Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/June

Gay Pride Emoji

I've seen a gay pride emoji in tweets, visible at this link (address https://abs.twimg.com/hashflags/GayPride_Emoji_2017_v9/GayPride_Emoji_2017_v9.png). Is this something that could be uploaded or is there a copyright issue (not sure about the creativity threshold or whether this is a generic image / symbol)? Advice please.  :) Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Keybase logo 800px.png

Not sure if the licensing for this file is correct. Can {{BSD}} be used for logos, etc.? Should this be treated as non-free content? If so, then it should not be used in the user namespace per WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In the README for this repository, it says "Most code is released under the New BSD (3 Clause) License. If subdirectories include a different license, that license applies instead." There is no alternate license file anywhere in the Media subdirectory, which includes the logos. Therefore, the BSD license applies. I did find, however, a vector version of the file and have uploaded it to Commons. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 11:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting through this AntiCompositeNumber. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Already uploaded file "Crow camp at Tongue River, 1820"

Dear Wikipedia

Actually, this is an answer to a question send to me about the picture file "Crow camp at Tongue River, 1820". I read the question and then it went away, so I don't know who to answer.

I have the picture from the Tenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1888-'89. Washington, 1893. It is to be found here http://library.si.edu/digital-library/book/annual-report-bureau-ethnology-secretary-smithsonian-institution. It is on page 553, fig. 778. Usually, I think, Smithsonian Institution allow free use. The publisher is Government Printing Office. The above mentioned web-page says "Not in copyright".

However, the picture uploaded is a copy of a drawing on a Native American winter count (Lakota). I do not know if such a copy is Smithsonian "property" or if it belongs to a Native American?

Yours Naawada2016 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

A drawing published that far back is definitely public domain. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Declan Jones 2017.jpg deletion.

I was requested to get copyright permission of a picture I used on a page (Declan Jones). I obtained permission via email from Declan Jones himself and forwarded it to "permissions" within the 1 week deadline. The picture was still deleted. Can you reinstate? Regards, Ron (Manlydesign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manlydesign (talk • contribs) 15:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Manlydesign. File:Declan Jones 2017.jpg was deleted by an administrator named Explicit. You can post a message at User talk:Explicit and explain the situation. All editors, including administrators, are volunteers and occasionally people are WP:BUSY, so if you don't get an immediate response don't be discouraged. If you don't hear anything after a few days, you can ask for assistance at WP:REFUND or WP:OTRSN. Whomever sent in the "permissions email" should have received an OTRS ticket number, and that number can be used for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

When you uploaded this picture, you listed the author as Declan Jones; in other words, you claimed that he took the photo himself. If somebody else took the picture, that person is the "author" of the photo; so unless they explicitly sold "all rights" to Jones, he is not the copyright holder, and cannot give permission for that photo to be used. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Image Copyright Question

Hello, I recently uploaded an image to Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the image is below the threshold of originality. If the image is below the threshold of originality, what do I edit on the file of the image to inform of that and can I upload that image to the Wikimedia Commons?

File:Amethod Public Schools Logo.png

Mason 39 (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)Mason_39

According to our own article on threshold of originality and commons:Commons:Threshold of originality this wouldn't qualify for copyright. You should be fine to upload it at Commons; once that's done we can tag the Wikipedia copy for deletion. —Guanaco 03:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and advice Guanaco! I greatly appreciate it.

Mason 39 (talk) 3:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploading company logo

I want to write an article about Murka company (http://murka.com/) and would like to upload its' logo for the article (https://www.facebook.com/murka.games/photos/a.468925803121154.125273.468925679787833/1711907688822953/?type=1&theater). How can I use it if I do not know which license fits the image? Talizzzavr (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

How to give a license to image

What parameters should I use for the image files under pubic domain and free use I uploaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwachinazo (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do you suggest the images are in the public domain? I presume you are referring to the images that warnings were posted on your user page. Did you actually take the photo and design the school logo yourself or did you just copy them from a website? The copyright is owned by the photographer, designer or artist and you cannot just license it as being being free without their express permission. Just because an image is on the internet and seen publicly by website readers does not mean it is in the public domain. If the school has an article you may be allowed to upload the logo under our strict non-free media policy but not until the article is in mainspace. ww2censor (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Donating music sound recording but not composition

I would like to create audio recordings of several musical instruments listed at Category:Wikipedia requested musical instrument audio files. I plan to donate the sound recordings (as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). In order to represent the instruments in their usual context, I would like to record performances of material that is idiomatic.

• In some cases, there are suitable public domain compositions; this would pose no issue.
• In other cases, I could record and donate my own performance of a copyrighted composition, but include a brief enough excerpt that it would be considered fair use of the composition. How would I approach releasing recordings like this?
• If there issues with releasing a CC recording of a someone else's non-free composition, would it be possible to record an excerpt my own composition and release it this way? If the composition is my own, I would not contest the fair-use aspect.

