the two possibilities, and I am unsure which it is. Perhaps someone else with better detective skills could figger this out. --Jayron32 05:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The same editor previously uploaded the same image as File:Rupesh Paul.jpg, naming the source as http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2248385043387&set=a.1503465180856.160719.1061013871&type=3&theater. This got deleted several times as F3. Two other uploads, File:Rupesh at cannes.jpg and File:Paul Rupesh.jpg, are also from the same Facebook account [1]. The uploader might of course be the subject's public relations agent (not quite unlikely, given her status as a single-purpose promotional account), but we need evidence of her authorization. Taking this to PUF. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Image

hi there, the image i have uploaded has already been uploaded on wiki. i just re uploaded it on my account as it was difficult to use the image on a wiki page. so what should i do, i'm not really familiar with all this licence free stuff and don't really know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about File:You Rock My World.png it is obviously a copyright screenshot and as such must comply with all 10 non-free content policy guideline and it must have an appropriate copyright tag, a thing you have previously failed to do for other images you uploaded. A fully completed fair-use rational must be added to the image and unless there is some overriding reason within that rational and the image adds significantly to the article with critical commentary about the image itself, we cannot keep it. I don't see any of these things. ww2censor (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Today's Featured Picture

I just noticed that the image for "Today's Featured Picture" File:Okonjo-Iweala,_Ngozi_(2008_portrait).jpg is marked as being Public Domain, but a quick look at the website shows just the oppposite, that's it actually copyrighted | as shown right here. Specifically, per this sentance:

Permission to photocopy, reprint/republish, or disseminate IMF content (print, online, multimedia, etc.) by universities,
corporations, and other institutional users must be obtained by submitting an online Request for Copyright Permission Form. A PDF
version of the IMF form is also available (69kb), which can be faxed to +1.202.623.6579.

I'm no expert on images, nor copyright,so I thought I'd bring it here. (That and the image is (understandibly) protected). Feel free to trout me if I'm off-course here! "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 13:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Given two things: [2] specifically states "This photos are in the public domain" for the page that photo is explicitly linked on, and that we have a OTRS ticket for that image to affirm that its use as free content, pretty much is full assurance that it is in the public domain. (BTW: to not display but still link an image, you precede the "file" part with a bare colon, like I did above with yours. ) --MASEM (t) 13:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

simple way to replace jpg with svg

I created am SVG version of the logo of a Greek right wing political party that is currently in the news. The jpg file is labelled as being protected by copyright. I assume I need to use the same licensing, right? Or do other rules apply here? Also, I cannot simply replace it, can I? I will need to alter every page that links to the jpg, correct? Is putting this on Commons out of the question? Iago212 19:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an SVG expert but you can't put copyrighted images on Commons at all. They may only be hosted with a specific fair use rationale on Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense—the vast majority of images on Commons are copyrighted. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
That they are but you can't take anyone's copyrighted image and put it on Commons if it's not freely licensed. And you have to be the author of the original image to license derivatives for use on Commons when the original is copyrighted without free use. Remember that "copyrighted" in general speech means "not free to use". De728631 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
General speech doesn't pay attention to licensing, because most people know nothing of free licenses. In Wikipedia, it's common to speak this way, but it's simply incorrect; if images and text weren't copyrighted, there would be no way to impose the viral sharealike clause in the GFDL and the CC-by-sa license on reusers. Nyttend (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Alternative subway logo.svg

This isn't copyrighted, is it? File:Subway restaurant.svg has arrows on S and Y. What is the difference between two besides "Eat fresh" and no background geometrical shapes? --George Ho (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

IANAL but it looks copyrightable to me. There are some novel creative elements besides the text, including the placement of arrows, choice of colours, and arrangement of the words. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In that logic, "Subway restaurant.svg" should be deleted from Commons, right? --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Unless there's evidence the copyright holder has released it under a free licence, yes, it should be deleted from Commons. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Mmm. File:Best_Western_logo.svg is not copyright in the U.S. according to the U.S. Copyright Office.[3] Thincat (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I know this is an older logo for Subway (so I would not say alternate, but that is besides the point). The Commons DR has started at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Subway_restaurant.svg User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
How does the age influence anything? It's substantially newer than 1923. Nyttend (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-Free Image Removed

Hello, I recently added a photo to an article. The photo, although non-free, did meet the criteria for fair use. However, it was flagged by Wikipedia User: SuperMarioMan and subsequently removed. I did contest the dispute over the image's fair use pursuant the instructions provided on the dispute template, however there was no follow-up dialog by the Wikipedia community at large or by SuperMarioMan. I still firmly believe that the photo qualifies for fair use and should be reinstated. What is the appropriate procedure? How might I prevent such circumstance in the future?

