Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/September

Cosplay Magazine

Good Day, this is Mr King Constantine. I am currently undergoing the process of planning to publish a cosplay magazine. Being short on financial sources, we cannot afford to have legal advise from a lawyer that is why we are hoping that you could help us.

We would like to ask the following questions: 1. Do we have to ask for permission from the company of the cartoon that was cosplayed by our featured cosplayer before we publish the magazine? 2. If we do not ask for permission, what are the possible charges that they may press against us?

We are looking forward for your generous response, Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.81.77 (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cannot offer you any legal advise, we only deal with issues about copyright issues on wikipedia. You must consult an intellectual property lawyer. Perhaps you can find one who does pro bono work if your finances are low. ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

On commons there is a whole category of cosplay. These photos of people in costumes do not seem to be a copyright issue for Wikipedia, however commons does not allow original cartoons of otherwise copyrighted cartoon characters. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

What rationale/explanation is missing?

A message was posted on my talk page on August 31, suggesting I have omitted some further justification why it is all right to use this magazine cover. While I previously explained I own the magazine and its copyright 100%, I don't grasp what further explanation is needed. Can anyone point me in the right direction? I have at least briefly reviewed the pages indicated on my talk page, but I seem to have covered it. Thanks in advance. --RayBirks (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the person that tagged it didn't look close enough. While most rationales use one of several templates, this is by no means required as long as the core factors of why the image meets WP:NFCC are in the prose (which they are here, particularly the source and article name). I've removed the deletion tag.

That said, if by good faith you are who you say you are, you should have the ability to release the image under a free license like CC-BY-SA. There may be reasons why that's limited but if you're in control of the copyright of the work, you should be able to release a single cover image as a free image. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Masem. I am not sure how to verify who I am in this sphere, but at least on this end, if anyone challenges me, I win! I have been the magazine owner since 1994, when it was founded. (Shall I send you a copy? Visit the official website mentioned on in the image's accompanying article and contact me using any indicated method and mention this conversation. Hmm, how will I verify who *you* are?? :) ) Hope this helps a little. --RayBirks (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You can send an email from an account associated with your magazine to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and declare that you release this specific cover under a free license, e.g. CC-by-SA. When you have done so, please put the template {{OTRS-pending}} on the file page so that others know about this procedure. A volunteer will then check your mail and the file and update the page accordingly. See also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. De728631 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Promo poster for Lichtenstein exhibit at Art Institute of Chicago

I took a picture of a promotional poster that was on the side of a bus stop and was put out by the Art Institute of Chicago for their Roy Lichtenstein exhibit. They used the Lichtenstein piece "Ohhh...Alright..." as the focal point. It seems like a good photo to add to that article, but I would like some input from others. Any comments? KConWiki (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How to add a Copyright tag.

1. In descriptions n how to add a copyright tag....ther is a reference to chosing the appropriate copyright from a "drop down menu"...There is no drop down menu.

2. In edit user talk from autobot "copyright" tags need to be added to the image description..."...There is no area on the image page for an Image Description.

Can you clear up all this confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramel33166 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added and completed the {{information}} template but you should check it is correct. The licence seems fine but your attribution is too verbose; you can write most of that in the permission field. ww2censor (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:TheSimpleLife.png

Is this image all right as part of a gallery, or unnecessary? --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Being non free this should not be used in a gallery, and should only appear where there is commentary on the item, and where it would aid understanding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Sam Malone women Feeble Attraction.jpg

Is this image necessary? --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Not with more sources to back up that specific image as being critical to the article. So likely no. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File:WesternHighSchool.jpg

There is no copyright data on the web page that I obtained the image from. Would it be easier to walk a few streets over and just snap my own photo of the shool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cskcsk (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Original file found at: Jefferson County Public Schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cskcsk (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While there is no copyright statement on the webpage where you found the image, it is most likely copyright to the school, as are most images you find on the internet, unless they are specifically noted to be freely licenced. So yes, it may take you less time to take your own photo than try to get the copyright holder to verify their permission to our OTRS Team. ww2censor (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Will do, thank you for your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cskcsk (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Logos of disestablished companies

What is the copyright status of logos/emblems of disestablished companies? Do they usually fall into public domain? Thanks.--176.241.247.17 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone still holds the copyright even if the entity doesn't exist. If it was a corporately-owned logo, its considered a work for hire and subject to 95 years copyright from first publication. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The copyright may not be an issue for trademarks used before 1989 in the United States. Companies had to place a copyright notice on every use of the trademark or would become public domain. In the years 1978 to March 1989 companies could correct this defect by registering the copyright within 5 years. Most companies just relied on the trademark laws to protect their logo and did not bother with copyright. Trademark owner have to maintain registration and use the trademark in commerce. Here is an example of a 1973 logo that lost the trademark and is in public domain. File:MITS Calculator 1200 Series 1973.jpg -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Publicity photos

Are publicity photos like File:Potret Roekiah1.jpg automatically deemed to have been published at or around the time of their taking? If so, I have a couple (like this one) which would be PD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think we can generalize based on the state of copyright law in the U.S. and elsewhere. (But we could in theory develop a project-wide consensus to do something like that—presumably acknowledging and mitigating whatever degree of legal risk it might entail for editors who follow it.) TheFeds 05:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ah. Such a discussion would probably have to take place on Commons (that's where a goodly number of them would be hosted) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio template for uploader

One image I uploaded quite a long time ago is actually copyright violation, and needs to be deleted. Should I give the image a basic copyvio. template, or is there a specialised template I should use to indicate that I, the uploader is aware of the copyvio.? JamesDouch (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You can issue the {{db-G7|}} reason tag on the page. If you mention it here I can delete it very soon. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I tagged the image. JamesDouch (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this image have a FUR or not?

File:Moyaaid.jpg has a "Rationale of fair use for Past Present DVD" which is no longer used, but an editor claims that there's no FUR and has removed the image from the article based solely on that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You have two problems. We first need a rationale for each article (and calling out that article by its article title) that the non-free image is used in. So the removal of that image from Moya Brennan is correct as the only rationale on that page is for this "Past Present DVD" article. But that's the second problem, that if you are trying to use it on the Moya article, we cannot allow that as the person is living (apparently) so a free photo can be obtained, and thus NFCC #1 is violated. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Apple-logo.svg

Contradictory licensing - uses nonfree rationale with {{PD-textlogo}}. Which is it? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say non-free; it's not just shapes but has some creative elements. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

An anonIP changed it yesterday, so I reverted it. It is now correctly non-free again. ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we even need the picture. We could just use File:Apple logo black.svg. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Apple logo black.svg is not the current logo and is out of date by more than 35 years, so no we can't use it as the logo of the company, except in historical context. ww2censor (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Even so, the current one isn't in pure SVG... 68.173.113.106 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Because its non-free, it doesn't make sense to use true SVG for the image to allow for infinite resolution. It is probably better to replace this with a simple jpg/png at a low fixed resolution than to use SVG. --MASEM (t) 12:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

North Korean government images

I hope this isn't asking for legal advice, but correct me if I'm wrong. Well, apparently we still don't have a picture of Kim Jong-un, although the DPRK gov't has several pictures of him. But are they copyrighted or not? If so, can we finally use a picture of him? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Government images are fully copyrighted. If you are thinking of {{PD-DPRKGov}}, it appears that the template only applies to textual works. There is also a deletion request on Commons where someone suggested that the licence template doesn't even apply to textual materials because of some recent change in the North Korean copyright law. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Making Galleries

I am so confused... could you please tell me how to make a photo gallery? I have all the images but I cant end up making a gallery of them on a particular page. Help ASAP Taha Mazari (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is what you need to know but also read WP:Galleries. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

PD-Simple

Would this be PD-Simple or PD-text? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like text to me: PD-text. But there is overlap so no issue for concern for one or the other. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, good bye FU image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Japanpaper111.jpg

File:Japanpaper111.jpg is a clipping from a Japanese newspaper reporting the deaths of Subhas Chandra Bose and Tsunamasa Shidei on 18 August 1945. The image description page has a {{PD-URAA}} tag, claiming that the image is in the public domain in the United States because:

• it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and
• it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice and
• it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).