--Theodore Kloba (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Theodore Kloba: only the first case (you donating your recording of public domain pieces) is possible. This is because fair-use content on Wikipedia is only allowed when it is not replaceable by free content. Obviously when the content here is the sound of an instrument, any public domain composition will do, so no fair-use composition based recordings are irreplaceable. If you want to opt for the third case (your recording of your own composition), you would have to donate (that part of) your recording as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Your explanation of the non-free content policy makes sense. However, I disagree with your claim that "Obviously when the content here is the sound of an instrument, any public domain composition will do". I believe (as I stated in my initial question) that the purpose of the requested recordings (1,570 currently requested) is to represent the instruments as they would appear "in real life", i.e. performing material typical for the instrument. Locating public-domain compositions meeting this aim will not always be as trivial as you say. For example: The Cümbüş was not invented until about 1930, so any compositions written specifically for that instrument will be non-free by default.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Photographs of 3D art

Who owns the copyright of a photograph that I took of a 3-D piece of art? Does it make any difference whether I own the piece (but am not the artist)? Does it make any difference if the piece is very old or contemporary?Punty Jon (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Punty Jon, if you take a photo of a piece of 3D art you own the copyright to that photo but any such photo is a derivative work and usually also requires copyright permission from the artist. So, it requires two permissions, one for the photograph and one from the artist, unless the art had fallen into the public domain based, usually on the death date of the artist which in most instances is 70 years pma. Ownership of any piece of art, 2D or 3D, confers not copyrights to the owner. In some instances the country rules vary, so we would need to know more about the piece and the artist before giving you more guidance. ww2censor (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If I took a screenshot of something, would I be able to use on my userpage?

Hello, sorry, but, I'm not very smart. And I get confused, and mess up a lot. So, I'm curious, and I don't expect it to be right. Let's say, I take a screenshot of a series. Can I then use it on my userpage and upload it? Probably not, right, since it's still copyrighted? But an image I took MYSELF, I can use, because its my own property, yes? Same with a drawing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisaWartooth27 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi AlisaWartooth27. If the underlying work is protected by copyright then any screenshot would almost certainly be protected by copyright as well. This means it might be possible to upload the screenshot as non-free content is you are able to clearly demonstrate that the way you wish to use it complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but this policy does not allow for non-free content to be used on user pages.

However, if you can clearly demonstrate that the underlying work is not protected by copyright (e.g., it has been released into the public domain or has been released under a free license), then any simple mechanical reproduction of it (i,e., a screenshot) could probably be uploaded and used on your userpage. This can be tricky because you need to evaluate whether the screenshot is a simple mechanical reproduction or a derivative work. The latter would imply that some creatively is involved and thus mean that the derivative work itself is protect by copyright.

Finally, just for reference, purchasing a product gives you ownership over the physical product itself, but does not give you ownership over the creative content of the product. So, when you by a DVD, you own the disc and its case, but you don't own the content on the disk or the cover art used for the case, etc. You can do what you want with the physical stuff, but you cannot freely license any of the creative content without the explicit consent of the original copyright holder. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

can I change the copy right of an image which is uploaded by me.

I have uploaded an image to wiki. Can I change the copy right of that photo ? It should be under free work policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion444 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming File:Swamini Atmaprajnananda Saraswati.jpg is the image you are referring to, it seems you did not take the photo yourself so the actusl photographer will need to give permission even if they have told you it is free work. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The photo will probably be deleted on 12 June but it would be restored after suitable permission has been accepted here. Thincat (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright holder has given me verbal permission to use the photos I plan to incorporate in my article...

Of the 24 photos I have on my computer, the owners of the paintings by Dennis Blalock have all sent me them in an email giving me permission to use for the Draft: Dennis Blalock article. Can I get the copyright holder's approval in an email to me, or to Wiki somehow online, or who should I get her to write a regular letter to someone specifically in Wikipedia? I had tried a few days ago to do it on the Wikimedia Commons, but was not successful. Can't find it again. And, when I tried to ask a question on that help site I read they were 70 days behind in answering. I've had much better help with kind editors on Wikipedia with my previous questions. A little while ago when I began with the first upload, none of the 'copyright status" questions exactly pertained to my situation....although the pictures will be 'free use', I am an owner of some of the paintings, but not the copyright holder. They will be small versions to protect them from being used for making prints. I have been told that was OK. Should I send them full size images, or reduced to the smaller size first? Please tell me what I need to do next to continue using the Wikipedia Commons for uploading more pictures. Thank you, ElisabetElisabet Stacy-Hurley 23:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk • contribs)

I see from your draft that the artist has only recently died so the paintings will still be in copyright. The copyright holder will be whoever inherited it under his will, not necessarily whoever owns the paintings. Although this may seem bizarre Wikipedia is not concerned with whoever took the photographs because US law does not regard taking a photo of a painting as being sufficiently creative to attract copyright. Seeing your requests for help elsewhere, I would be willing to tidy up the draft for the references and table of contents if you would like me to do this. Unfortunately it would take me too long to explain what to do! (I was looking at an old version of the draft and you have now sorted this out). Thincat (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To get copyright organised you should refer to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Thincat (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Eva Lovia and Erik Horbacz on January 23, 2016.jpg

Is the licensing of File:Eva Lovia and Erik Horbacz on January 23, 2016.jpg OK? I can't find the licensing for it anywhere on the source URL, but I might be looking in the wrong place or missing it because I'm using my phone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Free image source template

