Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/April

Not a media copyright question, but wanting to get knowledgeable folks to comment....

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Works_that_are_PD_in_US_but_not_in_country_of_origin. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Why

Hello everyone, Yesterday i have write an article about my group of volunteers in Albania with name Bring life to the city and someone of you have deleted my article for copyright of this page in facebook which is mine https://www.facebook.com/Bring-Life-to-the-City-BLC-1626951060893237/info/?tab=page_info. Please i want an answer.This is my group and dosn't have any illegal thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enea23 (talk • contribs) 9:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We have a policy here that whenever you add text or images that you have published before, you need to confirm your authorship and copyright by sending an email to the local volunteer team of Wikipedians. This is because anyone could make such claims, and on the other hand we need to know the licence that you would like to grant for this text at Wikipedia.

That said, this is the English language Wikipedia where all content shall be written in English. Please note that there is also an Albanian Wikipedia where you can write articles in Albanian like you did here. At the Albanian version of Wikipedia you should first look for a page that explains where to send your email of consent for donating your text to Wikipedia. And please note also that all subjects need to be notable enough to have an encyclopedic article. Since it is your own group you also have a conflict of interest which is also problematic. All in all, it would be best if you waited for someone else to write an article about your group. De728631 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Regina-belle-baby-come-to-me-columbia.jpg

Is the image copyrightable? --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a good question. The label itself seems to be too simple for copyright and since the photograph itself is basically just a scan I wouldn't think that there is much original work in it either. I'd be interested in other editors' opinions though. De728631 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

British university logos

I recently checked some logos of British universities, and we're rather inconsistent there regarding copyright. For example,

• File:University of Cambridge coat of arms official.svg is claimed to be in the public domain whereas
• File:University of Cambridge logo.svg is claimed to be non-free.

Since the latter is the former plus some text, both cannot be true. Since the coat of arms likely is centuries old, I would guess the public domain claim is the correct one. Similarly:

• File:University of Oxford logo.svg is claimed to be non-free, File:Oxford University Coat Of Arms.svg is claimed to be PD. These differ more than for Cambridge, but I still doubt the modern logo is copyrightable.
• File:University of St Andrews coat of arms.svg is claimed to be non-free but should also be centuries old, unless they designed an entirely new coat of arms in the 20th or 21st century.
• File:Uni shield for wikipedia.png and File:New Glasgow Crest.png both are claimed to be non-free,
• File:University of Edinburgh logo.png and File:University of Edinburgh logo.svg (which differs from the first one and likely should be renamed) are both claimed to be non-free.

Could someone more familiar with British copyright law and its application to heraldry please take a look and check what's correct here? Huon (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Going by originality I suspect all of them are copyrightable in the US. Medieval coats of arm are PD by virtue of age so if any of these is a medieval heraldric it would be public domain - I don't think that even the UK has copyrights on medieval works. Also, given commons:COM:COA one has to wonder whether these are user-made interpretations of a coat of arms, which is subtly different from a regular logo.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Most examples above are clearly renderings / interpretations created recently. As such, they would be under copyright of the graphic artists or their employers. There may be a few exceptions, such as File:New Glasgow Crest.png, which looks like it could be a reproduction of an old rendering from an old document, but the file has no contextual source or information, so precaution requires to consider it non-free, unless evidence is provided that it is free. By contrast, File:Uni shield for wikipedia.png is clearly a recent drawing, not a mere scan of an old one. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So what's the opinion on Cambridge? Does the Coat of Arms on the Commons need to be tagged for deletion, or is the one on Wikipedia itself PD? I don't think "neither" is a valid option. Huon (talk) 22:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Commons file should be deleted. Actually, it was nominated for deletion there. The reason for deletion is well explained in the comments by users Stefan4 and Kathisma. The problem is that the closing admin closed it as kept. This particular decision is contrary to the policy and to the usual decisions in similar cases, but when that happens users may hesitate to renominate the file and the copyvio remains. You can see also Commons:Coats of arms for details. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Accidentally uploaded an image I was trying to use in my teahouse profile!

Please delete the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:File-Acapulco_sunset_summer.jpg

I was trying to select an image for my teahouse profile on Wikipedia commons and somehow I uploaded the image! Please delete it- I'm perfectly OK with it! I guess it's a newbie mistake! I love Wikipedia and editing articles! I will stay away from media, for now :) Thanks, Zara (CRFZara) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRFZara (talk • contribs) 08:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC+9)

Hi CRFZara. I've tagged the file with {{db-f8}} per WP:F8 since the same file exists on Wikimedia Commons. For furture reference, you do not need to re-upload any files you find on Wikimedia Commons locally to English Wikipedia. All you need to do is add the file's markup to the article, etc. where you want to use it. You can find out more about this at Help:Files. In addition, if you mistakenly upload something similar in the future, you can tag it for speedy deletion yourself if it meets the conditions listed in WP:F8. Finally, please try to remember to always sign any posts you make to talk pages or noticeboards such as this. There are a number of ways to do this, but the most common is 4 tilde. Signing not only lets other editors know who made the post, but also when it was made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded one of my own photos

How do I upload one of my own photos? It does not have a copyright.

Thanks! Beezing (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Any image you take has a copyright and you own it. You can decide to licence the image under a number of different restrictive or non-restrictive licences but we only accept non-restrictives ones such as {{cc-by-2.0}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} or higher, i.e., 3.0 or 4.0 or {{attribution}}. The Creative Commons tags are most commonly used and are recommended but you can see most of the free licences at WP:TAGS/FL and the ones on the commons are at c:COM:TAGS and some are slightly different and theirs is a very long list. It is best you upload such images to the commons where others can use them for other language projects not just the enwiki. ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

i found a "free" image.. how can you help me know if it works for Wiki..?

i found a "free" image.. how can you help me know if it works for Wiki..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organist00 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Can you link to it? Also I assume "free" as in free - some people think it means "freely available".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Is this a copyvio?

