Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/April

Martin S. Bergmann

Can I use a screenshot of Prof. Martin S. Bergmann from either Adam Curtis' 'Century of the Self', or Woody Allen's 'crimes and misdemeanours' (both feature Bergmann). I mean a screenshot from youtube or google video. I seem to remember that video screenshots bypass the copyright rule... Am I wrong? --Torsrthidesen (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCC applies to non-free screenshots, the same as any other non-free content. What you may be thinking of is that sometimes a screenshot can be used to show how fictional character looks to significantly increase reader understanding of source commentary on the appearance. —teb728 t c 00:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So in answer: If he appears more or less the same in the screenshot as he does in life, you can't use a screenshot, for it could be replaced by a free photo. —teb728 t c 00:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. In other words, no chance of a photo, as there are no non-copyright photos of him online...? (Since he does look like himself in the videos) --Torsrthidesen (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

But, how would you recommend going about finding an image to use in the article then? Any ideas? --Torsrthidesen (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Image of Jean Baptiste Besard

Dear Wikipedians, I am preparing (sandboxing) an article and I dearly wish to use an image of Jean Baptiste Besard. The image I want to use is available at a number of websites (e.g. here, here and here as well). All are identical and are obviously reproductions of an image created centuries ago. I have previously attempted to upload a copy of it to commons but some admin (or bot) deleted it citing copyright concerns. I would be grateful for guidance on how to proceed as I believe it to be well out of copyright. Thanks in advance. --Jschnur (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are asking about File:Besard Jean Baptiste.jpg, it was deleted from Wikipedia (not Commons) under WP:CSD#F4, which presumably means that you did not provide a tag indicating its copyright status. That's what the message on your user talk page says too. —teb728 t c 01:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I want meaning and sentences of some words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.82.71 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Try uploading it here, and using the {{pd-old}} tag - work was clearly first published well before 1923. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Elen, I've uploaded it to commons with the suggested tag and now all seems right with the world.Jschnur (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I recently contacted an author

and asked her for a picture to use at her article. I explained that she would be giving up copyright to any pictures used. She sent me back several pictures with the following statement:
" I'm attaching two author photos here - and, for fun, a shot of me in Saudi. There are no copyright issues to worry about with these photos."
To me this is good enough, but what do I call these pictures when I upload them? Public domain? Fair use? Something else? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I have it figured out. Carptrash (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

COpyright license grants have to be in writing and clear what they mean. Here we also need evidence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Interent image usage

So let's say we google image search "honda odyssey". Would all of the images be copyrighted because of the Honda logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammarcheckr (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If the logo was only a small part of the picture then the whole picture is not an infringement of the logo. However a random image returned from Google search will probably have a non free copyright on it. However note that you can go to advanced image search and "pick free to use, share or modify even commercially" and get images likely to be suitable for upload here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also note that some logos aren't copyrightable because they are too simple. For example, File:Honda-logo.svg is very simple, so any image containing that logo would be fine. At File:06-08 Honda Civic Ph.jpg there is a different Honda logo, and I would say that that logo also is too simple to be copyrighted. Finally, on the second picture, the logo only covers an insignificant part of the photo, so with that image there would be no issue even if the logo were more complex. It is not clear exactly which Honda logo you are talking about, but the photos of cars at the Honda Odyssey web site use the second logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Republican Elephant

I'd like to use this [1] as a logo on the Republican Party template {{Republican Party (United States)}}. The license is OK, its CC-BY-NC-SA, but is the image sufficiently distinct from the official Rep logo to use here? Actually, I'd prefer the logo without the stars. Would that also work? Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 05:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-SA is not OK because it doesn't allow commercial use of the image. However, the Flickr page you linked to indicates a CC-BY licence, and CC-BY is fine. I'm concerned with the similarity to File:Republicanlogo.svg, and would say that the Flickr image looks like a derivative work of the original logo and that it is thus not OK. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Tower bar Craigshill

I am wanting to use this image from panoramion which is freely licensed [2]. For images from Geograph they have a special template for Wikipedia, Is there one that is used for images Panaramio Images and how is the best way about Uploading it? C. 22468 Talk to me 15:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Panoramio users can change image licences at any time, so it is necessary that an admin or licence reviewer confirms the current licence. Therefore, I suggest that you upload the image to Commons where a "review needed" template, {{Panoramioreview}}, is available. Make sure to tag the image with that template so that someone will review the licence. Unlike Flickr images, I'm not aware of any bot which uploads images automatically, so you probably have to download the image to your hard disk and then upload it using a normal upload form. Don't forget to list the source on Panoramio. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lancaster Monument in East Sheen Cemetery

I am interested in doing an article on the Lancaster Monument at East Sheen Cemetery in Richmond, Surrey, England. I have looked in Wikimedia, Wikipedia, and Geograph, but haven't found an image at those locations. Looking elsewhere, the best photo that I have found, with regard to both quality and the possibility of reuse is the one that I located on the Victorian Web at The Angel of Death - George William Lancaster Memorial by Sydney March. It is the image at the top of the page. Near the bottom of the page the text indicates: "Photograph and text by Robert Freidus. You may use this image without prior permission for any scholarly or educational purpose as long as you (1) credit the photographer and (2) link your document to this URL in a web document or cite it in a print one." (1) Is it possible for me to use this image in a Wikipedia article, and (2) what license would I use? Please answer on my talk page, if possible. Thank you. Anne (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The licence is limited to educational and scholarly purposes, so it is not enough. If you live close to the monument, you could visit the monument with a camera and take an own photo of it. If not, you could try to find someone else who could take a photo for you. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The more suitable infobox image of One for the Road (Cheers)

What are good images for identifying the Cheers episode? --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

United Nations

Hi! I was hoping to add this photograph, from the UN's multimedia gallery, to the article on Hugo Rogers. Wikipedia:Public_domain#Works_of_the_United_Nations states that "documents not offered for sale are in the public domain; other UN documents are copyrighted." I'm not too familiar with copyright rules, so I asked User:Moonriddengirl, who recommended I ask here. She also recommended asking if it would be supported under WP:NFC. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Where does the copyright tag go?

In the file description? For example, the entry that I'm writing for Emma Ferreira has the three uploaded images, that belong to the artist, under "speedy deletion" because it's missing the tags.

However, do I put the tag in the image file description? Or do I put the tag in the embedded image?

It this a correct file description denoting copyright ownership?

"This image belongs to Emma Ferreira. The art piece is titled "Mon cheri" and also belongs to the artist. {/{/ GFDL-self /}/} {/{/Attribution/}/}"

Without the backward slashes, of course (I had to put them otherwise the tags wouldn't appear). I'm so confused. Thanks for the help. Yonnivalencia (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Simply put the tag in the image description page, like this. Please note that the image should still be deleted with the current amount of information — when you upload an image and say that someone else has given permission, you need to provide proof. Either you'll need to add a link to a webpage where this permission is given, or you need to forward to OTRS an email with the statement of permission. For "OTRS", look at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team: the email should be sent to permissions-enwikimedia.org. Remember that the permission statement (either by email or on a webpage) must explicitly permit the license that you claim that it does. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Portrait provided by subject

I have uploaded an image, File:James Penton portrait.jpg with the permission (as per the form) stating that evidence will be provided on request. I have now been advised that the image will be deleted if no permission is provided. Jim Penton gave me permission in his email to me with the image, with the words "I'm attaching a picture of me with this email. Feel free to use it." Does that statement meet the requirements for permission? And if I forward that email, will my name and his email address go on display? BlackCab (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to get the copyright holder, who may in fact not even be the subject, to verify their permission directly by sending our OTRS Team an email per the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. The image must be freely licenced which means that anyone can use it for anything even commercial use. The email you quote does not have a clear enough licence stated for us so there is no need to forward it. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Image suitable?

I have an image from a clothing manufacturer, they say that "This media asset is free for editorial broadcast, print, online and radio use. It is restricted for use for other purposes."