I asked this days ago at the Help Desk but did not get any response there. Template:US image sources lists U.S. sources of free images. It has a "license" column that I believe is supposed to be the license required to use the image at Commons (although Commons is listed as the first source which is a bit confusing.) It includes Flickr, and says the required license is CC 2.0. But at WM Commons, I believe I have tried to upload an image in the past with a CC2.0 license but couldn't because CC 2.5 or higher is required. Am I interpreting this correctly? Is this template out-of-date? MB 15:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Any version number (2.0, 2.5, etc.) of CC licenses is accepted on Commons, if the type of license is a free licence (CC by, CC by-sa). Perhaps you tried to upload an image with a CC license that included a non-commercial (nc) or a no-derivative (nd) restriction, which are not accepted on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Asclepias, I just went to commons and using the upload wizard, said NOT own work, published under CC license - then you are given a menu to check for CC 2.5, 3.0, or 4.0. But if you first select that the photo was from Flickr, then it says that the license must be CC 2.0. I clearly did not select Flickr on my previous attempt. I'm not really clear on these two choices, but it appears there is a way to upload a CC 2.0 licensed images (if it is published on Flickr). MB 00:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Does this image qualify for a public domain logo

Hi there! I was wondering if the Chegg Logo (File:Chegg logo.png) could be transferred to the Commons with the licencing tags Template:PD-logo and Template:Trademark, or if it would be consitered non-free? Thank you! Daylen (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still confused. If I uploaded a drawing by myself, or a photo taking by myself, I could use it on my userpage, right?

What the headline says. I'd like to add an image, but, I don't wanna mess around with any copyright stuff, since, I'm honestly still VERY confused. I'm not exactly the smartest person around.

So, if I did make an image, and uploaded it to wikimedia, it would be mine, right? And I could do what I wanted with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisaWartooth27 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi AlisaWartooth27. I tried to answer your question in your previous post above. Perhaps you did not see it or perhaps you did not understand it. Generally, it's best to try and keep comments related to the same subject in the same discussion thread whenever possible to make things easier to follow.

Anyway, the best way to answer your question is it probably depends on what image you actually make. For example, if you sit down and draw/paint/make an image completely from scratch just based upon your own original inspiration or creativity, then that would be your "own work" and you can release it under a free license if you like. However, if you base your creation on another person's work, then you need to take into account the copyright status of that work: (1) if the underlying work is protected by copyright, then you can create a derivative work of it, but you cannot freely license it without the explicit consent of the original copyright holder of the underlying work; (2) if the underlying work is not protected by copyright, then you can freely license whatever you create without worrying about any kind of copyright infringement.

Finally, it's pretty important to understand that a "free license" with respect to Wikipedia means that you are giving advance permission for anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and basically use it anyway they plaease, including for commericial purposes. In addition, once you release something under a free license, you can't revoke the license after the fact. A "free image" is an image which is free from copyright protection, not an image which is free to download or obtain with paying any kind of fee. You might want to take some time to read through Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright since it contains much more detail on copyrights and Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploading a new logo of the same entity

As described in Help desk (Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017 June 8#To keep or not to keep the copyrighted image (logo)?), I have uploaded two versions of a logo:

File:Tun Abdul Razak Univ logo.png a year ago, and

File:Unirazak logo.jpg recently.

The older file got replaced in an article by the new one and will be deleted soon.

Should I have uploaded the new logo under the same name instead?

If I did, we would be keeping the same name for essentialy the same thing, and additionally we would keep (some of) the history of the logo. --CiaPan (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

They are in different formats, so I think you could have uploaded them using the same name. I'm not sure what you mean by keeping the same history of the logo since I think they need to be different files because of the different formats. The file extension is part of the file's name and trying to name a png file as a jpg or vice versa is probably not a good idea and could lead to the name being changed per WP:FNC#3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Format does not matter here, no problem to convert JPEG to PNG and change the name extension accordingly. I am asking whether I should have uploaded a new image under the same name. The very same name, so that is would have made a single logo history with different images, similar to e.g. File:Jane Fonda 1963.jpg or File:PotsdamSanssouciChineseHouse.jpg or File:European Rivers.gif. --CiaPan (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(Forgot to ping: Marchjuly. --CiaPan (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC))

It doesn't matter but I think it is best to upload different images under different names and then change the file name in the corresponding article. Thincat (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thincat: Thanks, that's how I did it (Special:Diff/784299255). --CiaPan (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I misunderstood the question, so apologies for that. It seemed to me as if you were asking whether you should've uploaded two similar files separately using the same name, and not whether you should've updated an existing file with a different/slightly different version. Anyway, Thincat seems to have helped. Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/May#Uploading new version of non-free media might also be worth taking a look at. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you. After reading an archived talk from May 2017, which you linked above (and even older one from April) I see it's probably best to keep each version of a non-free image as a separate file, so I'm happy with the way I did it. Possibly the files could have similar names, e.g. XYZ_logo_2001.ext, XYZ_logo_2009.ext, XYZ_logo_2015.ext, but I'm not going to mess things up by renaming them now, once uploaded. Anyway it would be rather hard to force such naming convention on uploaders ;) --CiaPan (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What tag should I use?