Article: John J. Maalouf Image: File:John J. Maalouf.jpg

Many thanksEhaddad1 (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Under nearly all circumstances, pictures of living people cannot be claimed under "fair use" because anyone could take a new picture of them and agree to license the picture to be compatable with Wikipedia. Because a freely licenced picture could be created at any time, you can't claim fair use for a picture of a living person. See WP:NFC#UUI, item #1, for unacceptable uses of images of this type. --Jayron32 05:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Our non-free policy is stricter than the legal fair-use. The very first requirement of WP:NFCC is that the image is not replaceable but that image could be replaced by a free one because the subject is still alive. That is why it was deleted and will not pass our on-free policy. There was no real need for a follow up as the notice on your talk page explained everything you need to know but maybe you did not understand it. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page and that may help prevent such issues in future. ww2censor (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much exactly what I, as the editor who tagged the file and is named above, was going to say. I've offered an explanation in my own words on Ehaddad1's talk page. SuperMarioMan 16:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Help!

I have made a page about a journalist. I have acquired the pictures from the person himself by email and do have his written consent to publish it here. I don't know under what category should I upload these pictures. Help please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashaal86 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean what licence to use? That depends entirely on the copyright holder, who may not even be the subject of the image. You need to get the copyright holder to verify their freely licenced permission by emailing our OTRS Team directly. They can do that by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Categorization have nothing to do with copyright licencing and just classify the article with others of a similar topic. Good luck. ww2censor (talk)

ICD-9 codes

Looking for ICD-9 codes for medical equipment. Cleo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.223.209 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This page is for copyright questions but perhaps List of ICD-9 codes will help you. ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Table not working

File:The Almighty Johnsons season 2.jpg I uploaded this image but the table isn't working, Help. TBSfan1223 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Syntax error fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Image of Nefertiti

The image of Nefertiti at this link is from the Cleveland Museum of Art. http://www.clevelandart.org/collections/collection%20online.aspx?pid=%7B91ADCD8F-992A-45A5-8599-70835467DF5E%7D&coid=3551566&clabel=highlights

Of course it's in the public domain, but I'm not sure of the upload rights from the museum. Please have someone more experienced to contact the museum or download the image if it is permissible under public domain provisions.

I was going to link it to this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti

Thanks... . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter Bond (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. This object looks as 3D as a coin. Thus, I would assume that this photo can't be uploaded without explicit permission from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Stefan, while the shard itself is not copyrighted, the photograph is an original work and is not in the public domain. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Paintings

I inherited some paintings from my grandfather (who died less than 100 years ago) and I'd like to post photos I took of them on his Wiki page. What copyright rules apply? Fabrigo (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all let's determine whether your grandfather's works are actually still copyrighted. The copyright protection term depends on your grandfather's nationality. Not all countries have a duration of 100 years after the death of the author: e.g. in the European Union, there is a protection term of 70 years past the death of the author and the United States copyright law is quite complicated, depending on the date of publication, see this page for a list of international copyright terms.
If your grandfather's art is no longer copyrighted it is sufficient for you to choose a license like {{PD-art}} for your images when you upload them, and to note your grandfather's name and his death year in the description. However if your grandfather's works are still under protection we need permission from the direct heir to his works that we may use derivative works under a free license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials in that case. De728631 (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Displaying images on Sandbox page while awaiting formal permission from the copyright owner

I hope someone can authoritatively clarify my uncertainty about this matter.

I have been preparing a comprehensive article on an eminent Australian scientist, to considerably expand the present article. So far I have been assembling the material in my sandbox (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SCHolar44/Sandbox&action=submit). This has been a lengthy process -- in fact my work has taken 3 years so far -- as I want to meet the highest standards of Wikipedia and to avoid some erroneous secondary source material that exists in some related articles.

I had thought that my Sandbox was not open to the public and that I could therefore display photos there, temporarily, while I pursued copyright permissions in due course -- certainly before uploading it to the public page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wild).

The delay in obtaining approval centres partly on the fact that permission to re-publish the photos was given (in writing) in the 1990s, before the wording of the Wikipedia permission was even thought of, and although it is unequivocal, it is not in the "approved" form.

In the event, I was surprised to receive notice that the photos "may" be removed within 7 days. Already one of them has been removed.

I realise that I could go through the whole process of uploading the photos again when ready to upload to the public page, but I don't want to waste my time any further than I have.