Is it suitable for Wikipedia? TheBigJagielka (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't imagine what else one would do besides broadcast, print, online, and radio (how does one send an image over radio, anyway?), but because they don't say what "free" means, you don't have a guarantee that they permit both commercial use and derivative works. As a result, the image is only suitable for Wikipedia if you can find a way that it qualifies under the non-free content criteria. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Is editorial broadcast different from other kinds of broadcasts? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

David Domoney Image - Permission Email sent

I am writing with regards to the image File:David Domoney.jpg. I would like to confirm that an email has been sent to the permission email address illustrating the photographers permission. Please do not delete the image. Bobby987 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added {{OTRS pending}} to the file info page.--ukexpat (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Ward Building 060527.jpg

I would like to use this image in a publication I am distributing to ~1000 college new graduates. The publication is free for the recipient but there was revenue earned on the sale of advertising space. I would like to know if I can use this image on the front cover. I have reviewed the image data and understand I need to site the author of the image. Thank you, Jen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teinedex (talk • contribs) 15:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cite, not site! The image is hosted on the commons and has clear instructions on how to attribute the image under the creative commons licence; "© Jeremy Atherton, 2006". You should quote the source url and type of CC licence given. ww2censor (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

photo

Hi There

I recently helped create a wiki page for a department of a university. We have been blocked and I would like to have them removed but the process is a little confusing.

1. Photo as tagged for deletion We used a photo of our building but the review said we need to get permission to use it. There is no one to give us permission as it is our photo. What should i do?

2. The site is tagged as promotional Well that is true since we made the wiki so people can know who we are in the world we work in. But we are not selling anything or asking people to do anything. We are a not for profit attached to a university. What can i do?

Best regards

Clay Braziller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.116.36 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to restore it. You may not get around a block by logging out as you have just now done, and companies that provide marketing, business development and product strategy services are not welcome to contribute here because of our policies on conflicts of interest and promotional editing. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

State geology report

I'm looking to use this picture of a quarry which can also be seen on page 79 of this 1897 report from the State of Michigan. This page describes them as publications, so am I safe to assume that this report was published in 1897? Chris857 (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

See the citation given on "this page" — the answer is not necessarily published in 1897, but the only other option is publication in 1898. You can see the same publication in a list here. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing non free photo for deceased person

Would like to change the present non-free photo to a different non-free image as I've just found one which shows the person at work. The article has text & refs regarding the work he did. Am I able to change the photo and ask for a speedy deletion of the replaced photo? Thanks, We hope (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the article or to the image that's already online; we can't answer you properly otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ed Schwartz article with infobox image
• proposed photo change Thanks, We hope (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the image as a press photo, I doubt that a fair use claim would stand up. However, I note the date of 1977: this might qualify under {{PD-US-no notice}}. You'd need to investigate if the photo were published by itself or if it were published as part of something else: it doesn't have a copyright notice in its form on eBay, but you'd need to find whether it might have been published by the Tribune in some other context first. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if that's able to be done; the photo was taken by Chicago Daily News. Less than three months after the photo was taken, the paper was no longer in business. Have gone through copyright.gov and found original copyrights for the last 2-3 years for their daily editions while the paper was in business, but no renewals for those original copyrights. The company who owned the paper at the time it was shut down, Field Enterprises, folded in 1984. What else I did notice on a second look at the back of the photo is that the section for the edition it appeared in is blank. We hope (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, it's not the Tribune. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Any ideas on whether this is doable at all since both the paper and its former owner are defunct? We hope (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My only suggestion is to try contacting the eBay seller for more information about the image; they might have a good idea of its provenance. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarify copyright status of revised uploads

There's a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#World Map North South Divide 4.png that makes me want to check our bases are properly covered. The actual example given there isn't a good case because the changes made are not copyrightable, but suppose the following:

• Original user has an image with specially generous license terms, such as making the file officially public domain.

• Subsequent user uploads a new version making no special statement. (For argument, suppose this is a copyrightable amount of effort)

• What is the status of the resulting revised document? Is it still officially public domain as the annotation page below reads?

I don't see anything about accepting the existing licensing terms on the upload page. [3] Nor does the file annotation say specifically that the revised versions are subject toe the same license.

We should have better clarity so that reusers like this one are not confused or at risk. Wnt (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If something is in the public domain, other people can come along and modify it and place the modification under any license they please.

If something is under a license which requires Attribution but not ShareAlike, I'm pretty sure that as long as the attribution is followed that someone can still come along and modify it and place the modification under any license they please.

If something is under a license which requires ShareAlike, then someone cannot release their modifications under copyright. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, your last statement is quite wrong: if you make a derivative work from a CC-by-sa work and claim to release it into the public domain, you're violating the original author's copyright by ignoring the attribution requirement of the original work. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the image in question, while you may make any stipulations you want with a derivative work of a public domain image, you actually have to make those stipulations. The uploaders of later versions would have had to change the license template instead of leaving it as PD-self if they wanted to claim copyright. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you confident that the uploader receives proper notice of the less-restrictive license? When submitting a new version, I don't see anything prior to the "upload file" that tells me it will be public domain, apart from carefully viewing the original image and surmising that this license will apply. It worries me as a potential vulnerability. Wnt (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

They saw the description page before reuploading; for legal purposes, we assume that the presence of the message below the edit window ("By clicking the "Save Page" button...") is sufficient for granting consent, and the PD-self template is far more prominent on the description page than this message is on the edit window. An uploader who wished to retain copyright could have either changed the permission template or uploaded under a different name. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you're right - it seems a little shaky to me. The upload page just says "Provide copyright information for the upload, either from the dropdown menu or from the lists at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. If you can't find anything appropriate, please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions before uploading. " I don't see where it says you must irrevocably yield your copyright to the file. And the PD tag says "I, the copyright holder of this work" ... is the uploader of the changed version supposed to be sure that that refers to him, not the original author? Wnt (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand your questions. You don't need to yield your copyright, but if you make modifications to a page marked as public domain without changing the tag, you're releasing your changes the same way the previous author(s) did. It's basically like editing http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:PD_help, a group of PD text pages, with the sole difference being that you're allowed to change the license tag for image uploads here but wouldn't be allowed to change the license format for the PD help pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding photo of Malcolm Forbes

I found a photo of him: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/it_end_of_an_error_cTvwRi1rTGgWU2Cm8hS7EJ

However, the source says: "Getty Images". Is this image good as a "bio-pic"? --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No. It fails WP:NFCC#1 (person still alive) and WP:NFCC#2 (Getty Images). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops... wrong name.. should be Malcolm Forbes, not Michael Forbes. --George Ho (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Program's logo v. public domain

The File:F@H Logo 2012.png is a logo of a program, though its page states it is licensed under CC0. As I wasn't sure whether the claim about CC0 was true (as the author was working for the organization behind this software), I contacted the organization and received the reply that CC0 use was approved. As I believe my concern to be pretty valid, I wanted to ask, how can I document the response from organization on the file's page? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You should forward the reply to OTRS, see instructions at WP:CONSENT and Commons:COM:OTRS. Then mark the file information page with {{OTRS pending}} to prevent file deletion until the e-mail has been handled. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Free content probability

What is the probability that a published work (found anywhere, either on the Internet or as physical form) is licensed under a free license? 123.24.83.96 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC) More explicitly, what is the ratio of the number of freely licensed works against the number of all published works? For the following licenses:

• GNU General Public License and other GNU licenses?
• Creative Commons free licenses?
• Other free licenses?
• Non-free licenses or "all rights reserved"?

For the following categories:

• Audio?
• Video?
• Text?
• Software?
• Other?

