Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/December

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Uploading an image for a page in English of the artist Absalom

Hello,

I work on creating a page for the artist Absalom, he already has a page in two other languages, and I want to create one in English. The question is how to upload an image which I guess I work under the title of Freely licensed, how can I prove that the copyright holder give me permission? is he suppose to send mail or what is the procedure?

Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hacmon (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Photos/artwork from 1914

Hi, I am hoping to upload some images from a German architectural magazine published in Berlin in 1914,[1] for a draft article. The photographs of the cinema would been taken in 1913 or 1914, but as far as I can see no photographer is credited. There is also a fine colour reproduction of a painting of the building, apparently signed at bottom right by de:August Unger, who was responsible for the internal decoration, and who died in 1945. There is also an architectural drawing, possibly made by Oskar Kaufmann, who died in 1956.

My courage fails me when confronted with copyright questions, so I wonder if anyone could please advise me on how much of this is uploadable to the Commons or WP:EN, and which licence(s) should I be using? Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, MinorProphet. The important thing to know is when these images were published. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
1914. >MinorProphet (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Commons requires that that images be either explicitly freely licensed, or in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. English Wikipedia requires that that images be either explicitly freely licensed, or in the public domain in the United States. If the reproduction is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art by de:August Unger (d. 1945), then it can be uploaded to Commons using the {{PD-Art|PD-old-70-1923}} license tag. The architectural drawing, if made by Oskar Kaufmann (d. 1956), can not be uploaded to Commons since it would not be in the public domain in Germany until 2027. However, as a work published before 1923 it is in the public domain in the US. and can be uploaded to English Wikipedia using a {{PD-US-1923-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=2027}} license tag. The uncredited photographs of the cinema can be uploaded to Commons using the {{PD-anon-1923}} license tag, but only if you've performed a search and are willing to claim that the photographer never subsequently claimed authorship of the photos. If you aren't that confident that the photographer is truly unknown, as works published before 1923 they are in the public domain in the US, and can be uploaded to English Wikipedia using a {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} license tag. —RP88 (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
As we cannot review the exact images you want to upload you should also be aware that freedom of panorama may apply and Germany has an exception per this commons template c:Template:FoP-Germany (no similar template exists on this wiki) so you may also want to read c:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany for further details.
Thank you both for your helpful and concise replies. I knew this would be a can of worms. I just had another look at the relevant download page of the German library (Zentral- und Landesbibliothek Berlin), which states (in both the German and English versions) that the publication is Public Domain (PD), with the PD logo. If their copyright statement is to be believed, it would seem to satisfy the conditions RP88 mentioned for uploading all the images to English WP if not Commons, but would they need different tags from the ones you kindly suggested?
It would obviously be better to have the images on Commons, Ww2, but I'm not sure how far the panorama (paranoia?) issue (c:Template:FoP-Germany) applies: how retrospective is it? Having looked at c:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany: the external photos were taken from a publicly-accessible place dedicated to the public, and published in 1914. The fact that the building no longer exists doesn't seem to matter, since it was intended to be permanent. The internal photos would seem not to be covered by article § 59 of the German copyright law, but how far does it relate to photos published 102 years ago? Also, the full-page colour images I'm hoping to upload could include original text such as "„Cines", Lichtspieltheater am Nollendorfplatz. Vorhang. Arch.: Oskar Kaufmann, Berlin. Kunstmaler: August Unger, Nikolassee.", and the publisher's logo, but they could be cropped to show only the image, if there is any doubt. Thanks for taking the time to address my query. >MinorProphet (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
While the page states the work displayed in PD, I actually wonder if that copyright status can be verified. More often it is libraries and museums who claim copyright over images that are in the public domain instead of the opposite. If you believe it, then commons would be the place to upload the images but if someone questions them later, you may have to revisit it all over again. I've reviewed the rest of the journal and my opinion is that the two colour illustrations appear to be the drawings made by August Unger, so his death date would determine the copyright status of the images as he died in 1945. The building photos are derivative works of Oskar Kaufmann's architectural work but, published before 1923, so in addition to his death date of 1956 means they can be uploaded here as RP88 stated above. Freedom of panorama is still determined by the author's date of death and should not go to the commons. I would additionally tag them {{Keep local}} and personally I would first upload the full page and then crop down the image.
BTW, I notice that some work seems to be by Franz Metzner who died in 1919, so his identified work could go on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to the source of the images you are considering uploading. For the photos of the cinema, here is my outline using the information above:
  • For the photos of the Ufa-Pavillon am Nollendorfplatz cinema published in 1914, If you decide that the uncredited photographer is unlikely to be known:
  • If it is one of the exterior photos apparently taken from the public street:
Upload to Commons using {{Copyright information |object={{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1919}} |photograph={{PD-anon-1923}}}}.
  • It depicts a work of art known to be public domain in Germany and all other works, including Oskar Kaufmann's architecture, are de minimis:
Upload to Commons using {{Copyright information |object={{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=<year of death of artist>}} |photograph={{PD-anon-1923}}}}.
  • It depicts a work of art that is not known to be public domain in Germany or depicts Oskar Kaufmann's architecture:
Upload to Commons using {{Copyright information |object={{FoP-Germany}} |photograph={{PD-anon-1923}}}}. Just {{PD-anon-1923}}{{FoP-Germany}} would also be acceptable.
  • If it is one of the interior photos:
  • It depicts a work of art known to be public domain in Germany and all other works, including Oskar Kaufmann's architecture, are de minimis:
Upload to Commons using {{Copyright information |object={{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=<year of death of artist>}} |photograph={{PD-anon-1923}}}}.
  • It just depicts Oskar Kaufmann's architecture, all other art works are de minimis:
Upload to English Wikipedia using {{PD-US-1923-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=2027}}. In 2027 it could be transferred to to Commons using {{Copyright information |object={{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1956}} |photograph={{PD-anon-1923}}}}.
  • It depicts a work of art with an unknown German copyright status:
These photos can not be uploaded to either Commons or English Wikipedia.
  • For the photos of the Ufa-Pavillon am Nollendorfplatz cinema published in 1914, If you decide that the uncredited photographer is unlikely to be unknown:
  • If it is one of the exterior photos apparently taken from the public street:
  • It just depicts Oskar Kaufmann's architecture, all other art works are de minimis:
Upload to English Wikipedia using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. In the United States buildings that were completed before December 1, 1990 are not protected by copyright. The earliest it would be out if copyright in Germany is 2027, but it could be later if the photographer died after Oskar Kaufmann.
  • It depicts other works of art:
Upload to English Wikipedia using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. In the United States works of art placed in a public place before 1978 are considered published, and all works published before 1923 are in the public domain in the United States.
  • If it is one of the interior photos:
  • It depicts a work of art known to be public domain in Germany and all other works, excluding Oskar Kaufmann's architecture, are de minimis:
Upload to English Wikipedia using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
  • It just depicts Oskar Kaufmann's architecture, all other art works are de minimis:
Upload to English Wikipedia using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
  • It depicts a work of art with an unknown German copyright status:
These photos can not be uploaded to either Commons or English Wikipedia.
—RP88 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 