Any advice would be appreciated. I have already directed a query (about 2 weeks ago) to permissions-enwikimedia.org about a related matter that would assist in progressing the copyright approval, but received no reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCHolar44 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your sandbox is not private and the general rule is that non-free content is not allowed in sandboxes. You don't have to upload the images again -- as soon as the permissions have been processed and deemed appropriate, the relevant deleted images will be undeleted. The folks who review permissions are all volunteers so it can take a while for requests to be processed. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your information! SCHolar44 (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC) SCHolar44

How do i put a picture to the wikipedia

How do i put a picture to the wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdp123 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

  • If you want to upload an image from your computer for use in an article, you must determine the proper license of the image (or whether it is in the public domain). If you know the image is public domain or copyrighted but under a suitable free-license, upload it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of here, so that all projects have access to the image (sign up). If you are unsure of the licensing status, see the file upload wizard for more information. Please also read Wikipedia's image use policy.
  • If you want to add an image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, add [[File:File name.jpg|thumb|Caption text.]] to the area of the article where you want the image to appear – replacing File name.jpg with the actual file name of the image, and Caption text with a short description of the image. See our picture tutorial for more information. I hope this helps.--ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Kuwait Liberation Medal (SA).jpg

File:Kuwait Liberation Medal (SA).jpg is one of my earliest uploads that I just stumbled across. Any clues on the licensing for Saudi Arabian medals? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Viacom 1976 1983.jpeg

This is a screenshot of a motion closing logo, Viacom, from the 1970s. Is this still image eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine any situation that the logo isn't still under copyright. It appears to have been used until 2005. If I am correct, logos need to have been from before 1923 to discontinue being under copyright. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The motion closing theme might be copyright; I'm referring to this still itself. The text is simple with ineligible font. Are the geometrics complex or below threshold of originality? --George Ho (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Apart from the potential {{PD-ineligible}} issue, there is also a possibility that the logo is in the public domain for some other reason. If a work was first published in the United States, and it was published without a copyright notice before 1 March 1989, then the work is in the public domain. Isn't there a possibility that this logo might have been used somewhere in some document without a copyright notice? For example, I seem to understand that advertisements do not always have a copyright notice. However, I'm not an expert on United States logo copyrights. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding a Picture to Wally Holborow's Profile

I would like to add a photo to the page of Wally Holborow former major league baseball pitcher. Wally Holborow was my grandfather & the image/picture was given to me many years ago by him. I am unsure of what else is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarryC113 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless you know who took the picture, or when and whether it was published, you will not be able to prove it is free, or show that you own the copyright on it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
And please don't shout!--ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of a photo

I would like to add a photo of Roberto de la Madrid to his page. I found one on a blogspot. The location is: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GVtaBOeKzOE/TEH4QpwWl3I/AAAAAAAAAhE/SaO1y05YD1E/s320/254212-med.jpg The URL is: http://desalydearena.blogspot.com/2010/04/roberto-de-la-madrid-los-hechos.html

How can I find out if this image is copyrighted? It doesn't seem to be. This is my very first experience as a Wiki editor, so please be kind. I have never studied HTML or any other IT for that matter! Juliadelcoro (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of an express copyright license that meets Wikipedia's requirements, we have to assume that the image is copyright. As the subject is no longer alive it may be possible to upload and use it pursuant to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria.--ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of models in UK

We have a tricky issue involving images of some models. We have proper permission from the photographer, but we need to determine whether we also need permission from the manufacturer.

The models are produced by a UK company.

The relevant article is Mamod. At issue are the thirty-something images. Example:  

Per discussion here,

Uncle G weighed in:

The relevant law is §4 and §12, and to some extent §51 and §52, of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. I'm afraid that the law on applying U.K. standards in the U.S. and U.S. standards in the U.K. isn't as simple as it was only a few years ago, as each jurisdiction is becoming more willing to hear cases based on the law of the other as long as the act of state doctrine isn't involved. The blasé "U.S. courts won't hear a U.K. copyright claim." isn't as true as some might think. For a proper explanation, read the 39-page judgement by the UKSC in Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth, which was just last year. And we don't even have an article on London Film Productions, Ltd. v. Intercontinental Communications, Inc., 580 F. Supp 47 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). where a U.S. court heard a claim by a U.K. plaintiff against a U.S. defendant under U.K. and Chilean law.