Please list explicitly, the percentage of the licenses in each type of work (the percentage of each kind of license against all licenses, and the percentage of each free license type against all free licenses). 123.24.83.96 (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Kyōdō Tsūshinsha

Are there WP:NFCC#2 issues with images from Kyōdō Tsūshinsha? It is a news agency just as the Associated Press and similar agencies, but the article about the agency states that it is non-profit which might change things. I'm wondering because I just saw File:0329007-thumbx300.jpg being uploaded and am trying to figure out whether it fails WP:NFCC#2 or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Right now File:0329007-thumbx300.jpg fails NFCC because there is no fair use rationale of any find but even if there were one I suspect that it would more likely fail WP:NFCC#8 because there does not appear to be any reason to show a non-free image of the perpetrator just to understand the article Shimonoseki Station massacre. NFCC#2 may be an issue but I see other issues before that one. ww2censor (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there are other issues with the image, but it would be useful to know whether WP:NFCC#2 is an issue with Kyōdō Tsūshinsha or not, given the non-profit statement. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be a major issue. Non-profits can hold copyrights and protect them fiercely, just like anybody else. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Taken to FfD so that this can be sorted out. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Perez Celis Elevar el pensamiento.jpg

This image is used in Perez Celis. Does use of this image meet WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to illustrate the style for the artist, however there should be more commentary on the image in that article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Cheers cast 1982 bw.jpg

This image is used in "Give Me a Ring Sometime". Does this image meet WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wrong license tag?

File:Tak Flag.jpg is tagged as being PD, yet has a non-free use rationale. I don't believe the claim that this image is PD is valid. How should I proceed? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 08:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I tagged it as "no permission". It says that it is PD, so I suppose it should be treated as a PD file. It is also used in many articles without any FUR for those articles. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence the image is PD and no source to verify the claim. As a non-free image it must have a FUR for each and every use. Between Jan 2008 and Feb of this year it had {{non-free logo}} attached but still only one FUR. I suggest reverting and adding FURs if they are appropriate or remove the image from those articles where there is no fair-use justification. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

As the flag of the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, its use there is comparable to the use of images of logos on articles about their owners. Since it's a good candidate for a fair use claim for at least this article, deletion is a bad idea; I've replaced the PD template with {{Non-free fair use in}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Image of Beretta 86

I would like to upload it:File:Beretta_86_c1.jpg to Wikimedia Commons to use on this WP page. The source page indicates that the license, while valid in Italy, may be controversial in other countries, and that one should check before uploading. I'm checking. TIA for helping a novice. Truthskr (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to ask at the commons not on the enwiki as they have somewhat different criteria. Try here commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. ww2censor (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The image is unfree in the United States and furthermore fails WP:NFCC#1. It is thus unsuitable for both Commons and English Wikipedia. See the Commons discussion: Commons:COM:VPC#Beretta 86 Photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

two of my image files were deleted

Choky_Ice_image.jpg

Choky Ice as JimmyNichols for Playgirl.jpg

These two image files were deleted today and I want to know why? I provided proof that these files were my own creation.. a scan and snapshot I created by MY OWN..Its only purpose was was to give an image of who this person is CHOKY ICE! These two files do not exist outside of Wikipedia therefor it is not violating any copyright laws

Can you please undo and post them back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowKey08 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the images appear to have a watermark/logo on them immediately calls into question of them being your photos. You can't scan someone else's work and claim it as your own. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The snapshot I made DID NOT have any LOGOS or watermarks whatsoever, that TOO was deleted! Why has that deleted then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowKey08 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check Choky Ice as JimmyNichols for Playgirl.jpg, but Choky Ice image.jpg was taken from Flickr, specifically an image that is marked as all-rights-reserved. You may have your own images at Flickr that are marked more restrictively than they are here, but you need to prove that you are both the Wikipedia editor and the Flickr user. If you are LowKey16, please make a comment on your profile page saying that you're LowKey08 on Wikipedia. If you do that, we can easily undelete. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

Can i add this picture as Selena Gomez's main photo.

File:KCA's 2012 2.jpg

No such image has been uploaded. Do you have an external url for a freely licenced image? ww2censor (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with fair use rationale

Hello,

I am attempting to add suitable rationale for using a copyrighted image. The image in question is, "File:ZenPinball2Cover.png" which is a cover shot for a video game.

I added a section from another video game cover which hopefully gives an adequate rational.

Is the information still complete or is it suitable?

Thank You (I will check back for answers) Racingfreak92 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've refined the details, added the {{trademark}} template to the image and it looks fine now so I remove the tag. ww2censor (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding pictures that are your own

I have an image of a drawing I did that I want to upload to a wikipedia page. How would I fill out the copy right information in order to upload it? My drawing has never been published before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCognizione (talk • contribs) 03:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just follow the directions here.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

USS Pueblo

I would like to add at least one image from this webpage to the article USS Pueblo (AGER-2), but the original sources (1968 North Korean press releases) do not seem to be anywhere online or catalogued at any particular libraries. Lacking those, how can I know which sources are closest to the government-issued originals and OK to use? Thanks! -SaaHc2B (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is North Korean copyright enforceable in the USA? Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, yes it is. So the question then becomes whether they were copyrighted in North Korea on April 28 2003 and I suspect we have no way of finding that out. Although, I suspect another interesting question would be whether they were ever "published" in North Korea. Dpmuk (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think they were mostly published in newsreels for movie theaters, but I know that the event was a big deal there, so the pictures were probably in the newspaper(s). Article 12 from en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_of_the_Democratic_People's_Republic_of_Korea#Chapter_2._Object_of_Copyright says "The documents of State management such as ordinance, decision or directive, current news and bulletins shall not be the object of copyright." This seems pretty broad, and I'd think that what we'd call 'propaganda' falls under "The documents of State management", I'm confident it's not copyrighted. And even if it is, there's also article 32 that says

A copyrighted work may be used without the permission of the copyright owner, in the following cases:
... When a copyrighted work is reproduced for depositing, displaying, reading or lending in such places as library, archive, museum or memorial hall, ...
When a copyrighted work is performed free of charge, ...
When a copyrighted work in public places is copied...

So, assuming it either falls under these categories or is not copyrighted, would it be okay to use the images that are on copyrighted webpages? Some are just screenshots from propaganda films, but the most important image was published in Time magazine; would it be acceptable use the image from the magazine, even though it is a separate image that technically ought to be available elsewhere? What if I were to include the entire caption from Time in the description? SaaHc2B (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding images to an article properly when owned by the subject of the article

Hi there

I am trying to update two articles relating to wine. The one is an example of the old wine bottles discussed in the article and the other is to add a photo of the wine as it appears today.

Both these images are owned by the winery in question and all information about photographer etc is long lost as they were taken in the 80's under previous ownership. The only clear information is that the winery owns the images and I have been given permission by the winery to use them as I work for the winery.

How do I go about uploading these images? I have tried all different approaches but I don't want to violate any wiki terms.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaUdrey (talk • contribs) 08:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENT for the process for communicating permission to use the images.--ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Frasier Crane

Kelsey Grammer played Frasier Crane for 20 years, and he changed a lot during that time. But the current page for Frasier Crane only has two pictures of him. I think it would be apporpriate to have a picture like this to show his changing face over the years. The picture shows him in his first appearance on Cheers, his last appearance on Cheers, his first appearance on Frasier, and his last appearance on Frasier. I know the image quality isn't great, but I could fix that if I knew it was gong to be used. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 15:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Before you do that, we would need to determine the copyright status of that image. In any event, in what way is his change of appearance of encyclopedic interest? People age.--ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely copyrighted, as I got those images from screenshots. I think that his change in appearance is important because most characters look pretty much the same throughout the course of a series, but he changed a lot. I just don't think that two pictures really captures that. Woknam66 ^talk _{James Bond} 16:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

canadian government documents

I have been working on the article on Oberon class submarines. These are generally less than 50 years old, so any documentation relating to them is likely to be copyright, even under 50 year UK crown copyright, for example. However, there exists on the internet a copy of the operating manual for such submarines as issued by the canadian government to the crews of some of these submarines which were in the Canadian navy. This includes some diagrams of the submarines layout which it would be nice to reproduce here. It would appear that the Canadian government grants permission for anyone to copy their publications, so long as they are copied exactly without alterations and not commercially. see http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/ccl/aboutCrownCopyright.html . This appears to be the view of the hosting website at http://hnsa.org/doc/oberon/index.htm#pg1-1 who referred me to the Canadian government's published policy.

Any suggestions on useability and proper tagging?