Wow, this is just fantastic! I don't do barnstars, but here's a big barn near where I live. Thank you both so much for your help and expertise in sorting out this intricate problem. It would have been utterly beyond me. Next stop, Photoshop... >MinorProphet (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nachtlicht, Leo (1914). "Das Kinotheater "Cines" am Nollendorfplatz von Architekt Oskar Kaufmann, Berlin". Berliner Architekturwelt (in German). 16 (2): 58–67. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Logos of United Artists Records

The images are tagged as "fair use". However, none of them seem original enough for copyright. Shall I transfer them to Commons? --George Ho (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That should be fine; Wikipedia has many PD-simple files which are inaccurately tagged as non-free -FASTILY 20:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Using other images of albums and singles that have similar front covers

We are told not to use more than one non-free image of one product. Though a normal standard, Voices Carry and Voices Carry (album) have the same front covers and nearly similar title design. I want to add one more image of the single and of the album. For the album, I was thinking the back cover for differentiation. For the single, I was thinking either a label or the back cover. The back cover of the single has lyrics of the song; I created a very small copy to avoid infringing the lyrics. The label might be less risky than the back cover. In case of doubt, I added image captions to inform readers about the images. I did the same for American Pie (song), not yet on American Pie (album). If image captions are not sufficient enough, can I add more non-free images? If not, what else can I do? --George Ho (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we are strongly encouraged to keep non-free use to a minimum per WP:NFCC#3, but not specifically limited to one non-free image per product. Multiple non-free images can be used in a particular article if each image's use can be justified per WP:NFCCP. Non-free use outside of the main infobox or for reasons other that the primary means of identification at the top of the article can be tricky because such usage tends to lack the context required by WP:NFCC#8 and is more decorative than not. Since you're talking about album/song cover art, then I think WP:NFC#cite_note-2 is relevant. Just given what you've posted above, I'm not sure how showing this back cover could be justified per NFCC#8 or even WP:NFCC#1 in either 'Til Tuesday article unless it is specifically the subject of sourced commentary found in reliable sources. Simply wanting to "show" it seems to imply more decorative than contextual use in my opinion. I think the question which needs to be asked is as follows: "How does seeing this particular non-free image significantly improve the reader's understanding of the relevant article content to such a degree that omitting the image be detrimental to that understanding?" FWIW, the use if the two music video screenshots in Voices Carry#Music video and American Pie (song)#Music video seems questionable to me per NFCC#8, so I think it would be pretty hard to justify a back cover showing just text and some lyrics. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As said before, I added image captions about the images to ease readers' confusions and help readers recognize the marketing of the products. However, I'm unsure whether the image captions are sufficient. Customers would have looked at the back sleeves of the products to differentiate the album and the song, especially in its old days. A back cover of the album may help readers identify the album more than just the front cover alone. Either the back cover or a side label of the single would help readers identify the song more than the front cover alone. If my rationales are just another way of saying they are "decorative", perhaps we should rely on image captions instead. As said, I'm uncertain about the captions. --George Ho (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be better to add the relevant content to the article supported by citations to reliable sources. Image captions might be seen as WP:OR unless they reflect what a reilable source says and the "other" cover art is something that has been discussed by reliable sources, then it seem that would be worth adding to the article. Personally, I think you're going to need provide a stronger justification for non-free use than Customers would have looked at the back sleeves of the products to differentiate the album and the song, especially in its old days. A back cover of the album may help readers identify the album more than just the front cover alone. I'm not saying that was or is not the case. Just that it's not something needed for article whose content is clearly about either the single or the album. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

A.D. Amar

I am relatively new to editing on Wikipedia and was creating a page for professor A.D. Amar. The picture I have was given to me by him. The photograph was taken and intended for public use by Seton Hall University. I am wondering how to indicate this so it will not be taken down from the page in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grosenwa (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The photographer is usually the copyright holder and not the subject of a photo. Public use by Seton Hall University does not actually mean the image is freely licensed. We need to know under what terms the image is licenced, so you could ask the subject to request the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. It is possible the university owns the copyright if they bought the copyright with the work contract and in that case they would be the copyright holder. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of a Map