I understand that cars, for example, are utilitarian enough that the shape is generally not subject to copyright (with exceptions for custom paint jobs), but I'm not sure whether a model of a steam engine qualifies as utilitarian, or sculpture, or if that is even the right question.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In the UK a model is only retains copyright if it is on 'temporary' display -say at an exhibition. This model does not fall into this category -so its in the clear. Best upload it to Wikimedia Commons who are more familiar with UK copyright. Then the image can also be used by other WF projects. Good image - I can all most smell the meths from here.--Aspro (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
That response is very encouraging, but can you tell me where to read about that?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Page 18 of [4] gives a little more information. Just upload to here:[5]. Wikicommons is very hot on copyright so you can bet your bottom dollar these images are OK under UK law. --Aspro (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that utilitarian objects aren't protected by copyright in the United Kingdom? Utilitarian objects may be protected by copyright in several European countries, see Commons:Utilitarian objects protected by copyright. For example, in my country, multiple chair models and multiple pieces of clothing have been ruled as eligible for copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is something that has been on sale for anyone to purchase. The manufacture may own the rights to the object itself (preventing anyone from selling but not making a copy of the object itself for his own use) but anyone can now take and sell an image of it; unless it is on private property and the owner of a physical example makes it a condition of accesses that 'photographs are not allowed'. Even then under UK law, the owner of a physical example would have a problem going to court due to the 'remedy' (or award) likely to be less that his legal cost. In the UK, the remedy is the loss of profit – no profit – no damages. --Aspro (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll add my bit as a UK person - the Mamod models are not models of existing steam engines, they are unique in their own right. The term "model" is just a phrase we use in the UK - they are miniature steam engines designed by Mamod.  Ronhjones  (Talk)
This sounds very similar to the US law for building copyrights - that you can copyright a building in that if you tried to construction exactly identical to the first without their permission it would be considered a copyright violation, but taking a photo of the completed building does not affect that copyright, and ergo, such photos can be licensed freely (post1990 iirc). The UK law seems to protect the production of equivalent works but not photographs taken of said works if they are utilitarian. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Since they were working engines, in the U.S. anyways, I'm pretty sure they would be considered utilitarian. If functional considerations constrain the design, it's not an artistic work. In the UK, they ruled that the stormtrooper helmets were not sculpture nor works of artistic craftsmanship, but rather protected by industrial design laws, which a) last for a lot shorter periods, and b) do not have the "derivative works" concept which would cause problems for photos of the designs. The U.S. has design patents for this type of thing, not copyright, and the UK also has a different type of intellectual property for them. Some countries do protect industrial design via their copyright laws, true, but the UK and US are not among them. And even then, I'm not completely sure the protection carries through to photographs of the items. Some of these models are probably PD in the UK due to age anyways, even if they were considered sculpture, but given the Ainsworth ruling, very little chance of that I think -- that made clear that "sculpture" is probably limited to the fine arts. Scale models in some cases could still be sculpture, but not if it's designed to be a working engine, I don't think. It's just a small engine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, I've now processed the permission from the photographer.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with finding appropriate tag

I uploaded File:Tissue Weighting Factors - ICRP 2007.jpg aand File:Tissue Weighting Factors - ICRP Publ. 60, EU BSS 1996.jpg from http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/t/tissue-weight-factor.htm and have noted so on the page they were added to Portal:Human Health and Performance in Space/Radiation Carcinogenesis. These are industry standard values used in radiological studies.

The page I found them on has the following copyright release located at http://www.euronuclear.org/1-disclaimer/copyright.htm:

"© European Nuclear Society, 2003

Except where otherwise indicated, reproduction is authorised, provided that the source is acknowledged.

If the reproduction or use of data is subject to prior authorisation, this authorisation will override the above general authorisation and will clearly indicate any restriction on use.

The ENS internet service is managed by the secretariat of the European Nuclear Society.

Those wishing to use the contents of this site for purposes other than their personal use are requested to apply in writing to:

(contact info deleted)

From the language above, it seems as though one would be able to use the information freely, and I have sent an e-mail to the account listed to double check.

Which tag should I add to keep these images from being deleted and how do I get the deletion tag removed?

Jssteil (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Use on Wikipedia is not "personal use" so it looks like written permission will be required. Please follow the advice at WP:Donating copyright materials.--ukexpat (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The information kept in the tables can hardly be copyrightable, but maybe the typesetting is. However, tables are better represented as a wikitable, so it seems inappropriate to use an image anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Grumpy's Toys (Book).jpg

Hi there,

There seems to be a copyright problem uploaded he cover photo to the book, "Grumpy's Toys" by author Doug Boyce.

The problem is, apparently Wikipedia believes I haven't provided enough information about being allowed to use this photo. Wikipedia is about to delete the picture if I don't provide more information regarding the photo.

Mt father is Doug Boyce, the author of this book. He gave me consent to use this photo, and is actually working with me on creating the entry. There really is no further explanation needed, and I believe I acknowledged this when explaining the photo initially.