A related query would be the question of to what extent the information within a plan is copyright: is it possibility to draw a new version of a plan, which would naturally look very like the original as it was representing the same information, or would this be a derivative copy? Sandpiper (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not distinguish between a non-commercial restriction and "all rights reserved"; both are considered non-free. One reason is that Wikipedia content is reused commercially; another is that Wikipedia believes in free content. Presentation is copyrightable; information is not. But it sounds like you are proposing to just making make minor changes in presentation, which would be a derivative. —teb728 t c 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

To the first, yes, I know. But the question is what is the appropriate way to tag such documents to post and use them. To the second, how is it possible to create a scale plan in any way which does not look essentially the same as another scale plan? I suppose i am asking whether there is any original input which would be copyrightable in such a mechanical translation of a defined layout onto paper. If not, no plan could be copyrighted. I suspect there is, but i havnt found anything which discusses this. Or might copyright rules relating to presentation apply, rather than rules as to content, which might then be a lesser term? Looking at it the other way about, how could a plan be re-drawn in such a way that it eliminated all the original content from the previous version but still displayed the information? Sandpiper (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Longwood, Florida logo.png

Would this file be eligible under {{PD-textlogo}}? It seems to me that it would be, since it "only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes." Thank you for your advice on this matter. Senator2029 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure, as those small details to either side of the flower don't look very simple. Chris857 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chris857 for your opinion. I'll leave things as is for now. Senator2029 (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

United Nations

Hi! I was hoping to add this photograph, from the UN's multimedia gallery, to the article on Hugo Rogers. Wikipedia:Public_domain#Works_of_the_United_Nations states that "documents not offered for sale are in the public domain; other UN documents are copyrighted." I'm not too familiar with copyright rules, so I asked User:Moonriddengirl, who recommended I ask here. She also recommended asking if it would be supported under WP:NFC. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not really an answer, but the copyright page and terms of use page of the unmultimedia.org site where you found the photo forbid reuse of content—seemingly contradicting information at your other link. With regard to NFC, how would you propose to use the photo, and how would that use significantly increase reader understanding of the article? —teb728 t c 21:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Olympic medals

A query has come up at an Olympic related FL discussion. Is File:WoodRuff 1936 Olympics medal front.jpg free use, as I'm not sure if the olympic medal design falls into the realm of artwork or not. It's currently been tagged as own work, with an upload date of last year.

A bit of background - it's a standard design used since the 1928 games onwards until the late 90's, with only the text on the front changing. It was designed by Giuseppe Cassioli, who died in 1942. Miyagawa (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Police recordings and the like

It is not uncommon in the modern era for news shows to broadcast recordings or videos made by the police and other public agencies. For example, calls to the 911 emergency number are routinely recorded and can often show up on news programs in relation to crimes. When a recording is made of a private citizen by a public agency, who (if anyone) would have a copyright interest? The government, the private citizen, both, neither? Is there an explicit policy that puts such things in the public domain, or is the distribution of such items via news channels simply an exercise of fair use? Dragons flight (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

normally the copyright would be held by the agency that recorded it, and broadcast would be by permission or fair use. Mostly they would not be suitable for Wikipedia free types of copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Earth/Map images in Wikipedia

I seems from "Google Maps and Google Earth Content Rules & Guidelines" that when screenshots are used for academic purposes then it may be acceptable. Can I make a screenshot from Google Maps and upload it to Wikipedia (such as found at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Google_maps_screenshot.png), and then use it in a Wikipedia article on geological matters? RudiBosbouer (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Google screenshots are not free for any purpose and are replaceable. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, if Google says that they're free for academic purposes, they're definitely free for at least one purpose. We can't use them because we require replaceable images to be usable for other purposes (including commercial), but if we were only an academic website, we could definitely use them. Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy image deletion query

Hello! I'm quite new to Wikipedia, and am trying to upload images to the Nicolas Ruston page to illustrate it. I don't fully understand how I've incorrectly tagged the images for copyright. The images were given to me by Nicolas Ruston and I thought I had tagged them correctly, but clearly haven't. I don't want to cause – or get into – trouble! Please could you advise?

The files are File:Nicolas Ruston in his Norfolk Studio (2010).jpg File:Nicolas-Ruston-film4 lg.jpg and I'm concerned there will be more

Please could you help me? Ceyoungec (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A simple copyright tag is not sufficient for images to be hosted on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. We need a statement by email from the original photographer about how to use the images. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and a list of applicable free use licenses including commercial re-use. If the author (Mr Ruston himself?) however prefers to keep the image restricted with a full copyright we need a Fair Use Rationale on the image page as to why each of those images is needed to illustrate the article on Nicolas Ruston. De728631 (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

google picture

I saw something similar to this but not exactly i want to upload this file File:Assassin's creed the fall Deluxe Edition from Google and was wondering if its ay and which one of the 3 categories i should put it under. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willraven13 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we can't see anything from an empty filename on Wikipedia as you typed above. So please provide the weblink to the image on Google. But what is more important, there is already a non-free image of the regular cover in the article Assassin's Creed: The Fall. And per Wikipedia:Non-free content "an image to illustrate an article passage about the image", i.e. an image just to illustrate that there is an extended edition cover is not allowed for copyrighted non-free material. So please do not upload that image at all. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I found a non-free image about antisemitism in Iran on the Persian Wikipedia. If I add some information about antisemitism in Iran to the antisemitism article, can I upload and use the image in the antisemitism article? I'm not going to write about the poster itself, but about general anti-Jewish sentiments in Iran. Thanks. Americophile 10:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you don't plan to write about the poster itself, you can't use it. To justify it under WP:NFC, you'd need to have something to say about the poster itself, and that would of course have to be reliably sourced and not WP:OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.—What is the language in WP:NFC that says that "If you don't plan to write about the poster itself, you can't use it"? Bus stop (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It follows from NFCC#8 ("significance"), together with NFCC#5 ("content standards"), the latter together with WP:NOR. To make a case for significance, you'd have to argue that you are saying something in the text that couldn't be appropriately understood without the help of this image. For that to add up, as a minimum, you'd have to demonstrate that the image is somehow related to what you're saying – e.g. that it is a typical example of what you're talking about. Identifying this specific instance as a typical example of some more general phenomenon would be OR unless you could source it. WP:NOR is one of the content standards that NFCC#5 is referring to, so if it fails NOR it also fails NFCC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That file is completely like this file. I can't find anything written about this file itself. Their usages are like each other. Also before this discussion, the license of the file was like this file. ---Ebrahim M.Songhori 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.songhori (talk • contribs)

File:Teheran US embassy propaganda grasp unedited.jpg is currently tagged as a freely licensed file, and it's on Commons. Free files can of course be used without all those NFC-related limitations. Whether or not that file is tagged correctly is a different matter, but that would have to be worked out on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.—I think there is justification in policy language for the inclusion of such an image in the article suggested. The policy language on "Contextual significance" reads: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The title of the article suggested at the top of this thread is "Antisemitism". This image is an example of the subject of that article. The image represents a particular form of antisemitism that is a visual symbolic form. The image is of a poster composed of symbolic elements. The elements are skulls and the Star of David. There is leeway for interpretation but all possible interpretations of that poster are antisemitic. This image fits appropriately under the title of the article, as the inclusion of this image certainly "increase[s] [the] readers' understanding of the topic". Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's task to promote "interpretations" of images, even if we think they are the only possible ones (which, in this case, I of course wouldn't deny). Still, in order to use that interpretation in a Wikipedia article, we'd need a reliable source, which obviously could only be one that speaks directly about this image as a characteristic example of antisemitism. Who made this poster? How characteristic is it, and of what? Is it somehow a mainstream thing or something used by some isolated fringe figures? Is it a one-off occurrence or something you find at every corner? Without directly sourced information about these things, there can be no legitimate use of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Source and copyright on File:Hilllary Rosen testifies on Napster.jpg

I've posted a copyright question at File talk:Hilllary Rosen testifies on Napster.jpg#Source and copyright? concerning C-SPAN video. I'm mentioning it here also because the talk edit header says that this page is where these things are usually discussed, but the issue concerns that specific file, so I opened the main discussion on its talk page instead. --Closeapple (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As it says on the edit page of the file talk page, a file talk page is not the place for asking about the copyright status of the image. The place for that is WP:PUF. —teb728 t c 00:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Source deleted as F2, what do I do?