The first criterion seems very likely, but I don't know about the second or third criteria. The image description page also has a non-free use rationale.

Now, if this image is indeed in the public domain in the United States as is claimed, we don't need a non-free use rationale for it, and we should delete that. On the other hand, if it's not in the public domain in the U.S., or if we cannot confirm that it is, we should delete the {{PD-URAA}} tag. Can anyone help to shed some light on this? —Bkell (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume that this is a work for hire. Works for hire have a copyright term of publication+50 years in Japan. Thus, this would have entered the public domain in Japan on 1 January 1996, so I assume that it fits with the above template. However, I think that {{PD-Japan-organization}} also should be used. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Using an image on a company website

Could you please tell me if the following image may be used on a company website? File:Electroporation_Cuvettes.jpg

The permissions language on the file page is a little confusing.

Thanks in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastelez (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is possible. You can use it according to the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license with Attribution: Zephyris at the English language Wikipedia. You will need to state the attribution and the license close to the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

I have a photograph which was not taken by me, but for which I bought shared license to use. The photographer has given me permission to use it on Wikipedia but wants the image to be credited with ' Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Image copyright James Brittain'.

What license category does this come under?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katwoman434 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For this we need more than permission to load it onto WIkipedia, and we need permission for every one to use it for any purpose, and allow modifications. Are you in a position to grant that too? The attribution with all the spaces and "false" etc sounds excessive. Arte you sure that "James Brittain" is insufficient? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Image Use Query

I have a photograph which was not taken by me, but for which I bought shared license to use. The photographer has given me permission to use it on Wikipedia but wants the image to be credited with 'Image copyright James Brittain'.

What license category does this come under? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katwoman434 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We do not accept "permission to use on Wikipedia"; any image used here must be licensed under a license which permits re-use elsewhere (including for commercial purposes), creation of derivative works, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

photos deleted for lack of proof of right to use -- now what?

Hi, I uploaded the following images and they were deleted after 7 days because of "No evidence of permission for more than 7 days"

File:Le Bal des débutantes Paris 2008 -- Alain Delon and Bruce Willis with their respective daughters Anouchka and Scout LaRue.jpg

File:Le Bal des debutantes 2009 Paris debs dancing.jpg

They were for use on the page:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Le_Bal_des_D%C3%A9butantes

The relevant permission was emailed to permissions-en at wiki... by le bal. The exact same was done for the other photos on the page (and in the same email) and these have not been deleted -- in fact their permission seems to be up to date.

What is the difference? What can I do now? Should I upload the photos again?

ThanksMosehay (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No, do not upload the images again but wait until the OTRS Team have processed the verification. If they are satisfied with the permission given by the copyright holder the images will be restored and if not then the permission given was not free enough for us to use. Sometimes the backlog of OTRS requests can be as long a a month, so you just need some patience. It is not an instant process but is entirely done by a small group of specialised volunteers. The other images that were not deleted had the template {{OTRS pending}} added to them before they were deleted but the permission has not been verified by OTRS for those images either. ww2censor (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I found and processed the permission. The permissions email was a little hard to read, I think I got them all, let me know if I missed any.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Great thanks so much. It's fixed now, the photos are back. Sorry if I screwed anything up, I'm a newbie! Mosehay (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't screw anything up. Unfortunately, our OTRS is understaffed, and I've had RL work deadlines, so I haven't been as active as I have sometimes.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this image in the public domain?

I want to upload this image currently published on someone's blog and hosted on photobucket. The image has been scanned from a 1954 publication, 'The New Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland', which was published by the government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, at the time a federal realm of the British Crown - a semi-independent state. The publication states that the image was produced by the Information Department of Northern Rhodesia, which was one of the constituent states of the federation. Are there outstanding copyright issues preventing the use of this image? (particularly, does Crown Copyright apply in this case?) Warrenjs1 (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The image you link to is not accessable as it is in a private album, so we can't verify it. Do you have the blog link so we can at least see it? If 1954 is correct then crown copyright would apply and it could be uploaded to the commons for wider audience use. ww2censor (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a link to the blog article. I have now uploaded the image to the commons at commons:File:Northern_Rhodesian_Miners.jpg. Would the {{PD-UKGov}} tag be most appropriate? Warrenjs1 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the appropriate licence to the commons file. I would add a little more detail about where the image was originally published. ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of government school logos

I recently uploaded a logo of a public school operated by the state Government of New South Wales in Australia. Admittedly, I uploaded it at a higher resolution than required for use in an infobox here but I was concerned for its use on other websites that feed data from Wikipedia. I'm unsure of their copyright policy so I uploaded it under the standard logo fair-use permissions but I began to think that perhaps that isn't necessary; maybe it even falls under the public domain. Would it be worthwhile for me to contact the government department regarding this? I am completely unsure of the whole image copyright situation here so I would appreciate any assistance or advice. Forenti^talk 00:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've resized the image and applied a preloaded rationale for logos. That should be sufficient to keep the file. De728631 (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

For these sort of things, copyright still applies, and it is crown copyright. In Australia goes to public domain after 50 years. Logos from before 1946 will also be public domain in Usa. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Facts, League tables, fixtures and Copyright - Is there a Wikipedia opinion regarding their inclusion?

Copyright laws differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in particular as to whether a fact / table / databases of facts is copyrightable; in particular League tables, listings and fixtures. So I was wondering which [[1]] Wikipedia seeks protection in (Jim's comment confuses matters) and what is the general view regarding the inclusion / re-production of facts on a page?

A few links:

• http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/prot-databases/index_en.htm
• http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
• http://www.nelsonslaw.co.uk/site/news/blogs/ip_blog/copyrightinfixtureslist.html
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17218968
• http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100005087/why-do-football-fixtures-deserve-copyright-protection/
• http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/regulation/6/made

--83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Archflg.jpg

File:Archflg.jpg is a photograph from 1929, taken from the Federal Aviation Administration Web site: [2]. It is tagged with {{PD-USGov-FAA}}, which claims that it is "a work of a United States Federal Aviation Administration employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." But that can't be true, as the FAA wasn't created until 1958, 29 years after the creation of the photo. The FAA page doesn't give any source information about the photograph (other than the year), nor does it give any copyright information. So what's the appropriate thing to do with this image? —Bkell (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem #1 is that this is a subset of a bigger issue: what to do with works of unknown origin contained in U.S. government works? The U.S. (federal) government is a bit unique among governments in that it puts all its own original works in the public domain. But this doesn't necessarily commit others' works incorporated in a U.S. government publication into the public domain. I'm not sure that we've come to a consensus lately on how to treat these (but admittedly, I haven't been up to date on all the latest talk pages). Though it would make our lives easier, I don't think we can assume that the U.S. government has obtained licences for all material such that free re-use would necessarily be permitted.

Problem #2 is that the FAA post-dates the photo, so it's obviously not originally an FAA work. We shouldn't keep the FAA tag there, but what to replace it with depends heavily on the actual origin of the photo (which we don't know). (In particular, we shouldn't claim it's a CAA work, because we have no evidence of that.)

Problem #3 relates to expiration of copyright: it's quite possible that either this was first published in the U.S. without a copyright notice after 1923, or not renewed at the appropriate times prior to 1964, or published under some other situation that leads to a lapse into the public domain. The trouble is, we can't straightforwardly document the date or place of first publication, or the author's date of death (if as yet). Without that, there are (unlikely, but plausible) ways the copyright could be in force for decades to come.