Our Norman Birnbaum article includes some dubious wording that I thought looked like it was copy-pasted from a blurb on a book or some such, so I Googled and found this. It seems quite likely that this external bio's wording and this Wikipedia edit from nine years ago have some "common ancestry":

TruthDig bio	Our article
Birnbaum is a founding editor of the New Left Review, and is a member of the editorial board of The Nation. He advises parties, unions and political groups on both sides of the Atlantic.	A member of the founding editorial board of New Left Review, he has been active in politics on both sides of the Atlantic. He has been an advisor to US trade unions and members of the US Congress, as well as to a number of social movements and political parties in Europe.
he is currently writing a memoir.	He is presently writing a memoir.

It's entirely possible that this was just a sloppy attempt to change the text just enough so as not to be a copyvio, and the text that was consulted was the exact text I found, but if that's the case then is copy-pasting the words "on both sides of the Atlantic" okay?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am giving a personal opinion here. I think the rewording is sufficient to avoid copyright issues. There is a limited number of ways of writing a very brief potted biography. I also don't think it amounts to WP:PLAGIARISM in its context in the article for similar reasons. The edit you have pointed out seems to have been by the subject himself (edit comment and username) so WP:COI is relevant but in this case I don't think the article has been biassed by the one edit. However, by current standards a contribution on the talk page would have been preferable. Back in 2007 no one considered that sort of thing. If the effect of the edit is still unsatisfactory I suggest changing the article appropriately. Thincat (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I totally missed the "by" in the edit summary -- somehow I read it as "on". I noticed the username and thought it was just a fan of his. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Images from the article Vladimir Lenin

I am currently reviewing the article Vladimir Lenin for good article status, and one of the criteria is "images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content", which is clear enough. The problem is in determining whether images are public domain in the USA or not.

The two images I am most confused by are this one and this one.

The first was published in 1924 (in the USSR; I can't see when in the US), and so as I understand it, it might remain in copyright until 2019 if the copyright was correctly renewed. The question for this then becomes: is there a simple way I can use to determine whether or not the copyright was renewed?

The second is tagged as being in the public domain in the US, but potentially not in the ninth circuit. As wikipedia is based in California, does that mean that it is not public domain for wikipedia's purposes?

Additionally, there are a whole bunch of other images in the article published before 1923. Am I right in thinking that these are all in the public domain in the US?

Finally, there are three more images which have neither an author nor a date of publication associated with them. Two this and this must have been produced before 1895, as their subjects were dead (in the case of Marx) or dying (Engels died in the middle of 1895) by then. The third seems to be from the Russian Civil War (1917-20), and was presumably published during the Civil War, but I don't know that for certain. Can anyone shed any light on whether these are okay? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

For Pogrzeb Lenina1924, while you can search the US Copyright office, I believe that's limited to only more recent records and to search during that time you'd have to get the physical records. I would safely assume it as non-free.

For Tov lenin ochishchaet, I believe that the WP servers (and thus jurisdiction) is Virgina or Florida, meaning that the 9th circuit issue doesn't apply. It still is important to tag it with that to alert those in the 9th circuit of the the issue of reuse. That can be kept PD with the 9th circuit note.

For the other images published before 1923, you are correct that they are in the public domain.

The last three images really depend on whether they were published or not. Just because we can date the images doesn't mean that's the date for publication, which is the key factor. That said, the first two images appear to be from a site that asserts that the material is in public domain, which is a reasonable claim based on the age, and since they are at commons, they should be okay. Similarly the last one definitely looks like pre-1923, and since it's at commons, it should be okay too. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such a clear and comprehensive answer. It makes such a nice change from reading about US copyright law! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Photo copyright ask/deletion of Smt. Usha Datar - what needs to be done?

Hello,

I recently uploaded a couple of photographs of Smt. Usha Datar. These were provided by Smt. Usha Datar and I have her verbal permission to upload these.

Could you please let me know what needs to be done/corrected, so that these are not deleted from wikipedia, as there does not seem to be a need for any other licence to be obtained.

Thanks, Raophi (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about File:Kalamandalam Usha Datar.jpg and File:Smt. Usha Datar.jpg. Obviously these images were not taken by the subject herself, so she cannot give you permission to use them here under a free licence, unless she also acquired the copyright. Usually it is the photographer to own the copyright, so you will have to get the copyright owner to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to checking eligibility of an image

I would like to get this image from a 1901 French magazine checked for eligibility for use in an article I am working on. I have discussed my concerns on its talk page. I am confident it would not be appropriate for Wikimedia Commons as it is was placed in the public domain by the French National Library for non-commercial use. Because of its age, have I used the correct licence for acceptable use on Wikipedia? If not, I'd rather have it deleted now than use it in a GA-nominated article and then have it removed later. Many thanks Parkywiki (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It was published before 1923, so PD-US works for using it on en.wiki. However, I question how the French can put it to PD and then claim only for non-commercial use. PD means there are zero restrictions on the image use. The situation sounds similar to the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, in which there the NPG claimed that their hi-res scans of works that were clear in the PD were copyrighted. For the time being please use the image here, but you might want to ask at Commons to get clarity on the French PD/copyright issue. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• The author is not unknown. The work is signed.
• On en.wikipedia, a more specific tag and parameter might be {{PD-art|Pd-1923-abroad}}. If you want to be hyper-safe and you want the file to be kept on en.wikipedia even if it gets copied to Commons, you can add the template "Keep local".
• On Commons, the problem is to find the information about the author.
  • The file will be kept on Commons if you provide evidence that the author died before 1946, to conform to the policy of Commons. You would categorize the file in Commons:Category:1901 Le Petit Journal, a subcategory of Commons:Category:Le Petit Journal.
  • Commons might accept the file if you show that, after a serious research, it was impossible to find the year of the death of the author, but the status of the file on Commons may remain uncertain, because it can't be assumed that an author who was active in 1901 died before 1946.
  • About the matter of the possible copyrightability in some countries of reproductions of public domain works, the policy of Wikimedia and Commons is summarized on Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, Commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs and Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. There are disputes from museums in the United Kingdom, Germany and France, about some aspects. That might affect some local projects. But Commons accepts reproductions of public domain works.
• The statements on the BNF websites are weak on two counts:
  • The information about the copyright of the original works is often incomplete and unspecific. When it says "public domain", sometimes you can figure out a reason why it is indeed in the public domain, but sometimes you really must do your own research to determine the copyright status of the works.
  • The claim about law 78-753 du 17 juillet 1978 is a different matter. This law is a freedom of access to information law to facilitate the use of documents by the public. When, instead, some administrations attempt to use this law to do the opposite and attempt to restrict the use of public domain works, that is, IMO, abusive. See also Commons:Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/06#Cultural public data in France.