Can I use this map image in a book I am wrting about my time in Antarctica? Gerlache_Strait.png (PNG Image, 800!"!627 pixels) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Gerlach... prefix:Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DickF (talk • contribs) 22:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@DickF: yes as long as you abide by the licence conditions and attribution requirements on the file details at file:Gerlache_Strait.png. Nthep (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I use this map in a book I am writing? Gerlache_Strait.png (PNG Image, 800!"!627 pixels) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Gerlach... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DickF (talk • contribs) 21:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@DickF: yes as per previous answer, you must licence the image in the same way and attribute it in your book. Nthep (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Uploaded image

I just uploaded File:Wettability of a silica surface with a bound ferrocene-substituted polymer.jpg which is cropped from a paper marked with "this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence." I have no idea what the "unported" part means. Would someone please have a look at the upload and information that I have provided, and let me know what else I need to do so that the appropriate license is attached? Many Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the license is correct, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, it looks like Sfan00 IMG edited the file information to added a license and I guess that was all that was needed. Thank you to both of you for checking and adding what I missed, it is appreciated. EdChem (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot from the 1969 movie "Charro"

I'd like to use a screenshot from the 1969 movie "Charro" starring Elvis Presley. The screenshot is of a stuntman and stunt double (doubling for Elvis) breaking a wild horse in the desert. I want to link it to an article describing how important stuntmen are to movies. The screenshot is from a movie trailer posted on Youtube by WarnerMoviesAU (Warner is the movie studio that released the movie). The movie trailer is posted on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZUlJPSJ0z0. It seems to me this would be legal as I see a lot of screenshots like this at Wikipedia pages. The rational I've seen with other screenshots on Wikipedia pages go something like the following:

"This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots, for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information. This image is for informational purposes only. Image is cropped and of lower resolution than the original source," etc. etc.

I asked this question to the editor that originally deleted the screenshot, based on his reply I don't think he understood my question.

Thanks for any advice you can give me. Zootsuit1941 (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

For me, your proposal very cleary fails point 8 of the wikipedia non-free content policy found at WP:NFCCP. I cannot see any amount of argumentation changing that position. Its use in "an article describing how important stuntmen are to movies" will clearly not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and nor would "its omission ... be detrimental to that understanding". --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, there are still stuntmen today, and while it not always easy to find where stunts are being filmed, they still are, and a free image would be possible to be obtained. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Images requiring a written letter of copyright

I used the uploader app and was told that my images required the email template. I sent 2 emails to the permissions address. Will I receive confirmation that my images are approved for use? PINSupport (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The OTRS permission system is quite backlogged. They will deal with your emails in due course but you must be patient. However, it appears you are probably not the copyright holder, even though you claim to be the author of the images you uploaded to the commons, as they have logos of http://pmgawareness.org/ and other organisations, so those organisations or the designers (if they still own the copyright) will have to give permission to license then freely. You must be honest and state exactly where the images come from, who made them and show they are freely licensed which you have unfortunately not done, maybe due to not understanding the process and necessary details required. If you can't do all of that then they will be deleted. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that goes through the issues people have with image uploads. ww2censor (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC's list of 100 women

Could someone familiar with copyright comment please at Talk:100_Women_(BBC)#Is_it_not_a_copyright_violation_to_publish_this_list.3F? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Century Elegance Tourbillon Watch.JPG

Reference: File:Century_Elegance_Tourbillon_Watch.JPG

What am I supposed to do with the thumbnail image I created?

I went to the trouble of reading the whole Wikipedia article "Fair use" before I put the Fair Use information in the information box when I uploaded this photo. Now I have a message stating that I need to come up with a image copyright tag even though the Fair Use article stated that uploading thumbnails is acceptable (Fair Use on the Internet subsection). When I look at the "Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All" article there is not an exception for thumbnails.

These two articles seem to be in conflict with each other. If we are not supposed to upload thumbnails, why does the Fair Use article say it is okay to post them, and that a copyright does not apply?

Zcarstvnz (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright can be quite difficult even daunting for the novice, especially when dealing with images you don't own. Unfortunately your problem is that because this watch is current, a freely licensed image can be created, so we cannot accept one claimed by you as fair use under our strict non-free policy; see WP:NFC & WP:NFCC. However, if you can persuade the copyright owner to release their image under a free license, we can accept it but they have to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT, otherwise this image will be deleted. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to see the problems editors have with images and what can and cannot be done to fix them. ww2censor (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Umatilla Indian Reservation article

Hi, We are trying to help expand the Umatilla Indian Reservation page for school. My job is to find some useful pictures to put on it. I tried to put two on yesterday but I keep getting errors or something about licencing I was looking and trying google. Can you please help me this is a class assignment. The pictures was trying to put up was 1. about the screen painting and the other was a picture of a woman elder. Thank you for your time. The Great One Me. tribal elder — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Great One Me (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Images found using Google and the like are incredibly unlikely to be in the public domain or freely licensed. You may have better luck searching Flickr or similar sites for images with a license we can use. (I find 326 images on Flickr which match "Umatilla" and have a license that permits commercial re-use and modification, and another 340 which have no known copyright restriction.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Chicago inspiration.jpg