I wanted to upload the logo of Youtuber Bill Wurtz (image here (already in a low resolution if it qualifies under fair use)), famous for making History of Japan (video) and History of the Entire World, I Guess (video) but I kept running into the same problem: What tag should I use!? Is it the "ineligible for copyright because it's simple geometric shapes or text" one along with (probably) the trademark tag (so it can be on Commons) or the non-free logo tag and rationale (so it can only be in the English Wikipedia)? I really want to know this, and I will thank whoever answers that to me. Trigonometria⁸₇ ^speak 22:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

uploading files from xeno-canto to wikicommons

Is there any prohibition in uploading audio files from http://www.xeno-canto.org/ , bird songs to wikicommons. What are the procedures to be followed Iamsalin (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Iamsalin At the bottom of the xeno-canto mainpage it states Recordings © the recordist. See recording details for license information and on those songs I looked at each one had a non-commercial share-alike copyright license that we do not accept, so unless you can find some freely licensed songs or persuade the recordist to change their license to a share-alike or attribution license, I think you are out of luck. Good luck.

Image License

I want to add the image of our company logo, where can I find the form to submit that the image cant be used freely (since it is a company logo)? Please help.

Thank you,

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradient1021 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

By far the simplest – and no hassle – way is to upload it to our sister project Wikimedia Commons. Here is an email template for you to give your permission (boxed in a black boarder). [1] You can then simple insert the image , logo or what ever, into the the article about your organization. Your draft about this company Draft:Zetta Medical Technologies has not come up for approval yet but there is no reason why you should not upload free images to Wikimedia Commons if' they are properly licenced. Aspro (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gradient1021:, Aspro is referring to logos that are freely licensed but you state the image can't be used freely, so in that case the commons will not accept such images. You can upload such non-free company logos here to identify the organisation in the infobox of their own article if they comply with all 10 of our strict non-free policy guidelines. However, you can only upload it after the article is in mainspace and then it must have a fully completed first-use rationale, preferably this one {{Non-free use rationale logo}} (click on the template link to see how to use it) as well as the appropriate license template {{non-free logo}}. If you need help when the draft article is approved just ask again. ww2censor (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, please note: Wikipedia is not a 'trade directory' and doesn't allow itself to be used as a promotional vehicle. So you need to also declare your COI to avoid your draft being deleted as just an other example of spam. Your draft appears to be more of an Advertorial rather than an encyclopedic article. Fore warned is fore armed. Anyway, why are you doing this Mike? Shouldn't you be tasking this to someone else – do they have any authority to speak for you...? Aspro (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Acknowledged

Please delete the 3 images, I realize that I need to do it under the right license. All images are mine, but nevertheless, I needed to do correctly. Once (and if) the article is approved, I will follow the right approach to upload with the right license. Thanks to @Ww2censor: advice. "Gradient1021 (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)"

Also, @Aspro:, I appreciate the advice. In the article, I shared the history about my company and listed all factual information. You ask why am I doing this? Who is a better source for this information than the founder of the company, the person who was there from day one. This is not an advertisement. I thought, when the company is 100 years old, and I am not around anymore to tell the history, Wikipedia would be the one to share our 100 year old history. Anyway, there are other companies listed on Wikipedia with the same format that I followed. If you want to reject the article, this is your call, not mine. I saw this as a start for my contributions on Wikipedia and if it not good enough, tell me how I can make it better. Either Way, I understand. no hard feelings! "Gradient1021 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)"

newspaper article cut outs

Hello I have two newspaper article cut outs from the 40s that would help source a contribution that I am posting. Neither article includes the date or the newspaper name. They are both from the 40s. I would like to know if I can use them nonetheless as I need more support for the article am trying to post. Can I scan both of them and upload them to Wikipedia commons and then use them? best --Gzegosh (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gzegosh: There's no need to upload references in order to use them when writing an article. You just need to cite them. In fact, you should not upload them since they are most likely not free content. The problem I see with these articles is that you cannot cite them as references if you don't know where or when they were published. Although you say they are from the 40s, you also said the dates are omitted. Is there any possibility that they are from a publication that is archived online? You could try searching for a unique phrase in the document to see if something comes up. (I was able to do something similar to find the origin of a clipped recipe that turned out to be from the Chicago Tribune in 1946).Theodore Kloba (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger of two logos to form a brand, can it still be public domain?

So there's this logo I'd like to use on Wikipedia which is File:MRT and RapidKL logo.svg. I put it under public domain, since the logo is essentially, a mashup of two other different logos which is File:Rapid KL Logo.svg and File:MRT Corp brand logo.png; they're both under public domain. There's an "operated by" lettering in between them, but I'll assume that's also just text. I'm asking this since I need the logo to be used for a template... Fazley01 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that MRT logo qualifies for the "simple geometric shapes" exemption. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Metro logo black 2014.svg

File:Metro logo black 2014.svg probably does not need to be treated as non-free. The question is whether it should be {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The logo is for a British company. I think that it should be OK as PD-logo, but I'm not sure because of the UK's very low threshold of originality. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Specific attribution requirement of CC-BY-SA-4.0 unsuitable for WMF?

Question: can a CC-BY license be so demanding that it is not suitable for WMF sites?

File:1022 Muscle Fibers (small).jpg is an image taken from an OpenStax CNX textbook. The textbook page with the image is at Skeletal Muscle. The textbook is CC-BY-SA 4.0; see How to Reuse & Attribute this Content (attribution tab at bottom of page).