-- Asclepias (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you - these are immensely helpful contributions, and I will look into the links you have given to understand them further. I conclude that I am safe to keep the image on en.wikipedia, but should consider changing the template. I really appreciate the idea of flagging a file to be kept locally. From past experience, I have no confidence in Wikimedia administrators being prepared to accept that evidence is actively being sought to support or investigate the status of an image once it has been flagged for deletion. If anyone thinks such complex matters can be initiated, investigated and resolved within 7-10 days, they are not living in the real world; I do not think Wikimedia administrators reside there. Parkywiki (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Archie McDiarmid photo - PD or or not in USA?

I found a photo for use on the article for Archie McDiarmid. The image is part of the City of Vancouver archives which provides detailed information about authorship and copyright status. It is public domain in Canada. However, I am unsure as to its status with respect to the US. Per the archive information, Aug. 1926 is the creation date and the creator is Thomson, Stuart (1881-1960). Would this be PD in US as well allowing it to be uploaded to Common? If not, then I would use it under fair use as the subject has been deceased since 1957. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to treat this as non-free, but clearly acceptable for illustrating a deceased person. Per the copyright table, this falls into the section for works published abroad between 1923 and 1978, and we have to look to Canada's PD law for that. They are 50+life, so this would have been PD in Canada in 2010. However, this is after the January 1996 date, so per that table, the US still considers it to have a copyright until 95 years after publication. If we assume as early as 1926 (the photo date), this won't be PD until 2021 in the US. Hence we'll have to treat it non-free, but acceptable as a non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

This 1926 photograph entered public domain in Canada in 1977: year of creation+50+1. The amendment to the Copyright Act, which later changed the rule to life+50+1, did not restore copyrights to photographs that were already in the public domain. This photograph stayed in the public domain. The question about the U.S. copyright depends when and where the photo was published. This photo looks like one that would likely have been published. And the Vancouver archives website mentions that Thomson contributed to three Vancouver newspapers. It's very reasonable to think that the photo was published in Canada in 1926. And that it is in the public domain in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmm, the charts between pub+50 + life+50 for Canada seem at some odds, But that said, researching this further, there seems to be something in Canadian copyright that all photographs before Jan 1 1949 are automatically PD (see [1]), regardless of anything else. So that would definitely make this PD too. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll upload it as a non-free image. --Whpq (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It actually might be free, but it cannot hurt now to upload a very-much usable image as non-free as we can switch the licenses later. (it's when we assume PD and might be wrong that's problematic) --MASEM (t) 23:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded a low resolution version at File:Archie McDiarmid.jpg. If we could determine for sure this is PD in the US, this would be great as we could then upload the high resolution verision. -- Whpq (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No copyright tag, how to fix?

I am warned about an image that I just uploaded with a nasty message saying the image "does not have a copyright tag". How do I put on a copyright tag? Roger Hui (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, found the answer. Read more; type less. Roger Hui (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Upload to commons or not?

Hi, I have found pictures on the website of a museums website, the one I'm thinking of uploading is from betwen 1933-1936 and was taken in Canada. The website has a copyright section which says that the pictures can be used for educational purposes as long as the museum is credited. Can I upload one of those pictures to commons or should I do it somewhere else?

PS: This is a picture of a person who has been deceased since 2003, if that makes any difference.*Treker (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Link, please. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To the picture?*Treker (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The source website, the picture and its context. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok.

http://ww2.glenbow.org/search/archivesPhotosResults.aspx?AC=GET_RECORD&XC=/search/archivesPhotosResults.aspx&BU=&TN=IMAGEBAN&SN=AUTO30452&SE=1880&RN=4&MR=10&TR=0&TX=1000&ES=0&CS=0&XP=&RF=WebResults&EF=&DF=WebResultsDetails&RL=0&EL=0&DL=0&NP=255&ID=&MF=WPEngMsg.ini&MQ=&TI=0&DT=&ST=0&IR=38003&NR=0&NB=0&SV=0&BG=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1