Is this image copyrightable? What about the logo itself? --George Ho (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: I would say so. The threshold of originality is very low. See "Legal thoughts" by the WMF at commons:Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices#Transparency_request. There, the WMF said that what was basically colored simple text could be copyrighted. If by "logo", you are referring to just the word "Chicago", I would say that it could be copyrighted due to the creative original style. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The logo looks like {{PD-simple}} to me since it's basically the word "Chicago" in a fancy font. If the country of origin was the UK, then it might be close; In the US, however, I think this would be considered to be below the TOO. See File:Coca-Cola logo.svg for a similar example of this.
As for the image itself, it basically seems to be a "mechanical reproduction" of the cover art. So, if the cover art itself is not protected by copyright, then I'm pretty sure that the person who created the image cannot claim any copyright over it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, there is no clear answer on this. The WMF in my link even said it was ambiguous. I think the safe option would be to just leave the NFUR. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe that's prudent, but looking at c:Category:Covers of music albums gives one the impression that this probably would a fair chance of being kept on Commons as c:Template:PD-Textlogo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I am convinced that looking at that category gives one the impression that Commons has a problem with copyvio uploads. Do note that some of them (thsoe with OTRS) are legit, but I'd imagine the majority of "own work" uploads are not. Clearly some album covers, such as this one, are PD for being below TOO. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Yep. There's lots of stuff on Commons that probably shouldn't be there. FWIW, I'm not saying that means this particular cover art should be there just because other stuff exists, but if you look at c:COM:TOO#United States, you'll see quite a few images which look (at least to me) to be more complicated than this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@George Ho: Were you just asking about this out of curiosity or did you want to use the file in a particular way that might not be allowed per WP:NFCC? I see you post at c:COM:VP/C occasionally, so it might be something worth asking about there. If there seems to be a consensus on Commons that the file is OK to move there, then it should be OK to do so. If, on the other hand, the consensus seems to be that it would be c:COM:FU, then it probably should stay local as non-free or maybe changed to {{PD-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I want to replace this image with something else, like a side label of the US single, which used a generic sleeve instead of a picture one. The image is of the UK single release of the song. However, I have been scolded by editors who prefer cover arts over labels, which are significant enough to me since many singles in the US used generic sleeves instead of picture sleeves back in the 20th century. I have to be careful not to make any more battlegrounds before any of us gets hurt in battles. If the image is non-free, then... I'll see what I can do to this image. George Ho (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
This sounds more content related than copyright related, so maybe you should try discussing things on the article's talk page (if you already have not done so). Just for reference, images are like textual content in that often a consensus needs to be established for their use regardless of their licensing. So, simply changing this file's licensing to PD so that it can be used elsewhere in the article does not automatically mean others will agree that it should be used elsewhere. Moreover, trying to use a different non-free image in the infobox in combination with this file (if converted to a free license) might be tricky per WP:NFCC#1 if both files basically serve the same encyclopedic purpose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with 2 photographs

Hi! I have problems with two photos:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jackmayphot.jpg : That photograph belongs to Jon May, son of the man who appears in the picture (already deceased). It was taken in the 1950s. Do you need a written permission? Or should I just indicate the name of the photograph owner in the description?
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whoswho_jack_may.jpg : It is a portion of a 1983 magazine page, I included all the publication data, as indicated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Required_information. Should I do something else? Or have I wrongly selected the type of license?

I appreciate your help!--Ane wiki (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ane wiki: Technically, for number 1, permission is required from whoever took the photo. For number 2, there needs to be evidence that they either published the magazine without a copyright notice, or that they agreed to license it under that license. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, copyright is something that is held by the person who created the material. Generally, only the copyright holder can authorize reproductions of what they created. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Ramaksoud2000: thanks! Yes, the family is the owner of the photo 1, they took the picture; then, I will tell them that they need to send a permission to Wikipedia. He must complete the email template at https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/, right? It is enough? Meanwhile, I must update the photo´s page with some template? (indicating that a permission is on the way)
With respect to picture 2, it will be difficult to trace that data, I think I will delete it directly. Anyway, I will see if the person who gave me the photo can check the copyright of the original magazine Thanks!--Ane wiki (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ane wiki: Yes, that form is good. When you have sent the email, add {{subst:OP}} to the file page. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 17:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!--Ane wiki (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Deccablacklogo.png

The logo may be original enough in the UK. Is this image copyrightable in the USA? --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. There aren't enough creative elements. I believe it is similar to the File:Best Western logo.svg, which we host. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 18:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I changed the status to "PD-ineligible-USonly". Would that suffice? George Ho (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks good! Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

File:C Moon by Wings pink label UK vinyl.jpg

What about this side label? Is it transferable to Commons? If not, is it free to use just in the US? --George Ho (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The layout of the individual elements, combined with the other style aspects, may or may not be copyrightable. For reference, the DC circuit found that just the layout of Reader's Digest magazine cover was copyrighted. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The source meant one of the 1987 issues. George Ho (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
As for the image, shall I change the status to "PD-ineligible-USonly" instead? George Ho (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fine. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Enhanced screenshots

Hi! I've created a number of screenshots captured from short documentations about scientific topics. I am usually engaged in WP's Paleo - and Geography departments of rather neglected countries. Images are often very hard to come by. I edited and enhanced the captured frames and created new files. All images have purely scientific content. No personal and commercial depictions. I created a very few such images already, non-conspicuous little helpers hidden and lost in WP's vast space-timeline for the sake of the common good uploaded and gotten away with it. However, this time i prepared a "bulk" and wish to proceed smoothly. What taggings do you recommend? Thanks and all the best. Wikirictor (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wikirictor: Unless the creators of the documentaries released them under a free license, then the documentaries are copyrighted, and we cannot host screenshots of them. I'm not clear on what these screenshots are and what they would be used for, but it is possible that some of them may meet the criteria for non-free content use. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 17:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
An image is not your own work unless you have made everything creative in it from start to finish. Unless you made the documentary too, your enhanced screenshots of it are not your own work. Please proceed to deleting such images as they cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
OK - Thanks for these bone-dry discouragements and the prompt reminder not to hesitate with the reinstatement of order. However, one more question. These science video clips are generally amateur recordings, a few minutes in length and never published on TV or commercial media. Some are public on private youtube accounts. Thanks for your commitment and ATB! Wikirictor (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The features you describe affect copyright in no way whatsoever. The point is not to discourage. The point is to encourage the creation of free content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo for a BLP

I apologize in advance because I'm sure you have seen this same question a thousand times.