See File:Eye.png. The source is claimed to be File:Eye.svg which was deleted as F2. It now looks as if the Wikipedia file might not be properly sourced, but F2 is not a copyright reason to delete files. Keep or delete as no source? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no problems here; go off and use it like you would any other images with these licenses. Kenny sh is the only one to contribute an image, so the attribution requirements are fulfilled; there are no licensing difficulties. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Image Removal from WikiPedia

Hi

I have had 3 of my images placed on Wikipedia, the situation has now changed and the images are being sold to a publication that want rights to the image

The images in question are;

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Jordy_Lucas.jpg http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Emily_Symons.jpg http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:One_Direction_at_the_54th_Logies_Awards.jpg

Can you please have these removed ASAP as its causing a delay with the Picture Agency who is now my representative

Regards Brett Robson Global Photographics

Gphotographics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

Did you not put on Flikr with a Creative Commons license? Eeekster (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, if you originally uploaded them to Flickr with that license, you basically released them in a manner that we can do nothing about. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The images on Flickr are "All Rights Reserved" refer to - http://www.flickr.com/photos/brettrobsonphotography/with/6933982218/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Now, yes. Not when uploaded to Commons. Anyway, Creative Commons licences are irrevocable, so if once published under a free licence, they remain under that free licence forever regardless of what Flickr states. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish for the images to be removed ...simple request!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gphotographics (talk • contribs) 00:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a simple request but the answer is not. You cannot revoke the CC license and because of that you cannot force anybody to remove the images from here or anywhere else. In fact the agency can just take those images and use them without paying you a cent. Eeekster (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

However each of the images have my watermark imposed on each image ....therefore any selling of images come back to me as I supply an original Gphotographics (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Watermarks can be removed. Eeekster (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Commons:Commons:Help desk#Image copyright problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Permission received

hi i have recieved permission to upload the file but am unclear as to how to change the existing image on bernard lovells page to my image? can you please advise on how to reenter any necessary license/copyright details?

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carthusianmonk (talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you found how to do it. But photo credits are given on the file description page not the article (except in rare cases where the credit is relevant to the use). I changed the caption to a real caption. —teb728 t c 23:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Kelly Sullivan at This Means War Premiere.jpg

Where would I find the proper fair use, then? You're asking for a site like Flickr, yes? I'm just confused as to what you're asking for with the image? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The copyrighted image displays a living person, which is forbidden by our fair use policy, because it can be "easily" replaced by a free image. The image will be deleted. If you find another image, which is licensed under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA (there are some more licenses which can be used at Wikimedia Commons, but unlikely that you will find an image licensed under such a license). Regards, mabdul 20:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So, basically you're telling me there is nothing I can do from getting the image deleted? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Actually, if I had come across it before the person who tagged it, I would have deleted it right away, because it's not only clearly replaceable, it also had an obviously false description on top of that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks then.... I guess. I'll find something else then. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 20:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Modern Age cover

Is this in the public domain: File:Modern age fall 1960.jpg ? Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably, unless the art under the text "FALL 1960" makes it copyrighted. It looks less complex than a phone book. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Image uploading

I am currently setting up a wiki page about my grandfather (Giorgio Matteo Aicardi) who was an Italian painter. I jointly own the paintings with my mother and the pictures were taken by myself and uploaded here whilst writing the article. What is the problem with the licensing I chose on the following?

file:Olivi (1942).jpg

file:Baptismal Font in St. Peter, Rome (1915).jpg

POST EDIT - There is no actual online source for the pictures I am uploading as they are all photos I have taken of the artwork that my grandfather created. Infact if you google my grandfather's name, Giorgio Matteo Aicardi, you will hardly find any information and the only artwork you will find would be the few that we actually sold in the last 20 years. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximo98 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help Stefan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximo98 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free media use desciption

I have an issue with the three photographs that are currently uploaded onto Emma Ferreira. All three state that the file has no copyright or licensing info...but that's because they're all listed as "non-free media", didn't have a problem 3 weeks ago when I listed them as such, why is there one now?

As for the "evidence of permission", if the files are non-free media and contain a rationale, does the letter of permission need to state that as well? I read the template for the letter but it implied the letter was only for a GNU & other free licenses. I don't want to use a free license for these as they're not free.

Thanks

Yonnivalencia (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

When you upload a non-free image, it requires two separate items, the non-free rationale, which you have, and the image license, which you are lacking. Automated bots will check images over time, so that's why the images didn't get marked until now.

As for how to fix them, you just need to choose and add the right copyright tag. As these are works of 2D art (that it, the 2D photograph is the work of art), the template {{Non-free 2D art}} is the appropriate license to add. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Old Belgian banknote

I would appreciate someone with more knowledge of legalese weighing in at FAC, where File:Belgian francs of 1929 obverse+reverse.jpg is currently on hold pending copyright clarification. I've received an email from the bank pertaining to its copyright status, but I'm still confused. Thanks beforehand. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I got it right

New editor here, and I am trying to add the logo for a now defunct company. It is considered abandonware by a few sources, and the company has not had a web site for quite a while. Did I do enough to keep the image?

Pizzamancer (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• You uploaded it to Commons, which doesn't allow fair-use images. You should upload to the English Wikipedia directly, as we do allow FU images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Francis Skeat images

I came upon this page by accident - I note in the table that there are 70 links to various external (including flickr, etc) images of stained glass windows created by Francis Skeat - as he is still alive, these would not be allowed on Wikipdia, without his consent. Should we allow linking to all these sites, as surely some of them are going to be obvious copyright violations.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No reply then. Time for boldness...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Everton Holy Trinity church.jpg - Author states licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

Hi,

I uploaded the church picture from https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/File:Everton_Holy_Trinity_Nottinghamshire.jpg, where the author states on the page that as he, Richard Croft , retains copyright as follows in an information box.

(

File information

Description	Everton Holy Trinity
Source	geograph.org.uk
Date	2006
Author	Richard Croft
Permission (Reusing this file)	© Copyright Richard Croft and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

)

Bottom of page is marked with the "CC by sa" icon.

Do I need to attribute the image to the author in order to comply with the Wikipedia:Media copyright criteria?

Thanks for your assistance

Stephen

Yes, cc-by-sa-licensed files from geograph.org.uk are fine for use here, and you could use just the same attribution code here as the guys on the familysearch.org wiki did. It would be nice to include the full original link to the file on geograph, which is http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/111503.The attribution to the original author is vital in any case. That said, you might want to consider uploading such items not here but on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was already there: commons:File:Holy Trinity church, Everton, Notts. - geograph.org.uk - 111503.jpg. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

How to license an image

I want to upload an image, but the two images i uploaded before got rejected. What should I do to upload it succesfully?

Barcelonafan1999 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Take your own photographs, and upload only those. If you wish to upload photographs by others that you found somewhere on the web, then there's nothing you can do. Please don't try uploading those (except in the rare case that you can demonstrate their authors have released them under a free license; this is usually not the case for most images found out there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page that I wrote to explain many of the issues you will encounter but you were given the same advise about two+ months ago on this page. ww2censor (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

FTSE Constituents Data

I can see on the FTSE 100 Index page that there is a list of the constituents. FTSE_100_Index#Current_constituents

However if I visit the FTSE Group's website where they publish the data it says: "All information is your information and personal use only. To reproduce or publish any information provided on or accessed from this site, you will require a licence from FTSE." http://www.ftse.com/Indices/UK_Indices/Constituents.jsp

Does this mean Wikipedia needs a license to reproduce the list of constituents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uptodateinfo (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That list doesn't seem to be copyrightable in the United States, which is what matters for English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons also needs files to be free in the source country, which in this case is the United Kingdom. The list might not be copyrightable in the United Kingdom either because of a recent ruling in an EU court, see Commons:COM:VPC#EU court rejects Sweat of the Brow in Britain. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That link is here if you were trying to find it. It's about the recent court case on the copyrighting of football fixtures. Secretlondon (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So US copyright is what counts for English Wikipedia. Thanks for explaining that. But why would this not be copyrightable under US law. Surely FTSE makes up its mind on what is in the FTSE100, thus there is original work. Or is it that anyone could copy their rules, apply it to the companies listed on the UK stock exchange and always come up with an identical list? Uptodateinfo (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Because facts are not copyrightable under US law. That the FTSE 100 list is composed of these elements in this order is a fact. What one cannot do is create a similar, competing list and use the FTSE 100 as a basis for it, or pass off the FTSE 100 list as their own. —howcheng {chat} 21:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Too "like" Facebook