https://www.glenbow.org/copyright.cfm

*Treker (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

If the photograph was created in 1936, it is in the public domain in Canada since 1987. But to be used freely on en.wikipedia, it would have to be in the public domain in the United States and, for that, it would have had to be published. The problem in this case is that the Glenbow website seems to say that the photographs in their collection were unpublished [2]. The notion of publication is not obvious, but unless someone can find evidence, or can make a convincing case, that this photograph was published before 1989, it can probably not be considered as a free image on en.wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, any photo that is known to date before 1949 in Canada is PD in Canada, publication or not, and would automatically then be PD in the US. --MASEM (t) 03:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. You must consider where the 1949 reference comes from. It is only one particular consequence, inside Canada, and on some types of photographs, of the calculation of the proper number of years, in application of the copyright rules and of their amendments. The rule was that the copyright in Canada of any photograph expired at the end of the 50th year after its creation. For example, any photograph created in 1923 is in the public domain in Canada since the beginning of 1974, any photograph created in 1948 is in the public domain in Canada since the beginning of 1999, etc. An important amendement to the Copyright Act was adopted in 1997 and came into force in 1999. From then, the rule for photographs of identified individual authorship (but not for photos of corporate authorship, which were the object of a later amendment, in 2013) became that their copyright expired at the end of the 50th year after the death of the author. That amendment was not retroactive, so the photographs for which the 50 years since creation had already passed remained in the public domain. Practically, counting backwards 50 years from the 1999 coming into force of that amendment, you can conclude that photographs created before 1949 had already passed the 50-years-from-creation time and thus they remained in the public domain. However, when considering the copyright of those photographs in the United States, you must remember that there is nothing special about the year 1949 as such. It is only the result to which one arrives when applying the proper calculation, creation year+50, to determine the last creation year to which the old copyright rule applies in Canada, counting backwards from 1999. In the United States, because of the URAA-related provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act, you must determine if the copyright on a published work had already expired in its country of origin before the URAA reference date. For determining the copyright status in the United states of Canadian works (published between 1923 and March 1989), the URAA reference year from which you must count 50 years backwards is 1996. That is to say, for photographs published in Canada before March 1989 and not published simultaneously (within six months) in the United States, you can conclude that any photograph created before 1946 is in the public domain in the United States. Note that photographs created in 1946, in 1947 and in 1948 are in the public domain in Canada but they are under copyright in the United States. Thus, the "rule of thumb", when considering the U.S. copyright of Canadian photographs, is "created before 1946". However, remember also that unpublished works and works published anywhere after February 1989 are directly under U.S. copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For the US, we accept a foreign work as PD if that work was PD in its originating country as of Jan. 1, 1996. My understanding of the Canadian copyright change is that up until 1997, photograph copyright started the moment the photo was taken (not published!) and 50yr beyond that (after 1997 the laws changed). So as of 1997, a 1936 photo had entered the Canadian PD (that happened in 1986 or 1987). So the US would treat it as PD as well. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned in my first answer, a photo created in 1936 entered the public domain in Canada in 1987, indeed. However, the statement "for the US, we accept a foreign work as PD if that work was PD in its originating country as of Jan. 1, 1996" applies only to foreign works that were in the scope of the copyright restoration provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act, that is to say, foreign works published before March 1989, but whose copyrights were not restored if their copyright in their country of origin had expired before the URAA reference date, 1996 in the case of Canada. The statement does not apply to foreign works that were not in the scope of the copyright restoration provisions, that is to say, works published after February 1989, which are under U.S. copyright independently of the copyright provisions of their country of origin. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean, US copyright for unpublished works ignores the country of origin for all purposes. But this raises a question of when the photo was "published" by the museum, in that simply having it as part of its collection that could be duplicated. The museum says 50 years old, so its quite possible they had this photo to offer before 1977 and the photo lacks copyright formalities, which then would trigger the PD aspect for US law. That said, that's a very narrow window and requirement, so yes, without deeper digging into the photo's history, we should assume it non-free, which doesn't mean it can't be used if this is for an article on the person photograhped who is now deceased, for example. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The man in the photograph is Stu Hart, he died in 2003. As of right now his article has two photos but both are in my opinion very inadequate in portraying who he was, one is of him as a baby and the other is of him as an 86 year old. (Which is also not a free image as far as I can tell.)

He was a wrestler and the photo that is from Glenbow Museum shows that very well. I would very much like for it to be used in the article. If I can, how should I upload it?

Thanks alot for all the information by the way.*Treker (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would agree that this photo under discussion is a much better representation of Hart; while there should be discussion at the Stu Hart talk page to determine which is best, you should be able to use this as a non-free image there to illustrate a notable, deceased person per NFCC, and if for some reason it actually turns out to be PD, hey, great. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. So that means I can upload it to commons or somewhere else? Thanks*Treker (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Not immediately to commons. Per Asclepias' logic on the copyright issues, that photo of Hart is copyrighted, so it can't go to commons. It is definitely possible to use on Hart's page. You can upload to en.wiki as a non-free (as a historic photo) with the Upload Wizard tool. You just might need to open discussion on that talk page about where to put the image, as the infobox or somewhere else, but that's outside the scope of MCQ. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I will open a discussion about it.*Treker (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Hi Hi Hi" / "C Moon" by Wings

I want to upload labels of the vinyl release. Is the text copyrightable in the UK? --George Ho (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

File

Hi I just received the following notice concerning a file I uploaded File:David Martin Wilson Clerk of the NZ House of Representatives 2015.jpg "I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please: 1.Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. 2.On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject)."

I uploaded the file as a Fair Use non-free work and, as stated in the information provided on upload, this file was given to me by the owner for the purpose of uploading to Wikipedia. Should I re-upload the file and select "this is a free work"?NZHistoryResearch (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how can be this file connected with our page? I know nothing about this file, and it is not anyhow connected with our party's page. So probably you mistakenly wrote me about this. This file is not present on our page. So, just delete it, if you need.