CC-BY requires that "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". OpenStax requires the following attribution for parts of its work:

If you redistribute part of this textbook, then you must retain in every digital format page view (including but not limited to EPUB, PDF, and HTML) and on every physical printed page the following attribution:

Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/14fb4ad7-39a1-4eee-ab6e-3ef2482e3e22@8.25.

The Commons File: page does not have the required statement (or even the required URL), so it seems to violate the attribution requirement.

In addition, the attribution-statement-on-each-digital-page-view requirement appears to conflict with the attribution that WMF requires to be sufficient for a text contribution. For text contributions, a hyperlink must be sufficient attribution. See WMF Terms of Use.

To put a fine point on it, any (large) chunk of CC-BY text content from OpenStax is NOT suitable for WMF sites because a hyperlink is insufficient attribution. An editor who copied a section of the text and then inserted only a <ref> tag with a {{cite web}} to the page with the text would be following WMF expectations but violating OpenStax' attribution requirements. WMF would not accept such text.

WMF requirements for non-text are more vague:

Non-text media: Non-text media on the Projects are available under a variety of different licenses that support the general goal of allowing unrestricted re-use and re-distribution. When you contribute non-text media, you agree to comply with the requirements for such licenses as described in our Licensing Policy, and also comply with the requirements of the specific Project edition or feature to which you are contributing. Also see the Wikimedia Commons Licensing Policy for more information on contributing non-text media to that Project.

I don't know if it is stated explicitly anywhere, but my sense is WMF wants all the required licensing and attribution information to be on the File: page and not on each page view. I get that sense from the above comments and from Licensing, which states

Note: The GFDL is not practical for photos and short texts, especially for printed media, because it requires that they be published along with the full text of the license.

Admittedly, the OpenStax attribution statement is much shorter than a GFDL license, but it is very likely that editors will just link a Commons image and omit any attribution that is required on the page. Hyperlink-sufficient attribution for an image would involve just clicking on the image and letting MW take the reader to the File: page, which should have the relevant licensing and attribution.

Does WMF accept per-page attribution requirements?

Glrx (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:COMPLIC does not specify why the licenses are not compatible. May want to prod WMF Legal about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding specifically "File:1022 Muscle Fibers (small).jpg", the first version was uploaded from cnx.org in 2013 under its license CC BY 3.0. In 2013, the attribution requirements of cnx.org:80/content/col11496/1.6/content_info were:

"If you reuse this work elsewhere, in order to comply with the attribution requirements of the license (CC-BY 3.0), you must include

the authors' names: OpenStax College

the title of the work: Anatomy & Physiology

the Connexions URL where the work can be found: http://cnx.org/content/col11496/1.6/"

The Commons description page complied with those requirements from 2013 until 2016 [2]. It could have remained like that. Any modifications made later to the licensing and/or attribution at the source would not be retroactive on reuses made validly from the 2013 version. The Commons user uploaded a "new" version in 2016, with a new license and a modified description [3]. It looks like basically the same image. The user also added in 2016 the template "Self" in a way that makes it look like he now claims ownership of the copyright, which does not seem correct. Anyway, if there's any problem with the present version of the description page "File:1022 Muscle Fibers (small).jpg", regarding the attribution requirements for the "new" version of the image, or the validity of the licensing of the "new" image, or otherwise, we can always revert to the image version of 2013 and to the corresponding version of the Commons description page.

• Regarding the present licensing and attribution requirements at cnx.org/contents/FPtK1zmh@8.25:fEI3C8Ot@10/Preface, it depends if the wording of the condition "retain in every digital format page view and on every physical printed page" can be interpreted as compatible with section 3(a) of a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. If it can, then the presence of the required attribution on the description page of a Commons file would be consistent with the policies and practices of Wikimedia and a citation of text might be fine if it satisfies section 3(a)(2) of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. If it can't, then it's not a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. It would be a special license, perhaps "free", but with a clause that makes the material unusable or difficult to use on Wikimedia. In other words, it depends if cnx.org wrote their attribution requirement to depart or not from the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, in particular its section 3(a). It could be a good thing to ask them.

-- Asclepias (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, you've focused the issues for me.

The CC-BY license 3(a)(1)(A)(i.) seems to allow the licensor to specify how his identity is retained by the licensee (e.g., specify using real name Samuel Clemens or psuedonym Mark Twain), but it does not seem to control the manner of stating the license (such as putting the attribution on each page or a specific statement such as "download for free at xyz"). The licensor may require a URI to the material. (v)

Section 3(a)(2) says the licensee may satisfy the attribution requirements in 3(a)(1) by any reasonable manner. That is the licensee's choice and not something that the licensor may dictate. If reasonable, the manner of attribution may be a hyperlink.

For printed matter, OpenStax clearly requires the attribution notice on each page. That violates 3(a)(2). OpenStax does not want a printed book that has an appendix that gives attribution (e.g, states figure 14 on page 382 came from OpenStax...).

Given the printed matter requirement of visible attribution on each page, I can only read the page view requirement as displaying the required text (without following a hyperlink). That is outside of 3(a)(2) because it disallows other reasonable methods.

Consequently, OpenStax is not offering a compliant CC-BY-SA license. It is offering a different license that WMF has neither accepted nor rejected.