There is a bit of a silver lining: we can probably make a strong case with a fair use rationale. TheFeds 05:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The test that I've always seen followed is as follows: (1) If the image be attributed to a US government source, treat as PD-USGov. (2) If the image be attributed to a non-federal source, treat as if it weren't on a federal website. (3) If the image be unattributed, treat as PD-USGov unless we find evidence to the contrary. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the Holy See (present usage).png

The Coat of Arms of the Vatican and Holy See[3] is not Public Domain. Copyright of Coat of Arms of the Holy SeeFundamental Law of Vatican City State - Stato della Città del Vaticano (declaration of Coat of Arms by the Vatican City/State/Nation)--Amadscientist (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I read in the press release, the copyright restriction is only valid for the Pope's personal coat of arms, not for the Vatican. And I couldn't find any such restriction in the Fundamental Law either. De728631 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding about the nature of copyright on coats of arms. This work appears to have been created by the user, i.e. the picture itself. The definition - which pretty much amounts to a gold key and a silver key crossed on a red field - is almost always too vague to be held that the representation is a derivative work, rather than an original. (For more information, see Commons:Coats_of_arms#Public_domain_definition_.28blason.29.) Is there any evidence that this is not a drawing done by the uploader? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The original belief was that this image was copied by the roiginal uploader to copy a representation that has a copyright, however there is enough differences between the two images for creative license. As pointed out the copyright of the Vatican is worded to protect only the papal seal and arms and not the COA of the Holy See and Vatican state. Concerns over attribution can be fixed. Thanks. Satisfied that this is within policy and guidelines. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Photos from Israel's Ministry of Tourism website

http://www.goisrael.com/Tourism_Eng/Tourist%20Information/Planning%20your%20trip/Online%20tools/Pages/Picture%20Gallery.aspx is a collection of 2000 photos from Israel. The site includes the following release information: "Anyone who wishes to use the pictures can do so, subject to the following conditions and restrictions: A. The pictures may be used for purposes that will not distort / change the purpose / nature of the original material. B. Credit must be given to the Ministry of Tourism (www.goisrael.com) next to the picture, explicitly stating that the credit is solely for the pictures. C. Downloading the pictures from the website and utilizing them constitutes the user’s consent to these conditions and restrictions." I don't think "B" is a problem in terms of using the image on wikipedia, but I'm not sure about "A." Would this rule allow the photos to be used under any copyright license accepted by wikipedia. If so, which? Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think A makes them non-free. Secretlondon (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree: it's essentially a no-derivatives clause, and a Wikipedia-acceptable permission includes the right to make whatever modifications are desired, as far as this isn't restricted by law. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

a question on copyright for a United States Govt, department of Interior informational sign

hi. i have uploaded information to wikipedia regarding a National Register of Historic Places site that has never been documented online before. [4].

as part of my sources for the information included in this article are photographs that i took of national forest service information signage along the trail to the monument. this all is located in the Kaibab national forest in northern arizona. the signage is not labelled at all as to its origin. a sample of the signage was at "File:What is Brow Monument Forest Service Information sign.jpg" before it was deleted (while i was trying to work through what was needed to fix it - somewhat disheartened by that). while i've been given advice that i actually don't need the sources in photo form to prove the information i'm citing, i think that they are important to the story because they contain non-verbal descriptions of the site (triangulation examples, topography scenes). there is, quite literally, no information from any source on these signs - the manager of the Kaibab national forest service office in Jacob lake has researched this to no avail and asked me to do the work to put this out. any advice as to how to get the pictures in with the article would be appreciated. again, somewhat disheartening on bleeping stuff out while i'm trying my best to do what is proper. Abearfellow (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You have three different issues here. First is the sourcing; you're correct that you don't need to have the images online for sourcing purposes. Second is the appropriateness of including these large chunks of text; it's really not a good idea to copy text wholesale from things like signs, because the tone of the writing is likely to be (and is, in this case) in a format that's really not suitable for an encyclopedia. These signs are meant for the viewer of the site; bits such as their use of the second person (e.g. "If you could go back in time") aren't formal enough for an encyclopedia, and it's quite impossible for us to "Look through the view scope". Third is the copyright issue. As works of the Interior Department, the signs are clearly in the public domain: the PD-USGov-Interior permissions template that you applied is appropriate. Finally, on a couple other things: (1) You can get information about these sites by requesting it from NPS — use the email address here and tell them that you'd like the nomination form for the property. They'll mail it to you for free if you tell them the property name, the NRIS reference number (87001159), and your mailing address. (2) The image was deleted because it was moved to Commons and given a different name. It's still online at File:Brow Monument, What is Brow Monument?.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Lyrics in "Daddy, What's a Train?"

In the article above mentioned, I (while logged in) edited away the lyrics (which, I assume, are still under copyright) that somebody added to the article. However, I also assume these lyrics would still be visible in past revisions. I wished to make you aware of this, so that you could take appropriate action. 174.230.0.166 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• • EDIT: Fixed the link name. Also, I'm Brownie Charles and am on my phone right now. 174.230.0.166 (talk)

I revdel'd the intervening versions. Thanks for noticing. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighting inherited photographs

My father died in 1977. I inherited the copyright to his images. I have tried everything I can think of to post a photograph of Dewey Barto taken by my father, but the ImageRemovalBot removes it. On the Wikipedia Upload Wizard, I have checked:

"This file was given to me by its owner.

The copyright owner of this file has given it to me for uploading on Wikipedia. I can provide evidence that they have agreed to release it under a free license, for free use by anybody and for any purpose."

However, there is no provision for inherited photographs. I own the copyright, but I didn't take the photograph. As the owner of the copyright, I agree to release it under a free license, but can't figure out how to do so. Can someone tell me step-by-step what I should do? Thank you. --Brad Smith (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradford Smith (talk • contribs)

You could upload it here using the template {{PD-because}} with the explanation that you are the heir of the author and are releasing it, though someone may request verification to our OTRS Team. However, on the commons they have an heirs specific copyright tag PD-heirs, that would possibly suit you better and you write like this {{PD-heirs}}. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

I have a picture of a piece of modern sculpture (by Fernando Botero ) that went on a world tour. Does this mean that because I took the picture in the USA (which does not have freedom of panorama) that i can't use it, but if I found a picture of the same sculpture taken in Spain (which I believe does have freedom of panorama) that I could use the latter but not the former? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many FOP laws require that the subject of the image be permanently located in the jurisdiction where it was photographed, and the fact that it went on a world tour isn't conducive to a sense of "permanently". Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ny,I suspected something like that. Carptrash (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Simple instructions for a picture I took

I spent 30 minutes trying to figure this out. How about something that simply addresses this issue. Thanks - Bob BAlfson (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to figure out? ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I saw you upload was File:2008july4.jpg 2008 4th of July Parade in Crown Heights - Edgemere Heights in Oklahoma City For that image you did not grant any kind of license. Do you wish to grant a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license? If so I can restore the image. We also need the information template:

{{Information | description = 4th of July Parade in Crown Heights - Edgemere Heights in Oklahoma City | source = self taken photograph | date = 4 July 2008 | author = BAlfson (or Bob Alfson or what every you like for your name) }}

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(I am pasting an earlier response that you may have missed):

Bob if you took a photo that you would like to contribute to Wikipedia the main details you must add, in addition to the source, i.e., you is the copyright status which must be freely licenced. You previous image was deleted because you did not tell us what the licence was. You can choose {{PD-self}}, {{self}} or {{attribution}} as those often chosen by photographer uploaders. If you still think the original image is useful to the encyclopaedia, you can reupload it but you must provide all the necessary information asked for. Just click on the "Upload file" link on the left of any page and follow through. You can always ask someone here to review it for you. BTW no one is professional here, we are all volunteers and are happy to help those with less experience. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a better understanding of copyright issues. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ah I remember now. I thought my post was detailed enough to explain everything you might need and my additional link provides even more information. So what are you trying to figure out? You still did not tell us. ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

List of heritage sites in Gauteng

Could an expert please look at Talk:List of heritage sites in Gauteng#Copyright problem? I hope I've got this wrong... -- John of Reading (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Aseem Trivedi cartoon

Can a cartoon be reproduced in the editorial cartoonist's article under fair use, or some other policy? It has been deleted here. Fair warning, there has been quite a bit of drama/reversion on this article, apparently the subject is currently jailed. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if it gets deleted on Commons, it could be hosted here with a fair use rationale for Aseem Trivedi. This particular cartoon is dealt with in the "Controversy" section and it may be used to illustrate just this. On that note, the image is still up on Commons and the IP removing it from the article is a bit dodgy. De728631 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree the removal is questionable. However copyright rules are tricky and I wanted to check first. Thank you. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

File:VHS-oldbldg.gif

I've added the correct source information, but the image has still been targeted for deletion. More details about the error can be found on (including the appropriate source info): File:VHS-oldbldg.gif

An Alumnus had scanned the picture and uploaded it to vidyaranyaschool.com. The photo was taken in 1984 by an unknown source (probably another alumnus). Hence, the scanned photo is the property of vidyaranyaschool.com taken with appropriate permissions from the actual school. How can I prevent the image from being deleted (can I enter more detailed information elsewhere?).