Template:like: Like Template:dislike:  Dislike

I saw one of the above templates in action. Every one step in it is pretty minor - the graphic File:Facebook like thumb.png is copied from Facebook with the claim that it is too simple to copyright, the template marks it up with simple line drawing and the choice of just the right font from the user's computer to look like Facebook. And each insertion is one small talk page comment. But taken together, it seems like we may be appropriating their graphic and indeed even trading using their name with the image title, with not the slightest pretense of Fair Use. Before I saw this template:like had already survived two deletion discussions, but nobody mentioned copyright issues there. I think that in the interests of prudence someone here should draw our own damn thumbs-up and thumbs-down icons, before Facebook seizes on it as a way to set a legal precedent that they own the very idea of thumbs-up and thumbs-down forever. What do you think? Wnt (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28#Template:Dislike.--ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm not looking to reopen the deletion question; I think anyone (even I) could redraw the hand graphic from scratch, perhaps choosing a different ethnicity in the process for the sake of diversity; likewise the font or box could be changed readily. And I'm only proposing to do that if copyright is a concern here, in the opinion of those experienced with the issue. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole "like" template appears to violate FB's trademarks, which I know they are very protective of. —howcheng {chat} 20:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:UnclopediaOnWP.JPG

thumb Um, as far as I know, Uncyclopedia's not a copyrighted web site. In fact, they rarely even care if they're responsible for copyright infringement. So I was confused when I saw the notice claiming that the image was copyrighted. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In US copyright law, if you publish something, you are given full copyright protection regardless if you file for it or not. The claim that "Uncyclopedia's not a copyrighted web site" is false - it is copyrighted. Now, there are things that you can reduce and allow reuse of your content: in the case of Wikipedia, all content is under the GFDL/CC-BY-SA licenses that grant the user explicit permission to reuse freely with attribution. If Uncyclopedia has a similar license, then that's ok, but without it, we have to assume the work is copyrighted even if there's no explicit message as such. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia uses CC-BY-NC-SA for its texts. This image has no licence statement at Uncyclopedia, so it might be CC-BY-NC-SA, "all rights reserved" or anything else. It is safer to assume that it is unfree. Wikipedia considers CC-BY-NC-SA to be unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright for a ticket stub?

In regards to this file: File:Chicago Cubs at SF Giants 2010-08-10 ticket.jpg. I'm fairly certain that the uploader of the file in question does not own the copyright on this ticket and, as such, has no standing to release it under the GNU FDL or a Creative Commons License (both of which are applied to the file). Given that the work has, apparently, no sufficient changes to grant a new/different copyright, but that there may be a legitimate purpose under Fair Use claims for this particular image, what is the proper license to be indicated for a ticket stub such as this? Sliver7 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The photograph of the stadium throws the the ticket stub into copyrighted territory (since we have no idea whom the photographer is and therefore that's at least 1 copyrighted element in play). I am doubtful there is a legitimate fair use for the image when we consider it non-free, since it's just a ticket stub with nothing notable about it. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a potential legitimate use for this image (e.g., in the "Ticket (admission)" article), but the licensing/copyright issue definitely needs to be resolved before it can be used there (looks like it's in use on French Wikipedia site already). Sliver7 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ticket stubs are usually PD-text, too simple to be copyrighted, unless like what Masem said there's a background image in which the copyright is unknown. Secret ^account 18:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, if we're trying to illustrate "Ticket", there's plenty of tickets that use no copyrightable imagery, and thus should be used instead. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Image help

How do I add a jpg photo to an exsisting page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenFulbright (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. —howcheng {chat} 20:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

uploaded an image with consent of the copyright holders

I uploaded an image with consent of the copyright holders. How can I tell wikipedia that I have got the permission to share it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khiladi 2010 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

By having the copyright holder verify their permission to the OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting the right copyright option when uploading images

It doesn't seem like I have had an aswer to my question I put yesterday.

I am trying to upload images to add to the article that I am writing about my grandfather (Giorgio Matteo Aicardi) since he was an Italian painter. Me and my mother jointly own his remaining collection which we have took pictures of apart from 1 ( file:Autoritratto del pittore con la sua famiglia (1939).jpg ) which is owned by a private collectionist who has given us permission to use the photo that we took on our website and on wikipedia.

The following pictures are from artwork that we own, and pictures that we took :

• file:Olivi (1942).jpg
• file:Baptismal Font in St. Peter, Rome (1915).jpg
• file:Winter In Piemonte (1960).jpg

What else do I have to do to avoid auto-deletion for the pictures listed above? ( including file:Autoritratto del pittore con la sua famiglia (1939).jpg )

Maximo98 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Send an email as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, explaining that as the legal heir of Giorgio Matteo Aicardi you own the copyright on his paintings (including "Autoritratto del pittore con la sua famiglia" (ownership of the actual painting does not confer copyright)) and that you license the small photos of them (citing the file names) under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. —teb728 t c 04:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What other options have I got as we do not really wish to release the art for anyone to use it commercially for example. Is there any other copyright we can choose? Thanks.

Maximo98 (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, that would not be possible, as the whole point of Wikipedia is to create a repository of knowledge that anyone can use for any purpose. Under U.S. copyright laws and our own non-free content policy, we may be able to include one or two of the pieces in the article, but not really any more than that. —howcheng {chat} 21:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Maximo, I don't understand: didn't you tag them {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}? You would be releasing only the small photos under free license--not full resolution images of the paintings. —teb728 t c 06:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How to copyright tag images that have been uploaded

Hi, I've uploaded this image:

and am trying to sort out the copyright situation. It is a copyrighted company logo so what tag should I use? If so, where do I put this tag? The company have given me permission to use the logo for the wikipedia article, how do I make that clear so that the picture is not deleted?

thanks OliverCP (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Non-free logo}} seems to be the best option. This is already what you're using. Permission for Wikipedia is only useful for WP:NFCC#2 claims, but this doesn't seem relevant for a company logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic Wreck

Hi there,

I uploaded image of my oil painting "Titanic Wreck" to my Wikipedia page but it seems it has a copyright problem. It says:

"This file does not have information on its copyright and licensing status. Unless the copyright and licensing status is provided, the image will be deleted after Tuesday, 1 May 2012. Please remove this template if a correct copyright license tag has been added."

What shall I do? I created this painting. Please help me out. Can you make changes for me?

Thank You.

File:Titanic Wreck.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeljkoArtist (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you have now tagged it cc-by-sa-3.0. That's a good tag. —teb728 t c 02:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo license

Hello there.

I'm using my own photo for my user page. How can I properly tag it so that I am in compliance with Wikipedia?

Best,

Rudy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.151.132 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversial "Daisy" ad

The famous "Daisy (advertisement)" video (1964) has been uploaded to the Internet Archive as public domain [4]. Can we use it here as free? – Lionel ^(talk) 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Since it's public domain, we could definitely use it. Chris857 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded and added it to the article. Chris857 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Book cover

I'm having trouble finding any information on whether I can upload an image of a book cover. I'm trying to update an article about a novel that came out last year. Can someone point me in the right direction? What do I need to do to get the cover uploaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.172.183 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images help?--ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The book cover can be useful to aid in identification of the book the article is about. However articles do not normally need more than one cover. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Public domain or not

Regarding OTRS Ticket#: 2012020310008399, this image is licensed {PD-US-no renewal}, as it was taken in 1962 and the tag asserts that its copyright was not renewed. The claimed owner of the photograph and its copyrights asserts, "That is not correct. The image of Marilyn Monroe is copyrighted by George Barris 1962-2012. The copyright certificate is TX 2 020 584." I have no idea what procedure or process is for resolving that type of dispute, here or on Commons. Can you help, please? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

this document makes reference to that renewal. although I don't know whether that will shed light or raise more questions. In light of the fact that it is a legal document, my first inclination would be to turn it over to the lawyers.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that didn't turn into a link- maybe because it is a .doc, but if you drop it into a browser, it should bring up the legal dispute about that image.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Needed the http:// which I added for you.--ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a seemingly authoritative discussion of it here: [5], in the second bolded section: George Barris vs Richard Hamilton, Madison Avenue Bookshop, Monacelli Press Inc., Anthony D’Offay Gallery Inc. and Tate Gallery Productions, Inc., Hacker Art Books, Inc. and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles USDC SDNY (5-14-1999) ¤ 51 USPQ 2d 1191, CCH 27,932. This makes it sound like they missed renewal. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)A relevant excerpt: " The court also granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's copyright infringement claim since plaintiff's copyright protection expired."