With my father contributing to this page, it's redundant and ridiculous to suggest that he needs to explain and provide proof that he's using his own photo from his own book. I'm sure something can be worked out.

Best Regards,

Darren & Doug Boyce — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBarnBed (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It may seem ridiculous, but we don't know who you are. Are far as Wikipedia is concerned, you are BigBarnBed. You used an email address to register that name, but we don't check to see if the email address is registered to anyone in particular, so anyone could type the statement you just typed.
In addition, it is usual that the copyright owner of a book cover is the publisher, not the author. Sometimes the author is unaware of this.
We do have a process in place to handle such requests.
The copyright holder can send an email to OTRS proving permission.
The form, and address can be found at:


Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries
(Please note that the address contain a image, and the image of the @ sign should be replaced by an @ sign.) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
An editor replaced everything with fair use rationales. As long as the article continues to exist, there isn't a huge reason for OTRS permission. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Grimaldi

I am currently working on Joseph Grimaldi, the stage performer, and I am currently rewriting the article in my sandbox. I am eager to place an image of his blue plaque in the article and would like to know if this would be suitable for inclusion.

It states "some rights reserved" and, from my experience on uploading from Flickr before, I think this maybe OK. Or would I be best going out and snapping an image myself? Any advice offered would be greatly appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 14:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not allowed because of the non-commercial stipulation (the crossed-out dollar sign). You can convince the owner of the first image to remove the NC requirement or snap a picture yourself (though I don't know how closely you live). Chris857 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That's understood. As a matter of fact I live about 30 miles away from London so i'll get one myself. I guess I was just being lazy! Many thanks Chris for your speedy reply. -- CassiantoTalk 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Might be worth posting at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meetup/London/59 - some of the editors come in via Kings Cross and might snap on the way past for you :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Need help over non-free use rationale

File:Lapick inking decarlo archie.png, an image I uploaded has been questioned over the non-free use rationale. I felt I was providing specific reasons for fair use on the image page for use on each of the pages of the excerpt's two creative collaborators, Dan Decarlo and Rudy Lapick, with an eye to the guidelines for such rationales, so I'm requesting help in understanding where I have fallen short in my attempt. Is it in content of the rationale, or placement, or something else? Does anyone see how I might clarify the rationale or meet the criteria?Artofmine (talk)

To start with, talk about the file using: [[:File:Lapick inking decarlo archie.png]], then you won't include the picture here and then be required to have a rationale for Wikipedia:Media copyright questions! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's how I see it. If you want to use this image under a fair-use claim you will need some critical commentary about the image itself, whether discussing the style or a specific well documented issue or some other image specific prose, not just what the image shows and who drew or inked it. For the current uses I advise use of a fully completed fair-use rational template for each use as required by the WP:NFCC policy and not the text only rationale, which, while permitted it is not so easy to see the bots don't recognise the prose rationales, so it can get tagged as missing a rationale. Specifically in Dan DeCarlo there are already several non-free images, possibly too many to comply with WP:NFCC#3a; minimal use. In Rudy Lapick I don't see any justification especially because the only commentary is the image caption that includes: "inked by frequent collaborator Lapick." That image fails WP:NFCC#8 because the information does not require the use of a non-free image to convey that fact and can be easily understood by readers in prose alone. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this information has been useful. I'm trying to help with wikipedia in a few areas, and learning more as I go. I appreciate the generous spirit of the comments.Artofmine (talk)

Is this PD? What license?

An image reviewer at one of my recent FACs raised concerns about the file File:General_Green_Clay.jpg. In trying to track down some author information, I discovered that the original portrait is on display at White Hall State Historic Site, and the curator there told me by email that it "is not signed or dated" but "[i]t has been viewed by experts, who strongly believe that the painting was by Matthew Harris Jouett". If it is by Jouett, or even from his time period – he lived from 1788 to 1827 – it would definitely be public domain. That it is from this time period seems likely, as the subject of the portrait lived around the same time (1757-1828). The curator said the portrait was donated to the state historic site by a Clay family descendent sometime between 1968 and 1971. That's all the information I have. Is it enough to build a case that the portrait is PD? If so, what would be the most appropriate licensing tag. (I plan to move it to Commons if it is PD.) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Add and fully complete an {{information}} template. Fill in the details as best you can from what information you have stated above. There is little likelihood this was painted after the subject's death, so it must have been painted during his lifetime pre-1828, clearly making it PD. I doubt anyone will challenge it after that but who knows. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
So you'd just tag it as {{PD-1923}}? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. ww2censor (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for aid on reviewing images.