Glrx (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Using pic of a map placed in public location

Hi, I have clicked an image File:GulabBagh Map.jpg which a map of a public garden. This pic is actually placed at the entrance gate of that public garden Gulab_Bagh_and_Zoo. Since this is a public place, and map is also kept open for public, i don't think taking a picture should be any problem. Still i would like to know if i need to update the image copyright, or need any other action for the same. All help and support would be appreciated. Vishal0soni (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Vishal0soni: Just because something is freely visible to the public, either in real life or online, does not mean that there is no copyright to the design. In this instance you have a photo of a map, which is a derivative work, so it requires two permissions; one from the photographer and one from the artist or designer. Most likely this map was created by the organisation that runs the park or was commissioned by them and they would be the copyright holders, so their permission is required for us to keep the image. Indian copyright generally lasts for 60 years pma and this does not look that old, besides which freedom of panorama does not apply to 2D items per c:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#India. Sorry but you are out of luck on this one. However, someone could make a new drawing based on the information in the map and that would be fine, so long as it is not a slavish copy. ww2censor (talk)

Copyright question about a link to copyrighted academic work

A university press may publish the work of academics in pdf format. The work is copyrighted, yet freely viewable by the world in pdf format on the university's website. May a WP editor use this pdf link as a citation in a WP article? An example:

http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/documents/Agriculture%20from%20Eco%20Transformation%20Soviet%20Union.pdf

The University of Melbourne has published a pdf copy of a work by Davies, Harrison, and Wheatcroft at the above link. May an editor use this link to the pdf copy as a cite in an article, or is this a copyright violation?

Thanks for your help, Santamoly (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You can cite and link to a source, as long as the work is published legally at that source. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we assume that a university press (i.e Melbourne University Press, in this example) is publishing legally, or do we have to prove the legality of each cite? Do universities engage in illegal publishing? I'm not sure how to prove the legality of the publication of an academic paper by a university press. Santamoly (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Santamoly: I would be personally comfortable with using that link because the author of the scanned PDF article is apparently the same person who is running the website. To answer one of your general questions, I'm sure that people at universities sometimes post scans they are not authorized to scan. Without contacting the publisher, I doubt there is any way to be 100% certain that any particular scan was posted legally. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The link's legitimacy is far from simple. The link looks like a straight up WP:COPYLINK violation without substantial digging.

First, the link is a scan of a book rather than a professional PDF. Crappy book scans are likely copyright violations. Legitimate publishers usually have access to the publication source and could post high-quality PDFs.

Second, the original publisher of the work is Cambridge University Press. Nothing suggests the website is controlled by CUP. The copyright statement identifies a press syndicate that has a Melbourne address, but 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne, 3166, Australia is 20 km from the University of Melbourne. It looks like a CUP office rather than something associated with umimelb.

Third, nothing suggests that URL is Melbourne University Press. http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/home-front.php It is just some organ inside unimelb.edu.au. Nothing on the landing page suggests CUP or MUP.

Fourth, university sites often have personal sites and course sites that contain copyright violations. A student might copy some references to his space; a prof might make some research article available to his class. Even if those copies are fair use, their exposure to the outside world is a copyright violation.

All of those make the link look bad. There is an out.

The authors of journal articles are often allowed to publish their work on websites that they control. If any of the three authors controls the website, then it may be a legit publication. The editors are R. W. Davies, Mark Harrison, and S. G. Wheatcroft; the chapter authors are Davies and Wheatcroft. The control of the subdomain is Stephan Wheatcroft. http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/home-contact.php I'd guess that S. G. and Stephan are the same, and it should be reasonable to assume that S. G. would not violate his publisher's copyright. However, the republication rights are usually for journal articles and not books. The republication is a chapter out of a book, and the chapters have identifiable authors, so it is similar to a journal publication. Still, it is not a journal article.

Maybe the republication is legit, but I'm not comfortable with it until something is found that states CUP allows Wheatcroft to republish chapters of his book.

Glrx (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

PD-logo question

Does File:Vancouver Sun logo 2016.jpg qualify as a public domain logo? Thanks! Daylen (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of an anonymous 1920-photograph where first publication date is unknown