I am writing a biography, at User:Gronk Oz/John Dwyer (medicine). The text is just about done, but I had trouble finding a photo - there are plenty on various websites but they are all copyright. Finally in desperation I contacted the subject who was happy to help, but I got the impression he didn't understand the copyright question. He emailed me a photo which seems to be one of his profile shots; it's an ordinary head-and-shoulders shot. It is low resolution (324 x 223 pixels). He does not know the name of the photographer; he was employed to take the photo on behalf of the organization. So the question is ... what do I need in order to use it in the Infobox of this article? Or am I out of luck? --Gronk Oz (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not just ask the subject to take a selfie or have a relative, co-worker or friend, etc. take a photo and then have the photographer (1) upload it to Commons as "own work" or (2) have some one else upload the photo and send in a permissions email to OTRS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Marchjuly. I was trying not to impose on him more than necessary - but if that's what is needed, then so be it. I might even be able to meet up with him and take a photo myself (talking somebody through the OTRS process is a nightmare which has failed every time I have tried it).--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
This is just thinking out-side-the-box. This guy must be something like 77 years of age by now, and a lot older and wiser than most of us. Yet, should not bamboozle him with copyright issues that have changed over his life time and that he may not be aware of. Should he (the subject) be proud of having a Wikipedia page (using technology that was science fiction in his day) he may be willing to freely and willingly grant you a request for some photo shots that has him on 'public property'. Thus, avoiding any conflict with issues of images taken 'in private space'. Still, it is nice to have some shots, of a learned fellow in his study, surrounded by shelfs of text books ( some of which he may have written himself). Your draft looks good- (although I have no idea if your subject is WP notable). Yet, if you can meet him and take loads of photos (thus avoiding the OTRS issues) which you can upload to Wikimedia Commons for use on other WP articles. Go-for-it. Another tip. Someone like this may well have retained some keep-sakes. It may be only his first student microscope but if you can get him to posse with that, it adds gravitance to to any such add image here. Old folks like me, tend to place young whippersnappers into to pigeon holes, like time wasters and those that deserve our time. Go-for-it!--Aspro (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, @Aspro: I will keep at it, and see if I can arrange to meet him and take a decent profile photo. I'm trying to get photography practice and improve at it, so that might kill two birds with one stone. --Gronk Oz (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Poorich.jpg

the photo :File:Poorich.jpg is not public domain. I am the author, Tuca Vieira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:F721:2F:80B7:4460:1359:ABC4 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It should be deleted shortly. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at the article for Tommo Inc., parent company of Humongous Entertainment and UFO Interactive Games. On this page, Tommo Inc. does not have a logo; on their website, I found this logo at the following link: http://tommo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TommoLogo-64px.jpg

However, in their terms of use, they state: "You may not, however, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute in any way the contents of this Site including the text, images, audio and video for public or commercial purposes, without express written permission from Tommo, Inc."

Does this image fall under the stated public purposes, and therefore would require permission from Tommo to use, or is it fair use? CyanGuy512 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair use does not require permission from the copyright holder. Anyone may upload it as WP:FAIR USE. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

File:WSJXFoxPR.png

I was going to ask about File:WSJXFoxPR.png at WP:FFD, but figure it might be little quicker here. Any reason why this needs to be non-free? Seems more like {{PD-logo}} and OK to tag for with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 04:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, less complex than many of the examples on commons:COM:TOO#US. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Validity and legitimacy of Do not move to commons tag at File:Avenida rizal manila.jpg and File:Makati ayala avenue.jpg

I'm very curious at this tag added at these img files, because it doesn't seem to be logically right:


According to what I have read at Rizal Avenue, this Philippines road was built in 1910s. For me, this pic of Rizal Avenue clearly depicts (and focuses on) the street (not the surrounding buildings, as the filename suggests). It is not like the now-deleted commons file of File:QMC View.jpg, which was focused on the monument more than Elliptical Road and clearly violates FOP restriction. However, I'm highly puzzled at why such street img is tagged as such. What I know is that FOP restrictions in the Philippines cover only the landmarks, monuments, famous buildings, and the like, but not streets nor street scenes. The street scene depicted at this image is very similar to that of the now-Commons File:Calle la Escolta Manila.jpg and File:Meralco Avenue.jpg (similar in respect to their angles and subject positions). The structures depicted in this picture are only LRT rail line (in partial and non-prominent view located at the img's extreme right side and corners) and a couple of buildings that are not prominent/noteworthy enough to be included in FOP restriction.

For this file of Makati's famous street, the image focuses more on street (as the name suggests), and the landmarks are in a view that is not highly prominent (in addition to those trees depicted on the img that help obstruct, at least partially, those landmarks from prominence). There are other pictures of Ayala avenue (like this one) that have unobstructed landmarks but are now in commons and complying with FOP standards. For me, FOP restriction for File:Makati ayala avenue.jpg is unreasonable.

I might need more help and assistance (and a few discussion) regarding this matter. Thanks! JWilz12345 (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's FOP because the buildings are de minimis. The photo focuses on no building in particular, making the street itself what is depicted. It's impossible to photograph a streetscape without getting any of the surrounding buildings in the picture, and in this photo effort was made to keep it minimal (all buildings are either partially cropped out or obscured from view). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

'License tagging for File:Parliament of Greenland (122016).svg' message

I've received the following message from 'ImageTaggingBot' earlier today:

"Thanks for uploading File:Parliament of Greenland (122016).svg. 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) 04:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)"

In response, I went to the respective image and added this tag (

) to the file description page. If there's anything else I need to do in order to verify the authenticity of this image file, please let me know as soon as possible? If this is the case, could you please provide some assistance to this issue that I'm having with this image file? Thank you.