Hi all,

I'm currently reviewing 1962_Commonwealth_Paraplegic_Games for GA, and I'm a little unsure of myself regarding the images - the criteria for GA is that "6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content." and there are several images on the page that may or may not be valid under first use - would someone experienced in such matters mind having a quick look? Fayedizard (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, anyone? This is more-or-less the only thing holding back the article :( Fayedizard (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
A quick review:
Superstar! Thank you! Fayedizard (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

UK copyright on TV broadcasts

Insofar as I understand it, UK copyright law extends to 50 years after the date of initial broadcast. So would the video found here (or one I grabbed elsewhere) of the opening title sequence of Watch With Mother be permissible to include in the Wikipedia article? The first Watch With Mother broadcast was in 1953. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This would apply to material that was not otherwise copyrighted. Also you will have to consider the US law on this which would say that it hwas to be public domain in the country of origin by 1996 to be public domain in the US. A fair use may be possible however. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Limitations on non-free media

Here is an image from a Croatian government website. The site's legal notice says "All rights reserved. Content from these pages may be used without express permission, provided it is attributed to its source."

My understanding is:

  1. This license says content may be used for all purposes, as no limitations (e.g. on commercial use) are specified in this respect.
  2. This license does not permit derivative works, as it is not expressly allowed in the wording.
  3. Therefore this is not a free license - in particular, it is not Commons-compatible.
  4. Therefore the image in question is non-free content, so WP:NFCC applies in full.

If my understanding described in the above points is correct, I can conclude that:

  1. I can't use this image in the article Elections in Croatia, because it fails WP:NFCC criteria #1 (this is not a historical image, and the Croatian Parliament building is still standing, so it's possible to replace it with a free equivalent) and #8 (the image is not instrumental in understanding or illustrating the article's topic).
  2. Even if I could use the image, I would still have to supply a fair use rationale.

Now, WP:NFCC criteria #1 and #8 are primarily (exclusively?) meant to protect Wikipedia from legal challenges regarding invalid fair use claims. That's also why fair use rationales are needed. However, in this particular case it does not make any sense to me because, given the applicable legal notice, the use of the image would be clearly within the license, and it would be impossible to challenge a fair use claim because no fair use claim would be needed in the first place. Am I getting something wrong here? GregorB (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