At Talk:Ulsda railway stop#Non-free photo, there is a question about the copyright status of a photograph taken in 1920 in the Netherlands. The author of the photograph and date of first publication are unknown, but cannot be later than February 2007 and is likely much earlier. I cannot find what the rules are in this situation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it really 1920? This commons page c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Netherlands states that: expires 70 years after 1 January of the year following that in which the work was first lawfully communicated to the public, so the question will probably be determined by finding out, if possible, when the picture was first published. If the image has never been available before its recent online page then you are well out of luck but if you can find information it was published or available in some public way more than 70 years ago, it will be ok. You might just better trying to use it as a non-free image. Not easy. ww2censor (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It can't be used as a non-free image. In the article where the question says it would be used, there is no substantial commentary on the merits of this photograph or on the work or career of the photographer. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of the photographer or photograph is not the only reason for non-free content. If it was used as non-free it would be to illustrate the station building, which is a permissable use if it significantly enhances the understanding of the subject (I have no opinion currently whether it would or not). Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We can't use a non-free work to illustrate something other than that work (or to show an example of the work of its author). Wikipedia having a non-free content policy does not mean that we can ignore copyrights and use a non-free image whenever we don't have a free image. "Enhancing the understanding of the subject" does not mean of any subject and it is not a standalone condition that would allow to ignore all other requirements. A first step is to make sure the illustrative use if about the right subject, that it is about the non-free work in question. After that condition is met, then the use must also meet additional conditions, such as being useful to enhance the understanding of that subject. In the present case, what is the non-free work in question here? It is the photograph. Thus, the basic requirement is that the illustrative use must be about this photograph or about its author. If there was an article commenting this photograph, then the additional requirement of enhancing the understanding of this subject (the subject being the photograph) would be easily met. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely it must meet all the criteria, not just this one (and I have not looked to see if this image does or not), but (when other conditions are met) we do allow non-free images where the encyclopaedic discussion is about what the image depicts rather than about the image itself or the photographer/artist) - e.g. File:Weirdalclassic.jpg, File:Hadley Lodge after the fire.jpg and File:Garden Bridge - London - Arup Image.jpg. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The photo can't be from 1920 if the building pictured on it was built in 1930. The source says 1932. Not much can be done without information about the photographer and the publication year. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Asclepias and Ww2censor: There are two images being discussed, the first is from 1932 but the second is clearly labelled as 1920. The building was built in 1905, moved in 1930 and demolished in 1950. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I see, thank you for the explanation. So, the question is if the 1920 photo of the Westerbroek stop can be used to illustrate the article about the Ulsda stop. Well, a 1920 photo has a better chance to be considered free in the United States, if a reasonable indication can be found that it was published before 1923. Still, it must be found to be free, not used as a non-free image. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The main question is actually, "what is the copyright status of the 1920 image?" because if it is free then there is no way the 1932 photograph (which is definitely not PD in the USA as an anonymous work) could be used under fair use. If the 1920 image is non-free then the replaceability criterion is met for the 1932 image and it is worth looking to see if the other criteria are also met. I don't think anyone is seeking to use the 1920 image under fair use on the Ulsda article (although "This is the station building at Westerbook, before it was moved to Ulsda." is relevant enough to be at least considered rather than an obvious failure of NFCC 8). Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Online magazine cover upload

Please advise how to upload a cover (image) of an online magazine to Wikipedia, in regards to license. Thank you Parviziskender (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

ANBest.jpg

I do not understand why I continue to get a warning about uploading this image that belongs to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholsZIP (talk • contribs) 12:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The first copy, File:ANBest.jpg, which you had uploaded at 14:38, 1 May 2016, was the object of the message left on your talk page at 17:05 the same day, 1 May 2016, by the ImageTaggingBot, as an information that the description page did not include a copyright status template. This means that even if you possibly had mentioned the copyright status in the page, you probably had forgotten to add a template, which is necessary to be detected by the system. This first copy was deleted eight days later, on 9 May 2016, since no tag had been added in the meantime. The message from 1 May 2016 is still on your talk page because contents of talk pages are not automatically deleted. If old messages from 2015 and 2016 on your talk page bother you, you can archive them. The third copy File:ANBest2.jpg, which you uploaded on 19 June 2017 under a CC by-sa 4.0 license, has a deletion warning because it is an identical duplicate copy of the second copy File:Ashton Nichols.jpeg, which you have already uploaded on 4 May 2016 under a public domain release, and also of the fourth copy File:ANBest.jpeg, which you uploaded on 19 June 2017 under a CC0 public domain declaration. It is recommended to upload only one copy of an image. Identical duplicates are likely to be deleted, in particular a copy that mentions a more restrictive copyright status than another copy. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@NicholsZIP: All the identical images have been deleted and File:Ashton Nichols.jpeg is now the only image that remains and it is one the commons but it requires your attention over there because it does not have any evidence of permission, so you may want to address that otherwise it too will be deleted. It is also missing other details. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Demolished building

Can I use a 1932 photo of a demolished building? (full question and discussion) – Editør (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Editør: This image is being discussed in the post on this page just 3 posts above this one. ww2censor (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Image of K. Anders Ericsson

I tried uploading a picture of psychologist K. Anders Ericsson last year. The picture is a portrait picture take for his bio profile at Florida State University. The picture that I was going to use I was able to find on other free image website, so it acceptable for free use on Wikipedia, if I understand the terms correctly. I tried uploading the picture to the Ericsson Wikipedia page, but I uploaded it incorrectly and it posted to the Tale Page. I did leave an entry on the Talk Page that if anyone could correct it to do so. The picture was removed from the Talk Page, but it wasn't inserted to the Main Page.But, it is a good thing the picture was not added. I've gone back to Ericsson's FSU bio page and there is probably an updated picture. I used the right tag, I just uploaded the picture to the wrong place. Now, when I look at the tags, I don't know which tag to use now.