Icons for the Disinfectant antivirus software

For the Disinfectant software, there is a color icon and a B&W icon. Would either of these two icons be below the threshold of originality for the US? --Elegie (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As a follow-up, my guess is that the color icon is copyrightable, but that the B&W icon just might be below the US TOO. --Elegie (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? --Elegie (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

If it helps, a screenshot with the B&W icon for Disinfectant is shown in this blog entry (the icon is under the "April 7, 1995" text) and a number of icons for Disinfectant (including color and B&W icons) are shown in a screenshot at this archive (search for "Programmes malveillants sous mac [maj 31/05]".) For the article on the Disinfectant antivirus software, it would seem useful for an icon to be added to the info box if at all possible. --Elegie (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use

Greetings! — I recently uploaded File:Howard Henry Peckham.jpg image under a 'fair use' license for use in the Howard Henry Peckham article. I believe it satisfies 'Fair use' requirements. If the file is 'good to go' would an administrator or patroller add the ' |image has rationale=yes ' parameter to the license template? Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's acceptable and I've updated as such. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Gaylord Sangston Truesdell, the artist in his studio. Courtesy of the Frick Collection - Frick Art Reference Library Archives.jpg

I have uploaded this picture of the subject artist, and having trouble finding the correct tag for the image. I have written permission from the Frick to use the photo, but can't identify the proper tag. Symphony4142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symphony4142 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well you uploaded that image about 6 months ago and it was deleted because no copyright tag had been provided even though a notice was posted on your talk page. Usually such images are deleted after about 7 days. Can you provide an online url to the page the image appears on online and we can review it for you? Did you get permission from the Frick and if so exactly what sort of permission did they give? Perhaps the image is old enough to be out of copyright. The image can be restored but we need more details to help you. On the other hand, if you can provide the deleting editor User:Explicit with details as asked above they may be able to restore the image for you. ww2censor (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Vanessa Ferlito images

Could some other people take a look at Vanessa Ferlito and today's edits/uploads by Cquarto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Several times in the last year, users have uploaded copyrighted images of Ferlito saying that they have permission or the photographer released the image for use. However, no one has ever shown that USA Network (who presumably owns the image in a "work for hire" situation) releases it. A free image does exist, but apparently the subject does not like it based on previous edit summaries at the article. Cquarto has uploaded the image 3 times under different file names in the last few hours. I would love it if someone else can help me sort through this. only (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you that the old image is not as good as the new, obviously professional, image. It is unlikely USA Network will freely licence that image but we can hope. Anyway, if no OTRS verification arrives it will then be deleted, so maybe just watchlist the image and the article, and then restore the old one. There is no use getting into an edit war if it will be resolved by the lack of a licence. The uploader has a history of uploading copyright images and there may be some justification is requesting he be blocked for a time for those actions. It might be a wake-up call but who knows. ww2censor (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia file upload wizard is horrible!

this page is so difficult to upload photos - it took me twnety minutes jsut to upload one photo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscowamerican (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 April 2016‎

Exactly what problems did you have? ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

On flickr you can just upload the pictures, and choose one license . here you have to go through all of these steps. Moscowamerican (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Moscowamerican: Or, as the Upload Wizard suggests, use the plain form for local uploads to complete an upload in just one step (including choosing the appropriate license/s). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not readily apparent. It is very difficult to use this. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscowamerican (talk • contribs) 07:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Using the unguided plain form was unfortunately not a good piece of advice. The upload wizard is designed the way it is in order to guide newcomers not only to understand what information to provide for their uploads, but also to realize when any attempt at uploading an image is going to be futile because an image simply doesn't fit the requirements of our policies. The plain form, when used by newcomers, almost invariably leads to invalid uploads, because users aren't given this necessary information. Unsurprisingly, the image you uploaded lacked copyright and fair-use information. It's been tagged for deletion. I'm afraid to say it won't be much use trying to salvage it by adding better tags, because it very much looks like it's always going to fall short of the non-free content rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

If you are trying to upload Flickr images, it is possibly even better to the the Flickr2commons tool found at http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/index.html. It even checks to make sure the licence is acceptable and uploads the highest resolution; you don't even need to download the image to your computer first, so saving several steps and it even does batch uploads from albums. BTW, this editor asked me to help upload an image for him but it is copyright so I explained (see my talk page). ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

==License tagging for File:Lets get married from youtube 2008 show.png==

Thanks for uploading File:Lets get married from youtube 2008 show.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscowamerican (talk • contribs)

Blurred Lines

I am the primary editor of Emily Ratajkowski. Her article has a great deal of text related to controversies surrounding the song "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke. The "Blurred Lines" article and the Thicke articles also have a lot of related text. I am wondering several things about possibly sampling the video for use in these articles:

1. Is it something that would be allowable considering WP:NFCC?
2. I have sampled the music from songs and have been governed by the lesser of 10% of the duration of the song and 30 seconds. Do videos have the same limitations for sampling?
3. Does the sample have to be a continuous segment or could I take 10 seconds from one section 10 from another and 7 from another?
4. Do I have to use the SFW version, which does not really present all of the controversies? Can I use the NSFW version or the side-by-side comparison?

I don't really think the SFW version would really explain much in the Ratajkowski video because her nudity is largely what the encyclopedic controversies are about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• On the easy questions: Yes, video is similarly constrained to 30 s/10% of the work whichever is less. It doesn't have to be continuous, so that the total amount should still be under the 30s/10%. WP is not censored and if it the nudity in the video that is a controversy, then that's likely the version to include.
• But as to the NFCC question, I'm not sure if you can justify the use of the video at Ratajkowski's article. That the video was controversial and she was in it are relevant, but that I assume is discussed in depth on the Blurred Lines article, and the reader of Ratajkowski's article does not gain anything by seeing the video on her page. The issues was not how she looked, simply that there was a choice to use nude models in general in that video which raised ires. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I know you are very cognizant of at least two paragraphs in the Ratajkowski article, but have you considered the current extensive content related to the song/video's controversies in the Ratajkowski article? Also, I am becoming aware that I often discuss "the song" in Ratajkowski's article when I mean to say "the video of the song" or simply "the video". I may need to change this content. I have to think about the content and the video and see exactly what 27 seconds I would want to present for NFCC consideration. You say the with-nudity version is O.K. Does it make sense to show the side by side version or should I simply consider the with-nudity version.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I see that a WP:GOCE session is actually making great changes to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
      • When I look at the Blurred Lines page and the controversy over the video , which seems to be more on the issues of the song's lyrics and the use of nudity on the video that seems to objectify women per the complaints, I have to ask if one needs video to show this. I think a still of the video seems reasonable to include on the video's page (which can come from the uncensored version), but a video segment really isn't necessary, as with a still, everything else can be explained in prose. And to that point, there's almost no need for the image to be used on Ratajkowski, since the controversy on the video is not about her specifically, but the choice to use nude models. --MASEM (t) 20:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
        • I am not sure how complete the "Blurred Lines" page is, but there are several related controversies. We certainly don't need media to help the reader understand that there were naked dancing women. Nudity in the video was an issue. Rapey lyrics were an issue. Demeaning lyrics in the song and demeaning/degrading choreography in the video were also issues. I think that the video might help explain the demeaning element, but I have to make sure that the prose exists to present such media. I'll review the current content and the sources in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Masem--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