Please help me fix this. Regards, K— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scudcrow (talk • contribs)

The problem is that the webpage that you have provided for the permission bears a copyright notice (Copyright © 2012 Vidyaranya High School), so you will have to provide specific permission from the copyright owner as described in WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If the image concerned was scanned from a 1984 photograph (copyright experts correct me if I am wrong) copyright in the image remains with the photographer and the school cannot give permission for it. Although interesting, I do not think it is essential enough to the article to pass WP:NFCC#8. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You have also uploaded the same image to the commons and the same issues apply there too: there is no verification of permission from the copyright holder who may be the photographer or the school as appropriate, so it cannot be used without such permission. Normal Indian copyright is 60 years after publication or pma. ww2censor (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

File:The Boys in the Bar Norm two kisses on cheek.jpg

I wonder if this image fails WP:NFCC#8. However, no one might know what Norm Peterson looks like; also, two specific guys were briefly mentioned without specific names. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

From the reception section, Norm's attitude towards homosexuality is discusses as well as that specific scene. It actually has a reasonable likelihood to be kept. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Public domain status of old bootleg album artwork

Because of {{PD-US-no notice}}, it occurs to me that a number of bootleg LPs have original artwork created specifically for the LP that, to avoid detection and prosecution, would not have asserted any copyright. For example - this cover of "Who's Zoo", an early 1970s bootleg, could fall under this category. Is this understanding correct? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be so, but you cannot assume it. You would have to check both sides, and have evidence where and when it was published. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary section

Hi! Could somebody take a look at this page and say if there is everything ok with the summary section (media data, non-free use rationale and other things)? --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There is actually a {{logo fur}} that can simplify some of those blank looking fields with standard text. For the source, we should be getting a more original source that would demonstrate that the logo is genuine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Gravestones

How much originality would have to be present in a gravestone for it to pass the threshhold of originality in the US? File:Grave of Sudirman.JPG has been questioned at the article's GA review. The headstone is easily out of copyright in Indonesia, as he was buried in 1950, but I'm wondering about the US copyright. Note that Oerip Soemohardjo, Supeno, and Sudirman's wife all have essentially the same design for their headstones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there freedom of panorama in Indonesia? If so then the photo of 3D object in a public place should be acceptable. Otherwise I think the text is too simple for copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there's no freedom of panorama in Indonesia (I know because I was looking for other Asian countries without it, in response to learning that the Philippines doesn't either), so that won't work. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Dutch archive Gahetna - can someone verify its images are free to use?

According to this page, the entire gahetNA in het Nationaal Archief archive from The Netherlands has images available under the Naamsvermelding-GelijkDelen 3.0 Nederland (CC BY-SA 3.0) license. To verify this, I've tried to read through a rough translation of the history/open data page (see below):

Open data

The National Archives sets over 140,000 photographs from the archives of photo agency Anefo available as open culture data under a CC-BY-SA license, the metadata is available under a CC0 license.

The set Anefo

The set contains a section of the Dutch political, social and cultural life between 1959 and 1989. All the big and small news from the sixties, seventies and eighties by photographers are recorded. Everything is there, from big news as royal weddings, political crises and European championships to very small news as tilted trucks on the highway, crowded beaches during the first heat wave of the year and the fire that a cat from a burning house gets.

Anefo was a private, commercial photo agency where demand exceeds supply certain. Major themes in the set are politics, sports and the monarchy. In 140000 pictures you see Netherlands slowly change from a reconstruction-oriented society through deep generational conflicts to a society that hopes to run against the cuts imposed during the economic crisis in the eighties. The photo collection Anefo has its inclusiveness great historical value for the postwar Dutch (image) history.

History Anefo

The General Dutch Photo Agency derives from the photographic department established in 1943 within the Office Military Authorities. Founded by the Dutch government in exile in London, had Anefo primarily to educational materials to make and distribute to the position of the Netherlands under the spotlight and keep the memory of the legitimate government and the royal family to keep alive among the population in occupied Netherlands. In 1948 it was sold and grew alongside the ANP gradually becoming one of the major Dutch, commercial photo agencies. Anefo remained there until 1989. In that year, the last director all the photos transferred to the Government Information. Finally, the extensive collection in 1996 through the RVD managed by the National Archives.

Anefo culture as open data

The copyright of the photos taken by photographers working for Anefo is transferred to the RVD and RVD through the National Archives. The descriptions of the Anefo photos are not always complete. The National Archives is dependent on the information provided in the past by Anefo in the photos is recorded. The organization has consistently chronologically. The material came to date within which various daily reports may be available. To ensure that all rights of the initial terms of over 150,000 pictures copyright by the National Archives are located, have safe side on the set an extra place selections. Images whose 'creator unknown' or in which a 'contract' are made are filtered out.

What do you think? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is very clear that it is a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license for photos with attribution of "Dutch National Archives, The Hague, Fotocollectie Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (ANEFO), 1945-1989 - negatiefstroken zwart/wit. Finding aid number 2.24.01.05, item number <xxx-xxxx>." It seems that only 10000 photos were excluded from this due to unknown photographer, where grant of license was not clear. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Can I up load a photo I found on google.

I am wanting to upload a photo to (sport in the United States) on the section Australian rules football. I found the photo after I typed into Google USA Revolution (The United States national Australian rules football team, Its a photo of someone playing for the national team. I want to uploaded it because I think it will help people understand what the sport is. I am wondering if it is legal to upload and if uploading photos in this manner is legal. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dek0001 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends where the image came from and who the author is. Google is just a means of finding an image, there's no guarantee that you didn't find a commercial image for which all rights are reserved. What is the link to the image? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact when you do a Google image search and click on an image, on the right hand side of the page it clearly states: Images may be subject to copyright which is why you must check their status yourself and specifically determine that an image is verifiably freely licenced. You can also do an advanced Google search for various levels of copyright licensing. The majority of images you find on the internet are copyright to someone unless there is a clear statement to the contrary. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Larger/Cleaner versions of images already on Wikipedia and Chinese copyrights