KLO2015 (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@KLO2015: Did you create this image? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ramaksoud2000: Yes, I did create this image on my own using this site (https://tools.wmflabs.org/parliamentdiagram/parliamentinputform.html) late last night. I'll be signing off now, since it's getting late and I need to get to bed. Hope to hear from you (or anyone else) on this issue tomorrow. Good night. KLO2015 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@KLO2015: I have removed the warning tags, and clarified that you are releasing the copyright under that license on the file description page. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ramaksoud2000: Thank you for the notification and resolution on this issue. KLO2015 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Is the FEU campus bldg at File:Feu campus quezon blvd. underpass.jpg de minimis or not?

Hi! I already know about de minimis on images of various highways and thoroughfares in Manila, Philippines. However, I'm curious at this image of Quezon Boulevard, which appears to depict both the highway and the campus building (as the filename says). Although it is tagged as do not move to commons due to no FOP here in the Philippines, this image is mainly used in the ff. transportation-related articles: Quezon Boulevard and List of roads in Metro Manila. It is not in any way used in articles concerning FEU (Far Eastern University). For me this image mainly depicts the road, not the campus. However, I might need second (or third) opinion, and some clarification. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWilz12345 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Images of branded sustenance

I have a picture, one which I took myself, of a single bottle of Trader Joe's brand winter wassail. It is similar to File:MinuteMaidBoost.JPG. I would like to upload it and release it under a creative commons license, then add it to wassail, perhaps expanding the content there to make it more relevant. I see images of this nature claiming to be available under acceptable licenses (such as the similar example I provided), but I notice that a lot of the time they are in a group (e.g. File:RackofJuices.png and File:Jack-Daniels-at-Lollapalooza.jpg). I then see images like File:Frosted-Flakes-Box-Small.jpg that are non-free. Is the image that I've described acceptable as free use? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"Yes", and no. The graphics you see on product packaging are (almost) always copyrighted. On the other hand, the photo is yours and you can license it under any license you want. Together these terms means you are dealing with at derivative work. For the purposes of Wikipedia, you can upload it locally, as a non-free image, and specify that you are releasing the photo under a free license, but have no control over the graphics. Slap both a non-free and a free tag on it in addition to Template:Photo of art. As with all non-free images, make sure WP:NFC is met. Further information: c:COM:PACKAGING WP:FREER – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It doubt that the non-free content criteria can be met for use of this type of photo in this article. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not possible to tell for sure without seeing the photo. It depends on what the photo shows exactly. If your photo shows a whole bottle with a label, such photos are often considered free by Commons, on the basis of the court case Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits by applying it to similar situations such as photos of whole bottles of wine, beer and some other beverages. Although in principle the photos are accepted on Commons, in practice it's not guaranteed that someone will not try to delete them by mistake or without thinking (see for example DR 1 closed as "keep" and DR 2 closed as "keep" but file deleted out of process). -- Asclepias (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Link to references

In the references section under Citations for an article I've been working on, I've linked to pages for books that have a corresponding Google Books article (e.g., ref. 7 appears as Lindemann p. 231). I'd like to know if I can do the same for other books not listed in Google Books without violating copyright. This would be useful for anyone spotchecking the article or otherwise interested in reviewing source material, but I want to be sure this would fall under fair use. Thanks! Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What would you link to if they aren't in Google Books? The reason Google Books is OK is that the copyright holder agreed to display the book there. If you want to link to a place that the copyright holder did not agree to, then that's not allowed. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of Google Books material is displayed as fair use material. Not that it makes much of a difference as our fair use policies only apply to media hosted here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Good catch: Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 19:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course you can link sources, on condition that the place you link to is hosting the material legally, not in violation of the copyright. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links and ID numbers. (Note: Technically, this not in the scope of "Wikimedia:Media copyright questions", but the help pages should answer your question. You can also use Wikipedia:Help desk.) -- Asclepias (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks all for your feedback. My impression is that Google has the most latitude with fair use and to try to use a PDF hosted elsewhere would not be acceptable. What I'd like to do is list quotes of relevant source material from the pages cited, as I do already in the "Informational notes" section of the article I linked above (although I wouldn't want the References section to be unreasonably long). My thought is to have links to an external list of reference notes for each citation with only the citations and bibliography listed in the main article, although I'm not aware if this is common practice for Wikipedia. If this makes sense, please let me know if this would work (or if I should ask this question elsewhere, such as the help desk). Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
If you don't find what you need on Wikipedia:Citing sources, the help desk is probably a good place for getting help on this. Someone may reply here too, but it's out of our normal field, which is copyright of images, videos and sounds. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll go to the help desk then. Thanks. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