On the Blurred Lines video , if there is sourced discussion that the specific dancing being done was demeaning/degrading, a video clip might be appropriate, but that really depends on if the dancing aspect is discussed in any detail. If people just said "oh, I think it's demeaning" but no specific reasoning why, you can't really support a video clip for that. If instead it was people saying a specific move was a problem, and then there was defense or rebuttal, so that that reader seeing the specific move can judge for themselves then yes. But that's all for the video. I see no way that that can justify the same on Ratajkowski's page, even (I don't know if this was the case) if she was the dancer that is at the center of the controversy. It's still about the video, not herself as a BLP, so non-free in that manner would not be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding use

Hello

I found an image on a website that I wanted to use. I emailed the owner of the site for permission to use in Auxiliary labels and they said it would be fine if I cite the source. Is this permission enough or do I need to ask them to release it under a Free license? -- TOW  17:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It does depend on what the image is. From what I know of Auxiliary Labels, I have a feeling that we would be able to have a free image of those, but this is without knowledge of what the picture you think you want to use would be. If we can get a free image, then we would need to have that website grant a free image permission to use their image. But again, this is without knowing what image you'd like to include. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It is the image on this page. All the professor said when I emailed him was If you will just cite the website, that would be great.-- TOW  17:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not good enough. If he is the actual copyright holder, not just his website, then he needs to release them under a free licence and/or he could release one image that way and verify his permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of photos I have uploaded

Good Day,

I uploaded two photos of Progressive Conservative Party of Nova Scotia MLAs Alfie-MacLeod1 and Eddie-Orrell1. They were flagged as not meeting the criteria of fair use, a ruling for which I agree after receiving notification from a Wikipedia editor.

I would like the two photos to be removed as I am currently in touch with the organization that took the photos so I may just get their permission to post the photos to make things easier.

Could those photos be removed so I may upload them later with the author's permission?

Thank you, CharlesFAllison — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesFAllison (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Because the images, File:Eddie-Orrell1.jpg and File:Alfie-MacLeod1.jpg have been uploaded without proper permission and your request here was noted, they will be deleted in due course. Then when permission is received by the OTRS Team those images will be restored; you don't even need to reupload them. Just get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT making sure to give the image names. ww2censor (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted the two images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Twitter profile picture copirighted?

I am currently working on a page from scratch about a person. For this page I want to use his profile picture from Twitter. My question is: is a Twitter profile picture free or is it copyrighted. And if it is copyrighted, is there a way in which I can still use the picture. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucianonooijen (talk • contribs) 13:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless the image is specifically noted to be freely licensed, then it is under copyright and we cannot use it. You could ask that person to release the image under a free licence by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT but the photos are usually copyright to the photographer and not the subject of the photo. BTW, please sign you posts by placing 4 tildes, like this ~~~~, at the end of your post. ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Doordash logo.png - copyrightable in the US?

Is the Doordash logo copyrightable in the US?

If the logo is copyrightable, there is a previous revision on the image's description page that should probably be hidden. If the logo is below the threshold of originality, then it would seem that the previous higher-resolution revision of the logo could be used and the image license changed to something like {{PD-logo}} + {{Trademark}}. Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: The previous revision has been hidden by Sphilbrick. --Elegie (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding non-free cover art to the MORE software article

This question concerns the WP article on the MORE software. Could a low-resolution version of this scan of the MORE 3.1 box be added to the main infobox of the article as a case of {{Non-free software cover}}? (For the scan, is there only the copyright on the packaging to consider (with the scan itself being a slavish reproduction and not having any copyright of its own) or is it possible that the scan itself has its own copyright?) --Elegie (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

File:I Wanna Be Your Lover by Prince US vinyl 1979.jpg

The only copyrightable part of this record label seems to be the coloured WB Records logo on the left, so I'm wondering if it would count as de-minimis. After all, the rest of the label is plain text and it appears to be a faithful copy without any artistic merit in the photograph which would qualify it for free use on Commons. What do others think about this? De728631 (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

My gut says no, that the WB logo doesn't qualify for the de minimis exception. It is part of the label, and while small, still intrinsic to it. Contrast this to File:WarnerStudio.jpg, a shot of their studio where the logo is visible, but not intrinsic to the shot. However, it cannot hurt to ask over at Commons too. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Flickr licence

Is the Flickr licence for this compatible with Wikipedia? The license info is here, and doesn't appear to be too restrictive. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but no, we do not accept images with either a non-commercial or non-derivative restriction,. This image had a non-derivative licence. ww2censor (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Abaja.jpg

The image File:Abaja.jpg, uploaded on 10 June 2015, appears to be a cropped version of the image in this forum post from 2011. Even if the uploaded image doesn't come from that particular source, it's clear that the uploaded image existed before 2015. It's not clear to me that the image in the forum post is owned by the uploader. I'm not sure what to do so I'm bringing it up here. Thanks. 99.236.126.232 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll tag it for the copyright issue problems. --MASEM (t) 05:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Bach image

Can I use this image commercially?