(Also noted in the link you found)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status pf photographs prior to 1923

There's an interesting collection of photographs now available. See this for information. The actual gallery is overwhelmed at the moment, but see this for some examples.

According to this, the photographs can only be used for personal use, obviating the possibility of use in Wikipedia. I understand how this can apply to more recent photographs, but how does it apply to say, one of the 1890 photographs? From Copyright:

In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain

Am I missing something, or are they providing general guidance, because most of the photographs are more recent than 1923?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The distinction here is between when the photo was taken, and when it was published! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I distinction I hadn't fully appreciated. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And for unpublished works, the rule is that the photographer must have died at least 70 years ago (i.e. before 1942). If anonymous or a work for hire, the copyright instead lasts for 120 years since the photo was taken. If you suspect that a photo is unpublished, you only need to prove that it has never been published before 2003 since later publications are irrelevant for determining the copyright status of ancient photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that contradict the requirements to provide reliable sources for images before 1923? For instance, File:AlanHaleSr.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was created before 1923, but I tagged it for deletion because there were no sources to prove that it was published before 1923. --George Ho (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, without proof of publication, I must treat an image of Alan Hale, Sr., as unpublished and copyrighted as unpublished until after 120 years of creation. --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There are times that we have to make our best guesses. Taking the Alan Hale example - we know that he was born in 1892, thus making nearly any photo of him in the adult under 120 years. As long as the photo's taken is not known, we thus assume the worst case - that is a non-free image by anonymous person and knowing under 120 years from publication, meaning that the licence tag {{Non-free historic image}}. If it came out later that it was photographed by a person that died in 1920 (for example), then we can change the licence to a PD one, but without that, we put in the most restrictive license to be on the safe side. It is okay to be wrong in marking what really is a PD image as non-free, but can be harmful if we mark a non-free as PD. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the authorship, if Eugene de Salignac, the photographer, is a freelancer, then this makes him an author of this photo; therefore, the photo will be PD in 2014, after 70 years of his death. However, if he shot this photo for the company under employee agreements, then this photo is copyrighted until 2029, after 120 years of creation, like other works-for-hire, which went first before publication. [6] If it were published first in 2002, then copyrighted until the end of 2047. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Using a Copyrighted photograph

Hello my name is Clinton and I am currently creating a page for a plant species. I had contacted the author and asked permission to use his photograph. He replied yes, however i just have to put "copyrights to M. Fagg, with permission." is this acceptable on wiki? If so how do i upload it in such a fashion people will know it has been copyrighted? Thank you for your time.

Sincerely Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwizelius (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No that will not do. Because you did not take the photo yourself you need to get the copyright holder verify their permission by emailing our OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper images

I have images of newspapers that contain articles about me. Can I use these photographs of newspapers in the Wikipedia page that describes my own career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshihikari (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The first thing you need to be aware of is that any editing you do to an article about yourself is a conflict of interest and you should read WP:COI to understand the topic. Generally images of newspapers are only used in articles about those newspapers because they are copyright to the newspaper and in that use we allow non-free image but not in the instance you mention. Perhaps you mean image that have appeared in newspapers; in that case you must get permission from the copyright holder. See the previous post above. Surely you can supply freely licenced image of yourself for which you hold the copyright and can licence it for us. Come back if you have more questions. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed for NFCC#1

WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created. . ." seems to be extremely broad and thereby too easily used to remove a photo. A small image I uploaded, File:Pete Fornatale2.jpg was immediately tagged and commented by a few editors for reasons relying on speculations, ie. implying a requirement to contact Flickr users first, or first trying to find "some advertisement from that time with a photo of him but without a copyright notice." Any clarification about whether NFCC #1 can be based on such rationales would be useful. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a standard usage of WP:NFCC#1. Images of living people are inherently replaceable, and copyrighted images can't be used to illustrate them.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, to be fair, in the present case (I'm the person who nominated it), the subject died, though only yesterday. The issue is whether the habitual NFCC1 exemption for deceased person should be invoked immediately and as an automatic entitlement, or whether uploaders should be exepected to first exhaust reasonable avenues of acquiring free alternatives by, for instance, trying to get free releases for images that exist but aren't free yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that a good-faith search is reasonable, but I suspect others will argue that the search was presumably performed unsuccessfully during the subject's lifetime.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Dalius Cekuolis Portrait.jpg Fair Use Dispute

Please help me understand why this file File:Dalius Cekuolis Portrait.jpg is not allowed under fair use if the United Nations has granted us permission under their UN Photo Guidelines. UN photos cannot be altered, sold, redistributed or used to create derivative works. Written permission is, however, not required for reproduction of photo material as allowed by statutory exemptions (e.g. UN-affiliated non-governmental organizations and United Nations Associations, UN system organizations, including Specialized Agencies) or Fair Use. (Fair Use applies solely to scholarly, academic, non-profit, or journalistic use of properly credited UN photos.) Thanks! WheresTristan 22:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, WP:NFC#UUI §1 and the explanation at File talk:Dalius Cekuolis Portrait.jpg. Fair use images of people who are still alive are almost never allowed because it is possible to take a free replacement photo of them. Take a photo of the person yourself and license it under a licence complying with the terms here, or ask someone else to take such a photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation?

I may be wrong, but I believe that the copyright of this image: File:US 51-star alternate flag.svg, does not belong to the uploader and that the image of this flag is in violation of copyright laws. The flag represented in this image is owned and was proposed by the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico. As a matter of fact [Puerto Rico - Political Flags - Part II] states that the flag was designed by Andy Weir in January 11, 2001. I certainly hope that copyright laws have not been violated and if so, I hope that someone here takes action in the matter and nominate the image for a speedy deletion. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, flagspot states that he doesn't know who designed the flag, only that that particular .gif was created by Weir. My thought is that 14 rectangles and a very geometric arrangement of pentagrams is probably not copyrightable. Chris857 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting observation. In other words, I can mass produce T-Shirts with the mentioned above image with let's say an inscribtion "Puerto Rico, the 51st State" and not have to pay the original designer of the image any royalties because I would not be violating any copyright laws? That is good to know. From my understanding you actually acquire a copyright for your sketches or drawings the instant your pen hits paper. For copyright purposes, visual arts are original pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, which include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art. Isn't impossible for the uploader to claim on July 9, 2006 that he designed the same exact flag {drawing) that someone else claimed to have designed on January 11, 2001? Tony the Marine (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

See Threshold of originality for the relevant legal concept. Some things are so simple they can't be copyrighted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Artwork that isn't 2D enough to be public domain

This is about a file on Commons that isn't used any WP articles, but I'm not as familiar with the inner workings of Commons and I fear I didn't receive correct advice the last time I consulted a Commons noticeboard.

This is a photo of the almost two-dimensional top portion of the Metternich Stela (a slightly different perspective on it, showing more clearly why it's a problem, is here). I took the photo from the Web, cropping it to remove the obviously three-dimensional parts of the stela. Before uploading the image to Commons, I asked if an image of that upper portion would be two-dimensional enough to count as public domain. The people who posted there said it probably would, but since then I've read that even coins count as three-dimensional for legal purposes. Is the photo usable, or should I tag it for deletion on Commons?