How to link OTRS consent message to the image

I must be missing something - I would be grateful for any assistance. I have just published John Dwyer (medicine) which includes a photo taken by the subject's wife using her own phone (File:Professor John Dwyer portrait.jpg). I uploaded that image to Commons and put the OTRS tag on it. Now I'm trying to guide her through the OTRS process to authorize the release of that photo (she is not technically minded). Following the process takes me to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and I have asked her to fill that in and email it. But now I notice that form does not have anywhere to specify which photo it relates to. So I am concerned that the photo might be deleted simply because nobody can tell which email authorizes it. How am I supposed to show the link between the authorizing email and the image?--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gronk OZ. If the file has already been uploaded to Commons, then just provide a link to the file's Commons page. If not, then upload the file and add that link to the DOC and then add c:Template:OTRS pending to the |permission= parameter in the file's info template. An OTRS volunteer will then change that to c:Template:OTRS received once the email has been received and then to c:Template:PermissionOTRS once it has been verified. There's not really too much more that you can do after that other than wait for the process to play out. The "OTRS pending" allows 30 days for verification and then the template will automatically be changed to c:Template:No permission since. If that happens, ask for assistance at c:COM:OTRSN. OTRS will send a reply to whomever sends in the permission's email and this will contain an OTRS number. Just tell the sender to keep a record of that number because it will be useful if there are any problems. You can find out a more about this at c:COM:OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @Marchjuly: but I'm afraid I may not have been clear enough. The file was uploaded to commons: it is File:Professor John Dwyer portrait.jpg. My concern is about your comment that "an OTRS volunteer will then change that to c:Template:OTRS received once the email has been received..." The email template does not include any way to link to that file, or to provide its fie name, or any other way to identify which file is being authorized. It just asks me to attach a copy of the image, but not to give its Commons location. The volunteer will receive the email, but they won't have any way of knowing which uploaded file it relates to - unless they're planning to do a reverse image search, which seems unlikely. Or am I missing something really obvious? --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The email template is only meant to be a guide, and you can add wording to the email accordingly to include a link to the relevant file's page (or you can just add it where it says "[web page of the content]") or you can simply include the name of the uploader and the file. If you provide all of the basic information needed for verification, the OTRS volunteer should be able to figure it out. Since you've already uploaded the file, you can then add the "OTRS pending" template once the email has been sent. Having said all that, the copyright holder or you can probably use the "automatic release generator" found at c:COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries instead since this is now Commons current preferred method for sending in releases. I believe in Step 2 of that application there is a place for either a link to be added or a file to be attached. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, @Marchjuly: I wasn't aware of that release generator. Unfortunately I can't use it in this situation because I am not the owner, but I think I will suggest that it should be linked to the instructions, to help the next person.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
It might be worth trying the release generator out because I think there's an option for editors who are uploading a file on behalf of someone else who is the original copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It goes like this: 1) You inform Mr. Dwyer's wife of the filename under which you have uploaded the file for her. 2) And then, Mr. Dwyer's wife mentions that filename in the mail she sends to Wikimedia with her declaration of consent. (Like Marchjuly said, it doesn't matter where in the mail the filename is mentioned. The important thing is that the filename is mentioned in her mail, so that the OTRS volunteer can make the connection, which was your concern.)
  • There might be a different complication. The Federation University Australia has published this photograph on its website on March 1, 2016 [1] and it claims the copyright on it [2] (because it is not "indicated otherwise"). Its claim has the advantage of precedence of publication over the competing claim of Mr. Dwyer's wife. On the other hand, Mr. Dwyer's wife's version is slightly less cut at the bottom and at the left, which is an advantage for her, because it shows at least that she did not copy the photograph from that particular webpage. However, given the very small size of the version uploaded by you and the absence of exif, the situation can still raise a doubt. The OTRS volunteer will evaluate it and decide. It might help if you uploaded a larger version, with exif, not only for copyright but also for quality. You could also contact the Federation University Australia and clarify it. If the webpage credited Mr. Dwyer's wife, the matter would be settled. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Pomona mural

@CaroleHenson: asked me about some edits by @Mary Cummins: re File:Goddessofpomonafull.jpg.

See User talk:Mary Cummins#Pomona Envisions the Future.

The photograph is of a mural on the side of a building.

The photo was uploaded by @LouisBrownstone:; Cummins may be claiming to be the actual photographer; it is not clear.

On top of that, the photo is of a mural, and there is no permission for the underlying mural. Cummins may be claiming to be one of the artists.

There may be a viable fair use claim, but I don't know if 800px for a 135-foot mural is OK for fair use. If it is fair use, then a fair use claim needs to be made. Glrx (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There are three files: File:Goddessofpomonafull.jpg, File:PomonaEnvisionsTheFutureMural1.jpg, and File:PomonaEnvisionsTheFutureMural2.jpg. and I am repinging Mary Cummins.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
LouisBrownstone is blocked as a sockpuppet.... Glrx (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I made the page. I took those photos. I was one of the painters, also cleaned and renovated it. I wrote the press releases and made the website. i didn't realize the painter and story were false at the time. The mural is not owned by the artists. It is owned by the person who owns the building. The bldg owner made that very clear as he will be building a building there in the future and didn't want a legal issue about the mural. He already broke ground. That is not public property or a public mural.Mary Cummins (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mary Cummins: did you upload the picture to Wikipedia? I don't see how WP would have the ISO and image time unless the uploader had the camera's jpeg; the website copies either didn't have the metadata or were a different size.
It is clear the building owner owns the mural, but it is not clear he owns the mural's copyright. Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). Glrx (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I see that File:Goddessofpomonafull.jpg is used on the Susan Krieg article, but there are no other pages that these images link to. Since Mary Cummins says she took the pictures, and there is a concern about copyright issues, it seems like deleting the files is a way to resolve this. It doesn't fit any of the criteria, from what I can tell, for speedy deletion, but we could nominate it for deletion (WP:XfD).—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
At the same time, it is both simpler and more complicated than that. I think Mural1 and Mural2 get CSD'd as copyright violations. I want to hear from MC about full. Glrx (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, sounds good.—CaroleHenson (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A summary and update: User:LouisBrownstone uploaded the following files and started the article Pomona Envisioning the Future in 2008

Since then, that user and other user accounts were blocked following this sockpuppet investigation of 2009. Now, User:Mary Cummins has removed the files from the PEFT article and one file from the Susan Krieg article. She is requesting that the files be deleted as copyright violations because she took the pictures (the licensing says LouisBrownstone took the pictures). There is a recent message posted at User:LouisBrownstone#Pomona Envisioning the Future requesting that the files are deleted. The user is stating that aside from her own request to have the files deleted, they should be deleted because the owner of the building did not give permission for the mural photographs to be taken. (There is also related conversation at User talk:Mary Cummins#Pomona Envisions the Future - connected contributor, Talk:Pomona Envisioning the Future#Removal of citations and images.)