RayGhost-Use way as no way; Use limitation as no limitation 09:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayghost (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry you had trouble with your upload but it was deleted as unacceptable and per the note left on you talk page at the time there was no licence for the image. Even if a new image is available from the same website (I presume you mean the one on this webpage) you cannot use it because it is copyright to someone and you don't have their permission to use it. That's what determines what licence tag get applied. Basically most images you find on the internet are copyright and without any clear evidence they are freely licenced they will be deleted if you upload them. Sorry but you must try to either, get permission from the copyright owner and have it verified by them by them following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT or you have to search for a free image somewhere else. Flickr does not seem to have any free images of him, so you may just be out of luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:God Wars II screenshot of dungeon with MUSHclient plugin.png

File has conflicting copyright licenses. It cannot really licensed as {{self}} and {{non-free video game screenshot}}. The screenshot itself seems to me to be more of a mechanical reproduction than a WP:Derivative work, so I don't believe it can be copyrighted. The underlying content of the game, however, may be be copyrightable (unless it can be shown to be freely released) and therefore probably needs to be non-free. If the file is non-free, then it will need to be provided for non-free use rationales for each of its uses or it will be deleted per WP:F6. Is there any way this screenshot can be licensed under a free license or converted to public domain? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, if the MUSHClient shell graphics are copyrighted, then we do have a situation where the underlying text within it cannot be copyrighted (as text) but the graphical elements are. I would make it simple and just tag non-free if the MUSHClient doesn't have an free content license for screenshots. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

WQED

I have Fixed the Issue with WQED-TV.Jpg by tagging it with a video and put proper copyright on the picture. Bbabybear02 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Robert Wadlow.jpg

How do we know this photo is still under copyright? The source given goes nowhere, and no version that I can find online has any info. ... discospinster _talk 19:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Discospinster: I found an archive link of the original source website and have added it to the image but it does not provide any more information. The photo itself in more that 70 years old but we have no idea who took it and when they died. ww2censor (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Or when and where it was published. More research in books, newspapers and other sources might lead to the answer. Given the large number of photos of him that were published, it would be surprising if there weren't some that were published without the copyright requirements. For example, maybe this postcard. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Discospinster: Well spotted Asclepias, so I've uploaded the postcard and it back as: File:Robert Wadlow postcard.jpg and File:Robert Wadlow postcard-address side.jpg. As you say the should really be more around seeing as how popular he was. The address side may even be his signature but that would need some research. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Downtown Newport, Vermont, USA.jpg and File:Downtown Winooski, Vermont, USA.jpg

Hi. I have some concerns over the two aforementioned files (esp. File:Downtown Newport, Vermont, USA.jpg, because both appear to have been taken from Google Street View. In particlar, the licence plates of the cars in Downtown Newport, Vermont, USA.jpg appear to have been blurred, and both have panoramics similar to those in Google's street view. I wanted to add to these files the {{copy to commons|human=JWilz12345}} tag for them to be used on Tagalog Wikipedia (in the future articles of both Vermonter cities there), although I have some doubts over the nature of these imgs. I need some further clarification on this, so that I will have long-term assurance. Thanks! JWilz12345 (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

How odd is it that they took their pictures exactly when the Google Street View car was there! [4] [5] Tagged as copyvio. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 12:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The file File:Downtown Vergennes, Vermont.jpg, uploaded by the same uploader, seems fine (i.e. No problems), as it has metadata and complete desc (I've already added copy to commons tag to that file). But the two aforementioned files are questionable regarding their nature and characteristics (not to mention the similarity of the sky and clouds in Newport city's img to Newport city's street view in Google).JWilz12345 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Indian Head Rock in storage, Greenup County Garage 2016.png

I guess I'm over my head here. The documentarian emailed me screen captures of his film to use in Indian Head Rock. I got a message from Train2104 that a picture I used was subject to deletion. Am I supposed to forward my private email with my phone number and personal email address and other personal info to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Is this the correct procedure? Mephiboshethsmaid (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mephiboshethsmaid: not quite, the person who created the image needs to email permissionswikimedia.org giving permission for the image to be used. See WP:Consent for a model wording of the email. Nthep (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Khushbu.Jpg

I had clicked this picture of her and wanted to upload on Draft:Khushbu_Thakkar. I don't have sources for the same. This is also available on google while searching since it was uploaded on various platform like Instagram and Facebook. Now I want to use either the picture that I uploaded or else image that is aviable on below link. Please let me know how to do it stepwise.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/khushbu-thakkar-turns-troublemaker-in-tv-biwi-aur-main/articleshow/59108895.cms

@Sdhakray:that image is clearly copyrighted to the Times parent company Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd (BCCL) so it can't be used on Wikipedia unless the Times agree to licence it under a free licence which is very unlikely. Please understand that being widely available on the internet does not make a picture a public domain item. Wikipedia can only use files which are out-of-copyright, have been specifically placed in the public domain by their creator or are specifically tagged by their creator with a compatible licence - see WP:Image use policy for more details. Nthep (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: please see below link the website's content is available under CC-BY-SA. Can we use this picture? Thanks!!

https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/beautiful-books/images/c/c2/Khushbu_Thakkar.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/300?cb=20140521111905 [[[User:Sdhakray|SuryaDhakray]] (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)]

Well ostensibly it's CC-BY-SA but I'm always sceptical about photos from wikia.com as there is very little information given to prove that it's the copyright holder who has put the CC licence on the image. When I can find the same image is or was on the Times of India website [6] then I get even more suspicious that the wikia image is a copyright violation. So personally I'd say no and advise against using the wikia image. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't trust it. The Wikia version of the image has no information on it's info page as to source, etc. A quick google search finds it's readily available in multiple places at different sizes, including some that are larger than this one [7]. The lack of metadata pretty much cinches it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)