NFCC is not solely to protect WP from legal claims (or more specifically, to assure that the use of material falls within the scope of US law), but in addition to assure that we aim WP towards the free content mission by avoiding the use of non-free images where free material can be used, and otherwise trivia/decorative use of non-free material. Yes, using that image would probably never see a legal challenge at all for it, but because it is limited in its redistribution beyond our own licenses, we have to treat it as non-free and assure all NFCC are met (which it does fail #1) --MASEM (t) 16:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I see the point. However, in effect this creates a disincentive for copyright holders to release content under no-derivative-works licenses, because, as illustrated above, such licenses are almost worthless. (Marginal benefit: at least one knows WP:NFCC #2 is met, because it is obvious that commercial impact of the use of such non-free content is nil.) Allowing derivative works on top of the existing license may seem like a small deal, but generally speaking it isn't. In this particular case: it would be nice to have portraits of all Croatian MPs, but the Croatian government would quite legitimately not want to allow people to create "derivative works" by drawing mustaches (or worse) on their faces. (So, you can't do that with MPs, but it just so happens it's fair game with the Prime Minister. :-) ) I'm wondering whether the existing provisions ultimately do more harm then good... GregorB (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we are bound in that aspect by the Foundation that requires use to seek out and use free content and avoid non-free content when knowing-possible. It is a shame that the Croatian gov't doesn't want derivative works, but that's their choice; of course in reality the type of people that would want to deface such images probably aren't going to be abiding by the copyright aspects they state, either. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The attitudes are changing - the current Croatian Prime Minister's portrait, as well as portraits of the cabinet members are all professionally produced and cc-by-2.0-licensed. The power and impact of Wikipedia are already making content producers and copyright owners think twice, and one can only hope for more benefits in the future. Thanks for your comments. GregorB (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Which is why its important to remember that that's why we want to encourage free content for redistribution, and use our NFCC towards that, as opposed to just considering as WP's legal protection. We will probably never become 100% free with no non-free, but the more people we can convince of releasing works in this form, the better. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in - I followed this from en.wiki - but does one have to opt in to allow derivative works? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
As in, are derivative works assumed to be not allowed if license in question says nothing? GregorB (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Yup. There's a different license to use if derivative works are permitted. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? I don't understand your answer and it might be that you misunderstand the question, if not, sorry: if a website says "Feel free to reuse with attribution" do we take that as CC-BY-SA compatible or only CC-BY-SA-ND compatible? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
If they don't specifically spell out the CC license, even if the net effect of all terms they state are equivalent to a CC license, we cannot assume a CC license. That said, if the website said that, this is where it may be good to contact them, follow procedure in WP:CONSENT, and/or getting a confirmation from OTRS that the material is under an acceptable free license. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hm, yes, I'm getting my wires crossed. But we do make a decision about whether content under other licences can be hosted by Wikipedia – the Open Government Licence, for example (e.g.) – and I'm almost certain that we don't host -ND content. Now, the OGL explicitly allows "adaptions", but if it didn't say anything on the matter, where would we be? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
When a new named open license (like that OGL) comes along and we know media may be available under it, we as a community can assess it (likely working with Commons) to affirm the license is free enough for use with commons, free enough to allow free use on en.wiki (though with some redistribution problems) or otherwise a non-free license, but we are starting with the aspect that we have a reuseable license that will come up main times more. When one random webpage puts forth a non-named license of its own, we don't have a similar process, though it may be the case at commons that these licenses can be reviewed and classified into a free license. (This is why the ORTS helps as they can do this as well, and tag images as such.) --MASEM (t) 22:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The content owners typically miss the fine point of explicitly allowing derivative works. Even Wikipedia may be slightly confused in this respect: if you go to the upload wizard, you encounter an option labelled "This is a free work.", explained as I can demonstrate that it is legally okay for anybody to use, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, for any purpose. But as we just concluded, this is actually not sufficient for a work to be called free in Wikipedia context, as creating derivative works can't be described as a purpose of use. This upload form got me confused in the first place, because the above explanation seems to fit what the government website said, but I think it's actually misleading. GregorB (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually looking at the form, if you select "This file is from a free published source." there is a license option for "other", meaning that that statement above suggests its comparable. So you could upload that image as a free image with that explanation for "other" but one should be prepared that that license appropriateness could be challenged. (I don't know if you do upload an image with "other" if it gets classified into a maintenance/review category to validate that nature). But yes, the free aspect has to include unrestricted reuse and allow for derivative works (with or without attribution). --MASEM (t) 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
That's right, it all hinges on the wording of the original license (the mandatory "Evidence" field), or rather on its interpretation. I chose to read it conservatively - as I hope you agree is the best way - and started with the assumption that derivative works are not allowed. The trouble here is that, even if the license explicitly said they are not allowed, one would still be fooled into choosing the "This is a free work" because the explanation provided omits the derivative works aspect altogether, despite the fact that it is obviously crucial for a free license. GregorB (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave a note on the upload form talk page to get that fixed. It should be clear that reuse includes not just republication but derivative works. --MASEM (t) 23:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the law regarding disposition of pirated works? References?

SHORT VERSION: What is the law regarding disposition of purchased pirated tangible works? References?

  • I think the answersshould be yes, a refund is required, and they don't need to return it, and do need to destroy it, and debt incurred for pirated goods is not valid. But I don't know what they are.

This is a 'Media Copyright Question' so I'm hoping this is a good place to get an informed answer, even though it's not wikipedia related, and if that bugs you, please accept my apologies; I have done a bunch of work improving some of wikipedia's copyright articles...


LONG VERSION:

  • Situation:
  • In the US, a person buys a copy of a copyrighted work (an artist's print, for example) and it's an unauthorized copy (a copy made without the authorization of the copyright holder).

1. (a) Is the person entitled under law to their money back?

  • (b) Do they need to return the work? Destroy it? What can/must they do with it?

2. Note: I think the following question has the same answer as 1 (a), but I'm asking it anyway, in case there's something relevant, though the questions above are more important to me. Question: If the person can't get their money back from the seller, and used a credit card to buy it, are they entitled under law to not pay for it if they file the appropriate dispute with their credit card company (without getting a ding on their credit report for a 'bad debt')?

NOTES:

  • I'm quite familiar with the usual legalities of credit card disputes, chargebacks and the main legislation - FCBA, FCRA, FDCPA, FACTA...
  • I'm also fairly familiar with copyright in general. Assume it's a recent work; copyright expiration is irrelevant.
  • I'm not interested in an answer that doesn't include references of some kind - I want to know what the law IS, not what someone thinks it should be...
  • I think the answersshould be yes, a refund is required, and they don't need to return it, and do need to destroy it, and debt incurred for pirated goods is not valid.