Request: Would someone please comment regarding whether it is copyright infringement due the user request and/or building owner having not provided approval for the photographs? Should the files be deleted?—CaroleHenson (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

My take:
Each of the five photos was uploaded by the account User:LouisBrownstone who declared the license as CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GNU FDL. The selection is irrevocable. Eight years later, for reasons unknown, Mary Cummins deletes the links to some pictures, claims they are hers, and wants them all removed. She apparently did take the pictures, but she had also granted the CC-BY-SA 3.0 or GNU FDL license.[3] Neither LouisBrownstone nor Mary Cummins can complain about anyone using the derivative copyright aspects of the five photos as long as those users follow the copyright license.
That does not resolve the underlying copyright to the mural. The mural is in the US and is not excluded under a right to panorama.
Mary Cummins may have been one of the muralists, but having granted license for five photos, she has also granted license for her part in the mural for those five photos. Mary Cummins' copyright is not at issue in any of the five photos.
Mary Cummins is knowledgeable about Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) and California Art Preservation Act (CAPA) and their implication to murals. LouisBrownstone commented about mural copyrights with the Twitchell decision in 2009.[4] Also in 2009, a LouisBrownstone's sockpuppet, User:MariaKRivera, edited Kent Twitchell to include references to VARA and CAPA;[5] MariaKRivera also edited Pomona Envisioning the Future in the same time frame. That was 2009. Why the 7-year delay before raising the mural copyright issue?
VARA tells us the default position is the artist has the copyright and the building owner just possesses the copy. Mary Cummins has made some claims contrary to that, but there is nothing besides her comments. She mentions a cease and desist letter about putting the mural on clothing, but the attorney who handled that died recently. The timing is also over the holidays.
Pomona started a mural program a couple years after the mural in question was finished.[6] Many of the names in that program match names associated with the PEtF mural. I think the thing to do is contact Pomona to find out who holds the PEtF mural copyright and see what the license terms are. Pomona apparently subsidized the work, so it may have negotiated a license.
Failing that, we keep the first image (previously published at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/10/01/18542429.php?show_comments=1) under a non-free argument for two articles and delete the remaining four for having no license. We may have to reduce the resolution of the image (say from 800 to 400 px), but I do not think that is necessary because the image does not show much detail; all but the goddess's face are fuzzy (but compare face and garlands to that in Mural4). In addition, the picture was taken in poor light (bench does not cast strong shadow), so the colors and contrast are poor.
Glrx (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of contacting the City of Pomona re: who owns the copyright. As a side comment, their image on page 2 of the City of Pomona Cultural Plan document, per your link [7], is actually a good image of the main portion of the mural.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As an FYI, there is a Pomona Cultural Plan website, which uses the image of the mural.
The contact for questions seems to be the Cultural Arts Commission. The phone number is currently routing to voicemail. One of the people on the advisory committee is Cheryl Bookout, whose idea to revitalize Pomona's art community resulted in the mural, is also a potential contact. Her email is posted at SCWCA. I am happy to reach out to either / both of these. Or, if someone prefers to do it, that's fine, too.—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Question - I have not seen anyone outside the initial discussion weigh in on these.

I agree with Glrx's assessment. If someone could comment, that would be very helpful to determine if the files could be used, should be deleted, other.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Yes, you could contact Pomona Cultural Arts Commission and see what it has to say about the mural copyright. Edward Tessier may be at Tessier Investments. Glrx (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Images

I do not understand how to upload my image to the page I am creating. The link to the image if from a Facebook domain of a politician. https://scontent.fktp1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13507141_1702818956649232_5532413607504053351_n.jpg?oh=93d19a496fd6df06d8dda37ac9eb74ba&oe=58DDF3F1 Please assist, thank you. Hmos (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid but chances are high that you cannot use this image at all. First, hotlinking or embedding doesn't work at Wikipedia, and on the other hand the image is most likely copyrighted and non-free. So you can't upload it here either. Wikipedia accepts only free images of living persons, i.e. images that are either out of copyright or have been released under a free licence.
It would be helpful if you could provide some more information about this gentleman and the photograph. Who is he and do you know who took the photo? De728631 (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Poster for non-English film

I changed the image from the English-language poster to the current Spanish-language one. However, Son of Saul uses the English-language poster instead. I thought that a poster from the country of origin is preferable, but I don't know anymore. I wonder whether swapping back to the English one is worth my time. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a copyright question. This is something that is up to editor, and if disputed, to the talk page. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
More like case-by-case basis? George Ho (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Media copyright - screenshot

Are we able to use screenshots that we took on our own and post them to wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiggyBattle9 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A screenshot of what? Most screenshots are of copyrighted materials, such as films or video games. Screenshots of such materials are derivative works, and as such subject to the copyright of the original materials. In certain limited cases regarding software, there may be some workarounds: read Wikipedia:Software screenshots. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Image for article Luna Blaise

Hi there,

I am trying to add an image to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_Blaise

I've tried countless times adding different images that I thought had the right licenses but continue facing the image being deleted off the page. Could you please help point me in the right direction on how I can do this the right way?

These are the only images I can find online: https://www.google.com/search?q=luna+blaise+zimbio&oq=luna+blaise+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60j69i59j69i60l3.1616j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

And these on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=luna%20blaise (but they don't seem right for a Wikipedia page)

Would I just be better off finding an unpublished image and doing it that way?

Thank you so much, CMCreator900

CMCreator900 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

CMCreator, images you find online have by definition been published already, and with certain limited exceptions are incredibly unlikely to be free of copyright. If you "find" an unpublished image, unless it is a photo you took yourself, the copyright is going to belong in most cases to the original photographer, who may not be eager to license that photo to us for free. Do you have access to the subject, or do you know someone who does, so that they might take a photo of the subject with the intention of licensing or donating the rights to us? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Yes I am in touch with the subject and may be able to get a photo. That is probably the best bet. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMCreator900 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2016/December&oldid=1077417390"