I have a feeling that I'll be told to delete it. There's an article where I'd like to use that image, so if anybody is going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art soon, I'm hereby pleading with him or her to take a camera to the Metternich Stela. A. Parrot (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? The Metternich stela was created in the 4th century BC. You could take a photograph of it if it was in four dimensions and upload it to Commons. Just crop the shot to take out anything in the background.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear—I'm nowhere near New York, nor will I be anytime soon. I can't photograph it myself, much as I would like to. A. Parrot (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't take the photograph, it is still copyright to the photographer, regardless of whether the Metternich stela is in six dimensions or seven. You are getting two things confused here - you can't take a free picture of a copyright 3d object (in the US, you can in the UK), and you can't upload someone else's photograph to Commons without their CC-BY-SA release. And you can't upload a non-free image of that object to Wikipedia either, because someone could go and take a free picture of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Now with the first of your two images, you may be OK. May. Nothing to do with it being pan-dimensional. Just that the photograph only shows the object, and Commons is of the opinion (supported by US law but opposed elsewhere) that you cannot take a copyright photograph that only shown a non-copyright object, because there is no creative input. The second image should would be deleted if you did not take it, as there is creating input in the angle of shot, lighting etc, so the photographer will have a copyright. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh… we're sort of talking at cross-purposes. The relevant Commons policy here specifies that the work of art must be two-dimensional. Otherwise, photographs of it are not public domain. "Anything that could cast a shadow is excluded", the policy says. The first image I linked is the one I uploaded; it's on Commons now. I asked on the Commons noticeboard about that image before uploading it, and the Commons users who responded said it probably wouldn't count as three-dimensional, so I uploaded.

Looking at other images of the stela has given me doubts. The second link I posted leads to somebody's photo on Flickr; I don't claim the right to use it for anything. I only linked it to show how the Metternich Stela, even the shallow relief on the upper portion, can cast shadows on its own surface—it's a three-dimensional work of art. So I think now that the image needs to be deleted, much to my regret. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We have been at crossed purposes I agree. The Bridgeman principal, upon which commons is relying, is "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original". No part of the Metternich stela is two dimensional - it's carved in stone even the top part (see Bas relief). When we started, I have to admit I did not realise that you had not taken the photograph. You have a few choices - you can contact the chap at museumssyndicate and ask if he has released the image. He seems to want to establish a free resource - if he took it, he may have released it. You might contact one of the Flikr uploaders [7] and ask if one of them will release an image. You could request a photo - Wikipedia has enough editors in New York, surely one of them would be prepared to pop into the museum with a camera. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. I'm inclined to say that the stone seems to be at least as much 3D as a coin. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

VOA

Looking at this page, the photograph is only credited "file". Does that mean it is created by Voice Of America and thus free, or is it from AP/another agency and thus not? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's credited elsewhere to Yonhap News, a Korean news agency [8] [9]. --dave pape (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, I can't find that on the VOA site. So if it says "file" I should assume it belongs to someone else? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be my assumption; I think they usually mark their own photos "VOA" (or something other than "file", anyways). --dave pape (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Image of Matt Gunther

Image from FalconStudios.com. Is a use in Wikipedia against terms? --George Ho (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Fully copyrighted, all rights reserved, licenses are purely for personal use, explicitly excluding re-publishing or other forms of public display ("use them for any public display"). BTW, a not-safe-for-work warning would have been appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've requested permission, and I may wait for a while. --George Ho (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 Update: I got permission because they said: use of this image in Wikipedia is fair use. Any issues dealing with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a living person, there's still the NFCC#1 failure (replaceability). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the article; this image is 15-20 years old. This person is diagnosed with HIV. Some claimed that he died in 1997, but his death is unverifiable, so I removed his death. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If we can't even figure out if he's alive or dead, we shouldn't have an article about him in the first place, let alone an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not nominating it as AFD then if you are concerned? --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:PQ 1950.jpg

Hello editors, I recently purchased a photograph made in June, 1950, of the Paganini Quartet members. It was offered on eBay, where it had been posted on the internet, and was sold by Historic Images. See File:PQ 1950.jpg I have no way of knowing who the photographer was, though he/she evidently worked for some periodical's music page. It is very unlikely that that person is still alive, and I have no way of contacting his/her estate, if any. I am the executor of the estate of Henri Temianka, who was the founder and first violinist of the Paganini Quartet. I can vouch for the authenticity of the photograph and the identities of the persons depicted. Your assistance in guiding me to the appropriate copyright designation would be very greatly appreciated. Thank you.DtemiankaHT (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello DtemiankaHT. If the image was actually published between 1923 and 1978 it depends on whether there was an appropriate copyright mark on the first publication date. Images not properly marked as copyrighted or registered with the US Copyright Office during that time are in the Public Domain and should be tagged with {{PD-US-1996}}. According to your description though there is no way to be sure about the publication and its formalities. So I would advise you to rather not upload the image at all. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Facebook photo

Hi,

I'm trying to notate the copyright data for a photo that I've uploaded ( the main article is within my private contributions - I was hoping to get it right before releasing it for online editing. I thought that the picture may be here too :-) ). The problem is that it is a picture that was uploaded to Facebook. I have asked the author ( presumably ) if it was okay to use it on the wikipedia page and they agreed. But does it still come within Facebook, and if so, what licence(?) does it need?

All the best,

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider23 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This is apparently about File:Ria Zmitrowicz.jpg and I see that you have already found out about the OTRS email team. My only concern is though that this photo was probably not taken by Ria Zmitrowicz herself but by a professional photographer. So while she may hold the rights of use she might not be the original author. Only the author can decide about licensing and reusing their works. Do you have link to the ebay item so we could view the image online? De728631 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft & Bing Maps

Recognizing that Bing Maps is a service of Microsoft, are screenshots from Bing Maps allowed on Wikipedia? I have taken a screenshot of a certain building and I was wondering if I could upload it to Wikipedia. I am not quite sure what the copyright laws are for Microsoft regarding its maps. WeirdnSmart0309 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, they are not allowed. They are copyrighted and do not meet wikipedia's non-free image use criteria because they are replaceable with freely licensed photos taken of the buildings/geographical features. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Skillet2010.jpg

I am curious about this image used as the main image of Skillet (band). My concern is based on the "wrapped face" on the banner behind the band. This image is likely copyrighted, so does FOP or de minimus apply? Also, the Marshall logos are visible on the amps, should these be photoshopped out? — GabeMc (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a commons hosted image, so your discussion should really be there, and has been nominated for deletion there at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skillet2010.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion nomination has been removed. ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Using photos from BBC, old or new

I am reading Personal and Business Terms from BBC.co.uk. Many television screenshots, whether in BBC Online or not, are properties of BBC, and I wonder if BBC allows man-made television screenshots in Wikipedia. Also, I have uploaded some of their photos. Therefore, I wonder if we Wikipedians must obey either Personal or Business Terms of BBC Online. --George Ho (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

When you take a screenshot of any copyrighted show, the copyright remains with the copyright owner of the show, so any use of them here will be non-free, following US fair use law. The BBC terms can't prevent you from taking screenshots and using them under en.wiki NFC provisions. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What about photos that were taken long ago? shall they be considered publicity or commercial? --George Ho (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say without examples, but assuming they were taken by BBC to be part of their news service, they would be allowable as non-free images. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What about photos of any cast member(s) from EastEnders, Are You Being Served?, and other fictional shows? --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos of a cast member on a page about the cast member, assuming they are still alive - with almost no exception, never.

Photos of a cast member on a page about the cast member, assuming they have passed away, possibly, though depends on the strength of the NFCC#8 argument.

Photos of a cast member on a page about the character, maybe, if there is a strong need to visually identify the character and they look fundamentally different from the cast member directly. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

All right. Must we use Personal or Business Terms? Wikipedia is educational and non-profitable, not personal, to be clear. --George Ho (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

BBC terms have nothing to do with it. They aren't in a CC-BY license, and thus fall into non-free licensing. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, as long as I can use a non-free photo of cast member for a character article, that's okay, right? --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Barring the strength of the rationale (which is very subjective, and outside the bounds here), then it should be okay as a non-free image. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)