File:Bach-1725-Organ.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.5.12.220 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes you may. The image is old enough to be in the public domain. You may use it in any way you like without restrictions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Media copyright questions can't give you legal advice. In this particular type of situation, it's not possible to just tell yes or no, you can or can't do something. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions can draw your attention to certain facts and aspects to consider, but you'll have to make your own evaluation, eventually with the help of a legal professional in your country. The situation may depend on several factors, including where you would use the image, the laws and the jurisprudence in the country or countries involved and the level of uncertainty with which you are comfortable. Firstly, from the EXIF data and the source url, you can note that this particular reproduction, through another site, is copied from the Getty website, where this reproduction of a British Museum print is attributed to a photographer and is offered for payment under managed rights. See there. Secondly, note that the description page of the file on Wikimedia includes the warning template PD-Art. Please read carefully what that template says and the help page to which it links, there. Thirdly, your IP address is of a provider in Germany. If you plan to use the reproduction in that country, you should consider the information relative to the use in that country. You may want to be aware that organizations in Germany are currently in a dispute with Wikimedia over the issue of uses of reproductions in Germany, for example in the matter of this reproduction. To recapitulate the above observations, the file Bach-1725-Organ.jpg is a reproduction, Getty says it is under managed rights of the photographer, Wikimedia is of the opinion that it can be used freely in the United States and in some countries but not in some others, and your question may be related to Germany, in which case this aspect can be taken into consideration. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

May I use a Wikipedia photo in my doctoral thesis?

Dear Sir/Madam,

There is a great photo on your website created by the following Wikipedia user: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pudelek

Since I'd like to include one of his pictures into my doctoral thesis (published by my home university in Finland), I believe I need to get his permission first to be able to do so. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If not, would you be please kind and help me get in touch with him?

Many thanks in advance for your time and advice.

Cordially, Jelena

Hello, Jelena

You must study the image description page. It will tell you whether you can or cannot. If you give us a link to that image, we can give you a definite answer.

But the link you have provided above is not a Wikipedia link. It is the link to a sister project, Commons. That website only hosts free images that you can use freely. You are only required to give due credit to the author of the image. That's all.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have specific additional questions about the image, that aren't covered on the image description page, you could also try asking the uploader directly at Commons:User talk:Pudelek. They have been active recently on Commons, so will possibly see your message. In general files on Commons are free to re-use, but you should read up on the image's description page and its license information as suggested above. GermanJoe (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Lisa and GermanJoe, Thank you so much for your prompt answers.

Lisa you were so right. I inspected the image details myself and found the following message: "Use my photos, but please mention me as the author and send me a message to Wikimedia Commons or to polish Wikipedia page. If you would like special permission to use, license, or purchase the image please also contact with me. Thank you :)"

So yes, it seems I'm free to publish the photo as long as I cite its author's name and let him know about it. That's a great news!

Best, Jelena — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.252.204 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

uploading IRS Form 990 and other documents legislatively mandated for wide public scrutiny

Can I upload IRS Form 990 tax filings and other documents legislatively mandated for wide public scrutiny when they are used as sources to accepted edits? IRS Form 990 filings are collected by numerous websites, but some links moved to behind a paywall, while other websites provide urls to the same documents but that appear to map to an underlying physical storage which does not seem long-lasting.

Once uploaded, how would I link to it? Thanks.Formulairis990 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

From a copyright standpoint, the original forms are fine, because they're works of the United States government. I don't know about forms that have been filled out. Tax forms, especially filled-out forms, might be subject to non-copyright issues, especially because of the personal finances that would be revealed by a filled-out form. On "how would I link". Enclose the file in double brackets to display the file, or if you want to link the filename, put a colon before the filename. For example, causes Name.jpg to appear near the top of this section, while [[:]] produces [[:]]. You can make tweaks: |thumb causes the image to appear as a thumbnail, |250px causes the image to display at a width of 250 pixels (change the number to change the size), |left or |right cause the image to align with the left or right side of the page, and if you have it appearing as a thumbnail, the text after the last | character will become the caption. The lower image in this section has the code . Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Engraving from 1819

I came across an interesting engraving from 1819 here. The website claims copyright, however it's from 1819, and so I would have thought the copyright had expired by now. Asked at the help desk, and got directed here. Please advise whether you believe this image to be copyrighted or out of copyright. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be public domain due to age. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and also I don't think that Look and Learn are claiming copyright over the image - see [3]. Nthep (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

And if it's public domain, it should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons rather than here, right? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct, All freely licensed images should be uploaded to the commons so they available for all wikis to use, otherwise someone has to move them later. ww2censor (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That page says that they claim a copyright on the images. Not on the out-of-copyright original works, but on their reproductions. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Under UK law you cannot claim copyright on a simple copy so all they can claim copyright on for images that are already copyright expired is the catalogue data. Nthep (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all- I've uploaded it now. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

they may be able to claim copyright on the watermark.©Geni (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

File:IE_11_Wikipedia.png

For File:IE_11_Wikipedia.png, the license indicates the following:

you may not use screenshots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens,"

Is it not the case that this is a "splash screen"? It's very specifically the 'About Internet Explorer' popup, which I understand to be exactly a 'splash screen'. Note that I may well not understand the definition. --Yamla (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC) I left a message for the image uploader at User_talk:Codename_Lisa. --Yamla (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

We do not need permissions for fair use of non-free content. If anything doesn't fall within the scope of Template:Non-free Microsoft screenshot that gives some "extra", though ultimately unnecessary, assurances that our use is fair is in line with our non-free content policy, we can still claim fair use. Template:Non-free software screenshot can be used in such cases. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (Modified by – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC))

Hi.

Thanks for your totally misleading answer. Content under the scope of {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}} are authorized use, not fair use. And I do not mislabel images that I upload.

Now, to the question: No. The "About..." dialog box is not a splash screen. Splash screen is well defined in computing. Internet Explorer 11 does not have a splash screen.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reworded my message accordingly, Codename Lisa. The bottom line is that the template gives us "permission" for something we don't need a permission for. It's a non-free license in the free encyclopedia that does not allow non-free licenses.