If a picture already exists on Wikipedia, for example, a portrait of a historic martial artist, and one finds a larger and/or cleaner version of that same image, is it possible to replace the already existing image with the better one? I mean images that are not necessarily edited, but are of higher resolution, better quality scans, etc. If so, how does one go about doing so? ~ InferKNOX (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In general, you shouldn't upload one image on top of another one unless the new one is a quality improvement of the first one: e.g. you cropped it, lightened it, removed something irrelevant, etc. A different image of the same subject should be uploaded under a different name. While there are exceptions, they're rare enough that they'd have to be considered case-by-case; you'd need to ask about a specific situation. As far as the foreign-language book, I can't at the moment advise you on procedures, except to say that you should check to ensure that the image is still under copyright. If you have a book that has passed into the public domain, there's no point in bothering with permission, so it's always worth checking, but be careful that you can establish with 100% confidence that it really does fit the method or one of the methods by which works in its source country and works in the US pass into the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm... I'm not sure if I don't quite understand you, or if you're not quite answering my question. I'm talking about better versions of the exact same image, e.g., this image and this image. I'd have to upload that same image under another file name when it's simply larger and clearer than the other? Is there any Wiki guide or something that will help me work out the details of a given image's copyright? Phew, this copyright stuff is quite a headache. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, you may need to check that the larger image is free - just because a smaller version has been released under a free license does not mean that a larger version has - some people will release rights to smaller images while retaining rights to larger versions which are of greater commercial value.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to non-commercial images, like the one in my reply above though. I'm interested in adding images like portraits of historic taijiquan masters, etc. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I misread the question — I thought you meant that you had existing images and wanted to upload different images of the same people. You shouldn't have problems doing this, because simple digital reproduction doesn't generate new copyright, so the only issue is the copyright status of the original image. Either the original is copyrighted and not freely licensed, in which case both the old image and the new one should be deleted, or the original is freely licensed or PD and thus both old and new are fine. Nyttend (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, one question answered, thanks. 3 more to go (latter one above and both below). To expand on my unanswered question above, how does one 'upload a newer version of a file' that was originally uploaded by someone else? ~ InferKNOX (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Still hoping for some help with this. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, if a image of a historic martial artist is present in a book written in another language, such as Chinese, what are the copyright implications involving that image? How would one go about working through the copyright (getting permission) if those owning it only speak that foreign language and are only concerned with their own locale? ~ InferKNOX (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Prince logo.svg

Does this logo meet the threshold of originality to be protectable by copyright? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

However, it is being used in 1992 in music, 1993 in music, 1995 in music and 1996 in music without any fair-use rationale and as these pages are essentially lists this is not permitted by WP:NFLISTS. I doubt one could even write a rationale for those uses. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, the issue is that "technically" there is no text replacement for that during the time when Prince used that as his name. There was a big discussion on this a few years back, don't ask me where, but it was replacing the glyph with text, and I think the determination was that we technically couldn't. We also had a discussion if/when the symbol was used multiple times in the same article, how to deal with rationales for it, here. A rationale does need to be provided for the 4 above articles, though the rationale itself ("To use the officially recognized unpronounceable name of the recording artist while this was his official name") is not a problem. It is an extremely rare case where there's zero text replacement. --MASEM (t) 15:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Masem, you are correct and the uses still require rationales for each use, even if the previous discussion fudges the issue and suggested this image could be allowed it still needs those rationales which should preferably contain a link to the discussion mentioned. Maybe you can find it for us. ww2censor (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the original discussion of allowing the use of the non-free glyph where appropriate, but based on all convos around it, it is agreed that 1) the glyph should be used when referring to the artist Prince during the period where that was his name and 2) when it is used like that, a single non-free rationale for the article it appears in is needed. Optional, but not required, is to reduce the use of the glyph to once or twice (lead and infobox) explaining that you're going to call the musican "Prince" throughout the rest of the article to simply the english text discussion. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Dannii Minogue Glamour UK 2012 cover.jpg

Hi! I was wondering isn't this file a copyvio for use in Dannii Minogue's article? --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Tagged for free-replacement, and removed from article. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Arkatech Beatz

What if I incorrectly put a photo was copyrighted but it was indeed free to use? How do I change it so it can be used in article? File:Arkatech Beatz.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NUTCASE896 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you reuploaded the image with the summary: This file is actually free content. I made the mistake previously stating it was non- free, my mistake. I've also taken the liberty and reached out to their rep and was given pe, by which I presume you mean you were given permission to use the image on Wikipedia. But it depends on exactly what permission they gave and that is not stated nor verified. Anyway the permission you need is from the copyright holder, who may be the photographer, the record company or the musicians, and not the rep, and that person/organisation must verify their permission under a freely licenced copyright. You can ask them to do that by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Without that permission the image will likely be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Facebook photos

Can photos uploaded (by their authors) onto Facebook be used on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pear285 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not unless you get permission from the copyright holder. See the reply in the immediate post above this one for the details. ww2censor (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland Memory Project archives

I need a ruling on whether selected images from the Cleveland Memory Project are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Some background: photographs from the Cleveland Press were donated to Cleveland State University several years ago after the Press folded. These photos included a large number taken by Press photographers and to which Cleveland State now owns the rights. A smaller selection were UPI, AP and other agency photos to which CSU may not have the rights. In any event, CSU has published hundreds of these photos, with a copyright description that appears to allow for the publication of photos taken by Cleveland Press photographers in various non-commercial settings. I have uploaded several photos taken by Press photographers, but I want to make sure that we're adequately covered. Are we? I can get specific permission from CSU from publication on Wikipedia, if people think that would be helpful. Here is the text of the copyright information page:

The Michael Schwartz Library at Cleveland State University allows reproductions of materials from Special Collections for the purposes of research, scholarship, teaching, news reporting, criticism, or comment. Cleveland State University makes no representation of copyright ownership for the non-digital materials in Special Collections. For example, copyright ownership of Newspaper Enterprise Association (NEA), Acme, or United Press International (UPI) photographs may still remain with those organizations. Organizations and individuals seeking to use materials for publication must obtain permission directly from the appropriate copyright holder. The Michael Schwartz Library requests that all materials from Special Collections that are to be used in publication include a complete acknowledgment, including the name of the collection or photographer (if known). A minimum credit line should include either “The Cleveland Press Collection”, “Michael Schwartz Library, Cleveland State University”, or “Special Collections, Cleveland State University Library”, as appropriate.

An example photo is here:

File:Jim Brown running in the 1957 NFL championship.jpg

It doesn't seem to be a free enough release as it seems to be limited to non-commercial use.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-commercial use immediately makes them non-free, you'd have to get CSU to put them in a free license otherwise (and note they would only be able to do those that came from the Cleveland Press, assuming that the Press transferred copyright to them). As for their use on WP, standard NFCC rules apply. NFCC#2 about commercial opportunity should be considered if they are coming from press photo house services, they would need to be critically important historical photos to be used. --MASEM (t) 15:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I guess my question is whether the fair use rationale has to be just as strong as it would have to be for, say, an AP photo. In other words, I know we can't use a copyrighted photograph for general illustrative purposes in an article unless the photo itself is the subject of discussion, but is it ok or not to use these pictures (ones that are clearly Cleveland Press pics and to which CSU uncontestedly has copyright) for similar purposes? Also, any advice on what, specifically, to ask CSU to release them under? Is there a perfect way for CSU to continue to hold copyright but allow for their use digitally on Wikipedia and/or commons? --Batard0 (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a fair point. They are reducing their own commercial opportunity by the free for non-commercial license. We're still going to treat them as non-free, and their use should be minimal and appropriate (non-decorative), but I think unlike normal press agency photos where NFCC#2 enters into the picture, you don't have much of the same problem here. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

File:And So I Watch You From Afar Logo.jpg

I'm strongly inclined to change the licensing on this logo to {{PD-shape}}, but I wanted to run it past some others for more opinions first. Your thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like an obvious {{PD-shape}} case to me.--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I would agree PD-Shape applies. Certainly we've had plenty of cases where people have wrongly expanded the scope of PD-shape, but this isn't one of them. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say {{PD-ineligible-USonly|the United Kingdom}}. The logo, and in particular the way the top of the triangle goes through the black border, could definitely be seen as more complex than File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Stefan2; I hadn't realized that the UK was that permissive when it came to copyrighting logos. I'll tag it as you recommended so it doesn't get moved to commons and deleted there. Thanks all for your input! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Getty and Creative Commons at the same time

Are photos that are under both, Getty and Creative Commons license, free to use here? For example this picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/evarinaldiphotography/6409094575/in/photostream/, or in fact every photo by Eva Rinaldi on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/evarinaldiphotography/? Thanks! --Carniolus (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what other licenses they're under, if they're under CC that's good enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Two dubious files

I've spotted two files that are licensed as PD, but I'm very dubious of the claim. The first is File:Within yourself.jpg which, after a TinEye search, appears to be a cropped version of an image attributed to someone called Bob Grieser, not sure if its the same Bob Grieser that pops up multiple times on Google as a professional photographer, but it stands a chance.