I found a very partial answer in statute.
§ 509. Seizure and forfeiture:
They "may be seized and forfeited to the United States."
In this case, let's assume the pirated goods have not been seized. That's the case I'm most interested in. --Elvey (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a reference desk question, not a media copyright question. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look. You did see my note in small print? --Elvey (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Because we cannot offer you any legal advise, I suggest that the best way to answer this question, even though it is media copyright related, is to consult an intellectual property attorney as there are legal issues involved in determining the correct response. ww2censor (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of my images on another website

I just discovered that an image I created (File:Man Utd vs Bayern Munich 1999-05-26.svg) is currently being used on another website (see here). I released that image for use under a CC-BY-SA licence, but I don't seem to have received credit on that website. Is there anything I can do about this? – PeeJay 12:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to file an abuse report at ImageShack where the file used in the forum is being hosted. Apart from that, I dare say this is a typical copy & paste copyright violation that you might find in hundreds of forums. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Um, isn't the whole point of Wikimedia that images you release are freely available for anyone to re-use? Surely you confirmed that at the time of upload? As it's free the subsequent user doesn't have to credit you in any way.Afterbrunel (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Re-use, with attribution. No attribution is a copyvio if the license requires attribution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg

Hi this claim of public domain seems to be very weak to me - is this sort of claim correct as per copyright law - simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S.Youreallycan 20:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the claim at all. I'd presume that was still copyrighted. Secretlondon (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't either - I am no longer contributing to Commons,or nominating anything for deletion there - would you do it? I will ask the uploader, User:Wikiwatcher1 to comment here - I also note the user is doing a fair bit of similar uploads - Wikiwatcher1 file uploads - like File:Glenn_Ford_-_signed.jpg - heres another one found on ebay? how does he know this picture found on ebay was "was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice."? Youreallycan 17:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
A link to film still is included on most of the images that relate to it. The article includes U.S. copyright and public domain issues with numerous cites. I'll try to answer any specific questions if they're presented. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (1)So please answer my above question - heres another one found on ebay? how does he know this picture found on ebay was "was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice."? - Youreallycan 16:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have nominated this image in Commons for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Which of the three linked images are you asking about? One photo at a time is best. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added a one and two - could you please answer below my questions so as to keep it clear -there is no rush - if you want to answer one now and one later, no problem or both later. Youreallycan 17:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Now that the Polanski image is tagged for deletion, discussion about it will resume on its deletion page. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That's fair enough - can you answer question 1 please - Youreallycan 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
If you examine the original upload along with the reverse side shown, you'll see that there is no copyright notice. In addition, it's printed in English, not German, her home country, and appears to be an original photo. The source of the photo describes it: "EDITH PEINEMANN - GERMAN VIOLINIST, VIOLIN SOLOIST 1960's PUBLICITY PHOTO." Her bio notes that she performed many times in the U.S. during the 1960s. Using the duck test seems reasonable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The duck test is absolutely not applicable to copyright claims - , this may be the issue with your desired contributions - are you applying duck test as a reason/verification for your uploads, as in .. it seems without copyright and looks un-copyrighted/public domain, so it is? Youreallycan 19:28, 29 June 2012 (UT::
I only used it here since the original publicity photo showed the full front and back and without a copyright notice. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the Edith picture may have been taken elsewhere outside U.S., and the photographer must have given the photo to U.S. agency after 30 days of first publication. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Using scans of pictures in very old books

I mostly edit articles relating to the period between 1830 and 1890. One picture is worth a thousand words, and there are a lot of useful images out there in long-since out-of-copyright books that I would like to use. I can't find where in the labyrinth of wikipedia help pages that this is allowed or disallowed. If it is allowed, the wikimedia declaration looks scary and doesn't seem to allow this.Afterbrunel (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are certain the books are out of copyright, you are free to scan in the images within the book (working on the presumption that images are also out of copyright) and upload them as free images at Commons, as long as you, the scanner/duplicator, are giving them as a free license to WP. You can look through Commons:Copyright_tags to see which tag best applies as a old PD work (eg for US works before 1923, "PD-US"). The upload form field should be self-explanatory there. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Copying images from books with expired copyrights in Google Books

A diagram of Benjamin Franklin's heating stove appears on page 50 of John Pickering Putnam's The Open Fire-place in All Ages (1880). I would like to copy that image, add it to Wikipedia's image files, and add it to Wikipedia's article about the Franklin stove.

Can I copy from Google Books an image that appeared in a book with expired U.S. copyright, use it to create a Wikipedia image file, and then post it in a Wikipedia article?

Cwkmail (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, assuming the book was first published in the US. Faithful scans of public domain works are also public domain. Tag the image with {{PD-1923}} and upload to Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2012/June&oldid=1089814692"