Fair use is a right. It lets us use content without permission. It's beyond me why we have chosen to waive that right and operate under exogenous restrictions instead. We don't need to do so and gain nothing by doing so. It stupid not to put a right into practice out of fear that a big company will sue us for exercising a right. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use is not a right. It is a privilege. One that can be denied, at the discretion of a judge. Do you notice that the image is deleted even though it was in use on an article? Privilege denial by admin is like that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use is a right because it's protected by the First Amendment. Insofar as free speech is a right and not a privilege, so is fair use. Or, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it, fair use is "a traditional First Amendment safeguard". In other words, fair use exists so as to make the copyright law non-infringing on the freedom of speech.

I support and enforce a non-free content policy on Wikipedia that allows only minimal use of non-free content. It's partly because I support a clear distinction between free and non-free content. That distinction is something that this Microsoft license tries to obscure, but fair use would clarify. With fair use, "permissions" never become restrictions like here. The only restrictions are found in the law and with us (our non-free content policy). Our non-free content policy, by the way, does not allow non-free content that is not fair use: "Non-free content can be used on Wikipedia in certain cases [...], but only within the United States legal doctrine of fair use".– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC) (modified by – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC))

I do not find the sentence you have quoted.

Moreover, I don't concern myself with purely abstract stuff like drawing distinctions. I find Microsoft license useful without caveats. That's all.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion I was involved in but I can't immediately find now, but in the US, fair use, while a defense to use copyrighted material without a license, is also considered a right when the fair use claim is obvious (in that the justice system will throw the book at copyright claims when the fair use allowance is obvious, eg using a cover of a DVD as part of a review of that DVD.) From en.wiki's side, while the Microsoft license is restrictive, we ignore if the use of the image meets NFCC, as meeting NFCC is generally considered about as getting close to "obvious" fair use allowance as one can get. Trivial uses of such images, however, clearly must be prevented. A windows splash screen on an article on Microsoft, for example, is right out. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: Good points as always. Still, I don't upload images that can be speedily deleted as "unambiguous copyright violation"; that much I am certain of my own understanding of rules of work here. (Nevertheless, I haven't had this image in my watchlist for a while.) Can you use your special abilities and see if the file was deleted justly? i.e. something that can definitely not be fixed with normal editing?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I've taken a look at the image, and there's nothing really out of the ordinary. It certainly doesn't look like an obvious copyvio to me - usually, WP:CSD#F9 deletions are used for images that the uploader tries to pass off as their own work. Is there a reason you didn't ask the deleting admin? —Cryptic 09:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Sorry, I always underestimate the rigidness of this rule: Always ask the deleting admin first! And to be honest, asking here seemed like a safe and low-expense action. You see, I was almost certain that the fault is mine and that it was about not observing a yet-to-know law. Then, Masem commented and I thought "Well, here is a well-mannered admin; you can be certain he won't bite." So, I asked. I don't even want this file restored anyway; I uploaded a totally new one. Now, I am not certain. Must I ping the deleting admin and let him know we are talking about his action?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not a rule, it's just that he's in the best position to know why he did it. —Cryptic 09:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

True. But you know it now that you've investigated. Before this, it was just speedy deletion; how hard knowing it could be? —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the deleting admin to confirm, as looking at the file history with what I can see, there is no reason F9 should have been used to delete the image. It was tagged all appropriate for non-free as a MS screenshot license. There was no "obvious" reason to delete it per F9 that I can see, unless there was broader discussion of the group of such images. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the file, as upon further examination it does not seem as cut-and-dried as the others I'd deleted that day. I still feel that this kind of photo adds nothing of substance to the articles, but the fair use claim is not entirely meretricious. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite so. According to the deletion log, you deleted File:IExpress on Windows 10.png, File:MSConfig on Windows 10.png, File:System Restore on Windows 10.png, File:Windows Error Reporting on Windows 10.png, and File:Device Manager Windows 10.png that day. They were nominated for deletion and I supported their deletion, and indeed, blatant copyright violations. In the words of Cryptic, "images that the uploader tries to pass off as their own work". There are even more files similar to these: File:Event Viewer Windows 10.png, File:File:Resource Monitor Windows 10.png, and File:Windows 10 Management Console.png.

But File:IE 11 Wikipedia.png is different from all of these, in that it was neither tagged nor nominated for deletion; it has a non-free license tag and two use rationales. So, yes, I am indeed curious to know: What decision-making path did you follow that day that took you to the image, made you decide it is irreparably violating copyright and must be deleted?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Photographic portraits by named studio

I have portraits of the subject of my article, Theodore Pitcairn. Several of them were made by Bachrach studios. They now belong to Pitcairn's daughter, who has given her permission to upload the images. Is it allowable to upload such a photographic portrait? I understand that the copyright of painted portraits is held by the heirs. I don't know about photographs done in a studio such as Bachrach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rae 3328 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The copyright of painted portraits would always be held by the heirs of the painter and not those of the subject depicted. So for photographs, too, we need to know who took the photos in question. In this case we can assume that they were made by an employee of Bachrach Studios, so as a work for hire, the copyright should still be resting with Bachrach. I'm afraid, but owning the physical copies of the images does not make Mr. Pitcairn's daughter the copyright holder. The only chance for using one of these images was if they were photographs of a very young Pitcairn which were published before 1923. De728631 (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

On a second thought, even if the images are still copyrighted by Bachrach Studios, you can upload a single representative photograph of Mr. Pitcairn here at the English Wikipedia (not at Wikimedia Commons) and claim fair use. Non-free photographs of deceased persons can be used to a limited extent in order to improve the biographical article for that person. So you can upload a digital copy of a photo and use the following templates on the image file page: {{Non-free use rationale biog}} (copy and paste the code snippet from here into the image upload editor and fill in the parameters) and {{Non-free biog-pic}}. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)