The second image is File:The View.jpg(Edit: Note, the file that this now links to is not the same one as I was originally referring to.), which has 33 pages of results on TinEye, and whilst there isn't anything specific to cast doubt on it, that fact that it was uploaded by the same user that uploaded the first photo I mentioned (the user uploaded two images in 2007 and no edits since), leads me to question it. Google suggests it to be a piece of stock photography that has been doing the rounds on the net since the last century. As it stands, its used in an article about South Africa and I doubt that its the place that it says it is. - X201 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Having found specific locations on the internet which date to prior to the upload date here I've deleted both as copyvios. If they really are the copyright holder then we need something verifiable when it's been previously published. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo permissions when the person in the photo is the source of the photo

Hi,

I uploaded a photo to an author wiki page, because I am the author's assistant. He sent me the photo himself. However, it was initially deleted and I am still having permissions issues with Wikipedia.

When the author sends the photo to me and I upload it, how can I most easily prove to Wikipedia that I have the right permissions?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greglars (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ask the photographer to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The subject of the photo is not the copyright holder. Unless a complex set of conditions is met, we must always assume that the photographer is the copyright holder. --21:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple UPI images tagged with erroneous rationals

A recent example of numerous tagged files with erroneous rationals is File:Jeff and Lloyd Bridges 1978.JPG. The tagger relies on a clarification statement by the Library of Congress, that UPI "works published after 1963 and unpublished photographs in the collection may be protected even if they were not registered with the Copyright Office." However, as I pointed out in an earlier discussion for a Peter Sellers photo, that statement did not claim that UPI was not also required to have a copyright notice on their photos, front or back.

What's troubling is that besides many images being tagged and already deleted for possibly erroneous reasons, the tagger is apparently aware that their rational is erroneous, since they themselves have added many images listing all the requirements for copyright protection. See File:Susan Strasberg 1950s.JPG, for example. The tagging editor includes in their Permission section an itemized list of legal requirements with a link to the U.S. Copyright Office. Hence, they are disallowing images based on the same legal permissions by using an essentially irrelevant, if not legally assumed, statement by the LOC, a statement that pertains to any press photos, UPI or not. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We require positive proof the work is in the public domain, otherwise we must assume non-free. There's doubts due to lack of copyright notice, and while the claim that UPI would have had the copyright mark on the front, using the image off ebay may have cut off that copyright notice in the first place. This is the problem when using web sources for such images. --MASEM (t) 22:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It would also be helpful to say the images are at Commons and the other UPI images at Commons were deleted, along with the Peter Sellers image uploaded here and linked by the user. We hope (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The images, like File:Jeff and Lloyd Bridges 1978.JPG, do show the front and back, along with all margins. They are original press photos, and the only thing not shown is a side image ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

To let you know, I have replaced images in film still page. I also nominated replaced images for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither of Allan Warren's two photos belong in this article as they are not publicity or production photos, only general celebrity photos. That article should not be used for simple promo or possible WP:COI placement. Please remove them. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed these photos and replaced one with a photo of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. --George Ho (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It is simply amazing how Wikiwatcher1 can't take reviews about his imports seriously. There is already:

• An RFC
• an amazing history of files tagged on his userpage on Commons [5] by different users
• a 1 month block on Commons [6]

How many reviews do we need to stop this ? ... --PierreSelim (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Map tracing

If I have a map that someone else made (that is in a book), which shows the boundaries of a now defunct state, can I straight up copy those boundaries onto a new map, using the old map as a source, and release it under a free license? (The map in the book is under copyright). Sven Manguard Wha? 04:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer is typically yes, but there's some judgment to be exercised here. The first thing to note is that the author may be using an older map as his basis, in which case he doesn't hold the copyright and it may be in the public domain. That aside, the level of detail is the most important consideration. So, if you traced Google map's road layout for the UK or something, that would clearly be in copyright, but the locations of some major cities picked from it aren't because it would be difficult to establish the new work as a derivative of the old one. A lot of copyright traps concerned maps for this reason (and demonstrate the general rule of copyrightability, despite being a reflection of fact). Out of interest which state? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Uploading my own photo of an art piece from a museum

Can I upload my own photo of an art piece that was taken in a museum? Thanks. 94.142.236.28 (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your photo could be a derivative or faithful reproduction of the art work. In which case the copyright of the art work needs to be considered. Can you show it is public domain? If so we can have it. Otherwise it may be possible under fair use if there is an article about the artwork. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Linking to fair use mashup?

I have a question on mashups. (I searched the archives for mashups, but didn't find what I was looking for.)

Based upon some cursory reading, it sounds like mashups may be protected by fair use. I know we cannot link to a reference where we have reason to believe the material there may be violating copyright, hence why we are so cautious about allowing YouTube links. We do allow them, if the YouTube is licensed CC BY SA and we have no reason to think the material is infringing, but we do not if it is clearly a copyright infringement. What is our position if the YouTube may qualify as fair use? Can it be linked?

The draft article prompting this is Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Haider_Rifaat--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If the material is legal there should not be an issue having a link to it. However Youtube does not count as a reliable source, so it is not often useful for proving notability or accuracy of information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

But are these amateur videos legal in themselves? That's the question. They are compilations of clips from copyright professional television shows, films, and music videos. The sound tracks use copyright recordings from singers such as Jennifer Lopez, Enrique Iglesias, etc. There's nothing on the video summaries to indicate that these were used with permission. Voceditenore (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is probably sane advice - we can't always judge the legality of these, even though there are likely cases that are clearly within fair use law, it remains murky and better not to link at all. Instead, let other reliable sources link to them, and include these reliable sources in the article. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

PD tags

Is there any reason tags like {{PD-1923}} redirect to {{PD-US}} rather than have their own tag? Ryan Vesey 20:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think its more so that the other tags are easier mnenomics for people to remember to parallel other tags, rather than being separate reasons to require separate templates. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that {{PD-US}} is vague and suggests that it might be a PD-1923 situation but might not. Perhaps a parameter should be created to set the actual tag? Ryan Vesey 20:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the PD-US doc, there are only two situations where that tag is correct: "Works published in the U.S. before 1923", and "Works first published in 2003 or later by authors who died before 1942" The latter is an extreme rarity, so for all practical purposes, the concept of a PD-1923 and PD-US are equivalent. The other cases listed on PD-US require more specific PD tagging. I could see adding a tag to PD-US to address the second case listed above, but the default seems just fine otherwise. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

{{di-no source}}

{{di-no source}} is an F4 template (it appears at {{Speedy deletion templates}} under F4), but its been advised that it does not take the {{holdon}}, and as the template itself does not have a check the talk page for objections notice, how do you contest these types of Speedy Deletion templates? It would appear that this is an uncontestable process, but there is a centralized discussion area for these types of deletions, WP:PUF, but there's no way to start a discussion, since the speedy deletion template doesn't allow for contesting it. There should be a way to convert a di-no source to a {{puf}} which is the deletion template with discussion. As some no-source files have previously been WP:BLUESKY'd and kept, it would be good to know how to convert the deletion process over from one copyright-dispute-deletion form to the other. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to write things on the talk page even if there is no "check talk page" notice. If the outcome isn't obvious, I'd just remove the "DI" template and start a discussion at WP:PUF or WP:FFD instead, citing the previous comments. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

File:John Dye.jpg vs. File:Herb Mitchell actor 1979.jpg

I don't get it. Images of dead people are replaceable? How must a free-to-share image be found? Moreover, I'm at loss. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoever tagged the first one as "Free replaceable" is wrong, since the actor died in 2011. There's a chance there may be a free image out there (and if it was found, it would be expected to be replaced with the free), but we don't have the ability to make a free image any more and ergo NFCC#1 is met here. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have sometimes tagged images of dead people as replaceable, but this should only be done if there is some free image out there. If you tag an image of a dead person as replaceable, you should in my opinion also tell where to find the free replacement, and preferably also make sure that the article uses this image. Without an indication that a free replacement exists, I think that we should treat these images as irreplaceable. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Overseas Security Advisory Council works

Are Overseas Security Advisory Council works freely usable? Their website makes no mention of including copyrighted works but says:

Please note that all OSAC products are for internal U.S. private sector purposes only. Publishing or otherwise distributing OSAC-derived information in a manner inconsistent with this policy may result in the discontinuation of OSAC support.

Does this bear any restriction on incorporating text from there into Wikipedia articles? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not any kind of free license, but rather a threat that they won't put out more material. so do not assume that you can copy it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Without any notice, I would have assumed that all of the website's contents were in the public domain, based on the fact that the OSAC is a federal U.S. government agency. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PS Sorry, I just noticed I forgot to provide a link to http://www.osac.gov .--Paul_012 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I too would assume that material that is publicly available on the website should fall under PD-USGov. The sentence about not "publishing or otherwise distributing" material, on the risk of otherwise losing "OSAC support" most likely refers to information distributed in a non-public way, to registered users only (there is something about "membership" of the website that is open only to a limited audience). I wouldn't rely on PD-USGov status with respect to such material, but I'm not sure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Crosfield pictures

I have uploaded a photo of the first laboratory of the inventor John Crosfield. He took this photo in 1947 and published it in Recollections Of Crosfield Electronics (Peterborough, England 1991). He died this year and in his Will appointed me and my brother as Executors leaving us with complete discretion to dispose of his chattels. We are sure he would have wanted the image to be freely available, hebce the upload. Could you please let me know if this complies with English law or if some further proof is required? Thanks Richard crosfield (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This sounds OK. You will have to state how you now own the copyright or have the permission to grant a free license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesnt commons have a tag Commons:Template:PD-heirs for this sort of release, although you would still need to explain on the file page as per Graeme above. MilborneOne (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You could upload it here using the template {{PD-because}} with the explanation that you are the heir of the author and are releasing it, though someone may request verification to our OTRS Team. However, the commons specific copyright tag PD-heirs will possibly suit you better and you write it like this {{PD-heirs}} when uploading to the commons. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Image getting rejected

Hello, I'm trying to upload an image however it's getting rejected due to copyright issues File:Vahe-Vahian.jpg

I OWN the ORIGINAL painting which is a portrait of my grandfather; I have also taken the photograph of the painting myself.

Could you please advise how I can post this painting on Wikipedia without creating any copyright/licensing issues. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nismo 77 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Owning a painting does not confer to you, or the sitter, any copyright to the image which in most cases remains with the artist unless you can show that they surrendered their copyright to the painting, which is a most unusual and rare situation. If the artist died long enough ago the copyright may have ended but that fact depends on both the artist's year of death and the country of creation. Taking a photo of a copyright painting is a derivative work and while you can release the photo into the public domain as you wish, because it is a reproduction of a copyright image, you must get the copyright holder's permission to do so. This concept may be difficult for you to comprehend but it is so and unless you can show you own the copyright, we cannot keep it. ww2censor (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Must admit copyright matters is a little confusing for me. Just to clarify; The painting was done in 1941 and the artist Ashod Zorian (Cairo-Egypt) dies in 1970. Do any of those 2 dates impact on how the copyright is viewed by Wikipedia? If not, I don't have any further proof of copyright ownership and the image can be deleted I suppose. I'll just post an actual photograph (taken by me) of Vahe-Vahian instead. I presume that would be accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nismo 77 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed copyright can be difficult and complex in some aspects but we try to help you here with such questions. According to commons:Template:PD-Egypt the author of a painting would have to be dead since 1946 for the painting to be in the public domain in the US so we could use it here. If you have a photo of the subject for which you are the copyright holder, you can release that under a number of acceptable free licences, such as {{PD-self}}, {{Cc-by-3.0}} or {{Attribution}} and that is the easiest way to go. ww2censor (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, many thanks for the explanation. I'll do as you suggested. Nismo 77 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Miracles-You've Really Got A Hold On Me.jpg

Does this image really need a fair use rationale? A larger-resolution image of the same subject shows that it had no copyright notice, and it was published in the USA before 1977. Does the absence of the copyright notice mean that {{PD-US-no notice}} is warranted, or would a copyright notice on the sleeve cover the artwork on the record as well? Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Since they're sold as one piece, I'd assume that a copyright notice on the sleeve would cover the record, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Though looking at our image (I can't see the Amazon one), I don't see anything copyrightable. The TAMA logo is PD-textlogo, and the rest is standard facts in a standard format.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright situation when use & edit a WP image

File:WheelArrangement 2-8-2.svg exists, the WP editor published it in Public Domain. Today I have downloaded that file, edited it, and uploaded under a different name: File:WheelArrangement 2-8-2+2-8-2.svg. What kind of licence should I add? When uploading in commons, I could not find either option (like "derived from PD work" or "own work derived from PD work") in the list. What should I do in such situation? -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Because its PD, you technically do not have to show the original source, nor respect the PD license, though the change (duplicating the original) would probably not be considered enough originality to make copyrightable to start. I would keep the PD license because, even the original image, likely fails the threshold of original, even if the original uploaded made it and put it into PD willingly. That said, on Commons there is a template, Commons:Template:Derived from that you could add to show where the original work came from. --MASEM (t) 17:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Why is this not in the upload procedure? Why does the en:upload differ from the commons:upload at all? -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Downloadable entertainment

Why does a reliable source (WIKIPEDIA) doesn't have a reliable site where music,images,video etc, are downloaded on a suitable device guranteered! I hate going on other sites where they temporary not availiable/rip-off/or the site is conjested! PLEASE IMPROVE OUR LIVES FURTHER BY ACCESSING SUCH LIVE/FREE CONTENT! ASAP PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.28.129 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not an entertainment website. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please also read WP:NFCC#2, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#3b and WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Gadsby copyright concern

Originally posted at WP:Reference desk/Humanities

O.K., so I'm readying an Amazon Kindle reissue of Gadsby, the 1939 novel Ernest Vincent Wright wrote without an "e". I've been working on it from the time I saw this Guy Kawasaki post on Google+. As part of the efforts, I've been busy with a biographical essay that will be included in this edition. (Almost 300 footnotes so far at this writing!)

I have a Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) account, and part of the job there is to ensure whatever books I sell do not violate any copyrights. Gadsby is already in the U.S. public domain due to renewal failure (back in the late 1960s), and its copyright has already expired in countries observing 70 p.m.a or less.

But looking at the list of countries' copyright length, one thing bugs me:

Is the work really under copyright...in Spain?

It's worrying, because for authors who died in 1987 or earlier, Spain observes 80 p.m.a. according to the list. Wright died in 1939, so that would allow for a 2020 expiration. Then again, it's now a 70 p.m.a. since their laws changed in the 1990s.

KDP lets authors and publishers determine whether the book can be sold worldwide, or in a different set of countries, as conditions permit. For the latter option, there's a set of buttons that can turn on availability depending on the book's PD status.

With two weeks to go, I'd like to know: Should I turn on Spain's button or no? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We really don't offer help with external copyright issues, only those facing Wikipedia, particularly if they are a more legal nature. I suspect that there should be people at Amazon you can contact as part of the KDP program to ask for legal help there. --MASEM (t) 20:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of an Italian Wikipedia image on en.WP

Hi. I would like to use the Marsala-Gonfalone.png Italian Wikipedia image in the Marsala article on the English Wikipedia.

• Am I allowed to upload that image to the English Wikipedia?
• If not, am I allowed to insert a link that renders the Italian Wikipedia image in the en.WP article? If so, what is the syntax that I should use?

Thanks in advance for any assistance that can be provided. GFHandel ♬  00:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the first question is “probably not.” The image is used as non-free content on Italian Wikipedia; so presumably it could be used only under the restrictions of WP:NFCC. Among the restrictions, the use would have to significantly increase reader understanding. This would be difficult to justify in light of the fact that the article already has a non-free coat of arms.

The answer to the second question is simpler: it is not possible to render an image on Italian Wikipedia directly on English Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 07:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:EIB logo.svg

Does this logo qualify as {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-textlogo}}? It is obviously fairly simple, but they are not merely plain polygons, including some odd angles and arcs in there.

The other question which has been posed regarding this image is that while it seems to be an official creation of the EU, whether or not that makes it PD. Since it's not part of an edict of government (so far as I can tell), and the organization's website claims "Copyright © European Investment Bank" I'm inclined to go with a 'no' for this part.

Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd edge on "no" for PD; the small angles and curves are clearly meant to be artistic in nature, so would be copyrightable. (At least, to play it safe, I would treat it like that). And with that copyright label, I would treat it as non-free with that copyright. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What should I do?

If my son has taken a photo I want to use that has never been published or copyright protected, what are the steps for me to be able to use it? He is willing to let me. I have never been involved with copyright before and much of what you are telling me is going over my head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maloneth (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way would be to get your son to upload the image and grant copyright himself. Second alternative could be for you to upload giving the source and author and any attribution, and then get your son to follow the the procedure at WP:PERMIT with an email, or editing the image page with the image to state that the license is correct and that you had permission to do it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Rewind tv logo.png

Is this logo eligible for copyrights in Canada? --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not profess much knowledge of Canada's copyright laws, but I'm leaning that PD-textlogo should apply. The bulk of the logo is text, and the rewind button is a square with two triangles in a non-original arrangement. No fancy gradients. As an aside, the image should probably be converted to svg. Chris857 (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing images

Hi. Yesterday I uploaded the following three images on Wikimedia:

Le_Meridien_Limassol_Spa_%26_Resort.jpg

The_Grand_Presidential_Suite_at_Le_Meridien_Limassol_Spa_%26_Resort.JPG

The_Amber_Bar.jpg

After that, I added the pictures in article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hotel_Le_Meridien_Limassol_Spa_%26_Resort. (PLEASE ADD A DOT AT THE END OF THE URL FOR THE LINK TO WORK)

Today, I cannot see the images and it seems there were deleted. Why is that? I cannot see any changes in the page history. All images are my work and have authorized their use.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmanoli (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Hotel Le Meridien Limassol Spa & Resort per naming conventions. The images were apparently uploaded under a claim of fair use, rather than a "free" license. I suggest that you reupload them (to Wikimedia Commons) selecting a PD license or one of the "CC" licenses from the dropdown list.--ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the photos have been published elsewhere (for example File:The Amber Bar.jpg at http://www.inspiredluxuryescapes.com/assets/Uploads/Amber-Bar.jpg) without a license, I don’t think it would be enough just to re-upload them with proper tagging. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how to document that you are licensing them under a free license. —teb728 t c 21:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

PD Shape?

(Redirected here from Help Desk)

If I were to create a work using the four squares/diamonds in this image and upload it to a Wikimedia site, would the work be public domain because of the fact that it's a geometric shape, or would it still be copyrighted? Or, more accurately, my question is whether those squares alone are {{PD-shape}} - Purplewowies (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The square outlines themselves would be PD, but the glossy appearance would go beyond a simple shape. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I was thinking of requesting that the Boot Camp shape be added as a new image parameter for the {{User:Rugby471/Userboxes/dual boot}} userbox, but I wasn't sure if the image would be a problem. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooh. What about any drop shadow behind it (as can be seen here)? - Purplewowies (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm not gonna add a drop shadow anyway. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Adding images

Hi, I was attempting to add images for an article, please refer to my talk page

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Fordx12

There are three images that I uploaded in good faith that I was not using copyrighted material. I need assistance in this, can anyone help me in how I am able to find and provide valid images or how to provide missing information?Fordx12 (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You cannot just get pictures off the internet which do not make a copyright claim. To come here there needs to be positive evidence that the picture is public domain or freely licensed. Just about everything you see on the internet will have copyright applying. Instead we welcome pictures that you have taken yourself and will grant a free license. When you do upload a picture we need the source so that it can be proved to be be free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:ROCposts.gif

This image may well have been replaceable - but perhaps someone could explain why it breaks copyright. Extracts from OS web site:

• "&#0133; You are allowed to download and edit these images for whatever purpose, provided the Ordnance Survey copyright acknowledgement remains on the image."
• The relevant stipulation seems to be: "You must not use the images for financial gain."

So I've got to go to the trouble of preparing a new one? — Saltmarsh^talk 05:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is right. Since there is a limitation on derivatives, (that you can't remove the notice), and the non commercial bit makes it incompatible with Wikipedia free media requirements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

It says that this was deleted as replaceable and then undeleted again. What next? Do we take it to WP:FFD? Maps are indeed replaceable, so I can't see a way for the map to stay here. It currently also violates WP:NFCC#7 and WP:NFCC#10c (FUR doesn't mention any exact article). --Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Historic Market Gate of Miletus images

In this book (on pages 204 and 205) are photographs from 1925. Page 204 states that "A series of twelve photographs, in Wiegand's personal archive..." and the bottom of the page has the notice (in German) "Neubau, Milletor, Gall Prozess, in DAI Archiv, Nachlass Theodor Wiegand, Kasten 21." Does {{PD-old-70}} apply in this case? Theodor Wiegand died in 1936, so 70 years after death would be 2006. Chris857 (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

{{PD-old-70}} requires that the photographer died before 1942. The link you provided does not reveal when the photographer died, so you need to find a year of death first. Also note that any German photo taken in 1925 is unfree in the United States unless the photographer died before the end of that year. Probably unfree in the United States, at least. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Tina Modotti

I have Tina Modotti on my watch page. Today I noticed a big change by an anonymous editor so I went to check it out. the editor had removed 4 pictures from the gallery - the entire gallery. I went into the history to see what they were. They were pictures mostly or entirely linked to Commons. I was concerned about why they were removed (beside the fact that they were all nude pictures of her, which does upset some folks) and the obvious answer is "copyright issues." I happen to be a big fan of Ms. Modotti, having 5 or 6 books about her in my collection, so looked up the pictures as best i could. One was dated 1921, so i returned it to the article. Another was dated "1923" in one source and "1924" in another, in either case, it is still possibly covered by copyright. I suspect that another of the pictures is from that same period. So these are staying out of the article, but how do I approach Commons about this? I took a quick look there and nothing obvious presented its self. Any ideas? Suggestions? theories? Opinions? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

After a good night's sleep I discovered how to propose deletion at Commons, so am proceeding with that. If that goes through then we have to delete them too, or does that happen through Commons? Carptrash (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If they are hosted on commons ("its file description page there is shown below", or whatever it says) then no, we don't have to do anything. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What if Commons takes no action? They don't seem to be? Do we keep things that are copyright violations because Commons keeps them? Carptrash (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Commons deletion discussions normally run for at least a week (and often longer: there is a huge backlog of unclosed discussions). Don't worry, someone will make a decision about the files eventually. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Glyndebourne 1b.jpg

I have uploaded the image of File:Glyndebourne 1b.jpg which I am having difficulty with source and copyright issues. On source, the user Bryan, operator of the FlickrReview bot, advised about entering the URL - which I have done. On copyright, I have given the license which was provided for the original picture (URL http:// www.flickr.com/photos/herry/23163), also SUCCESSFULLY uploaded to wikimedia commons (File:Glyndebourne 1.jpg).

I find that these issues are becoming too difficult and time consuming and I am far from understanding them. Therefore please feel free to delete the upload as I shall not proceed further with trying to resolve the problem. I must say that the complexities of uploading from other websites are very off-putting and ought to be easier than this!Grahamrob (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You had it almost right on your first attempt except that you didn't provide the source url (and you had the author wrong). You fixed that data later, but when someone attempted to mark the the file for re-review, they inadvertently removed the license tag (which you initially had right). I restored the license tag for you. —teb728 t c 21:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Template_talk:Non-free_Crown_copyright

The list at this talk page requires updating, as a number of the agencies listed have changed names, or now release under Open Government terms. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)