Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What's the right license for File:Mmix.png?

What's the right license for File:Mmix.png? {Non-free with permission} seems sort of right, except there was no restriction that it be wikipedia only. Ariel. (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the easiest things would be to have them place a notice on the source page. However it would be best to use one of the acceptable free licenses. If it is really {{non-free with permission}} it also needs to meet the Non-free content criteria policy and would require a FUR. Permission is always the first choice, but currently what you have on the image is not good enough. Aside from what I already said you can read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for more detailed information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving/copying images from commons to en.wiki

Resolved

There are several photos of modern toys and dolls now on commons that sooner or later will end up deleted as derivative works. Many of them could be moved to en.wiki and used here under fair use. But I have no idea how to go about properly moving them while reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it. I asked on commons but there doesn't seem to be an established procedure in place. Any ideas how to go about doing this would be most appreciated. Thank you. Siawase (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make sure these image meet all 10 of the required criteria in the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. Part of this is that that image should also meet the Wikipedia:Image use policy. The first issue I see is that "reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it" must be retained in order to meet the Requirements and Adding images sections of the policy. See also the Fair use images section. If the files in question are all Derivative works you should look at File:Pepsicup.jpg for an example of how to do it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, that is exactly what I'm wondering about. Any idea how I technically go about moving/copying images to en.wiki while "reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it"? I could just download the image from commons and upload it again on en.wiki and link back to the original commons image page, but once that is deleted the license data is no longer available, and can no longer be verified. The only thing I can think of is preserving each commons image page on archive.org but that seems incredibly clunky. Any ideas? Siawase (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
This is one the overall issues when moving around files. I just want to clarify something to make sure we are both on the same page. For Wikipedia "author" and "Source" are meant to be the original author and source. In your scenario you are saying/asking about linking "back to the original commons image page", but that is not what is really needed. If the files at Wikimedia Commons give the original author and original source you just need to move *that* information over. Back linking to Wikimedia may tell people where *you* got it, but if the file will be, as you suggest, deleted there, it would do nothing to verify the actual license and source. That would lead to a {{di-no source}} tag being added, even to a fair use file. (See NFCC#4 - Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. And NFCC#10 - Image description page - Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value.) Without any links to actual files I can't really be more specific, that is why I suggested reading Adding images as a good starting point. Beyond that, I know about Commons Helper but I have not heard about a reverse tool. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
CommonsHelper 2 can help transfer files from Commons to other projects, although if I recall correctly it will not be able to create the page or upload the image for you. That has to be done manually if transferring to other projects, but it's not exactly difficult to re-upload the image and paste in the provided text for the file description page. Reach Out to the Truth 19:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I did this with a typical file: File:Flatsydoll.PNG. But is this sufficient? Once the original is deleted from commons there is no longer a way to verify the original source. Siawase (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The file description page and upload log is reproduced on the page, and a link to the original file description page is provided. A Commons admin can click through and view the deleted history to verify if necessary. Reach Out to the Truth 05:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok, so that is enough then! Thank you so much for the help, I guess I can go to town now. Marking this as resolved. Siawase (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I use public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale?

I would like to know if the public domain images fro, de Commons Wikimedia can be used on handmade itens for resale? Many thanks Silvia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.115.127 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If an item is truly in the public domain, the answer is an unqualified yes. The problem is determining if something is truly in the public domain. Even though the item is in the Wikimedia Commons, that is not an ironclad guarantee of its status. Could you specify which items you're considering? It's easier to give advice about specific images than to make a broad generalization. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is not one blanket answer of "yes" or "no" that will work. I say that because your question is not specific in regards to any one certain file. In general Public domain means there is no copyright at all, but a lot of Wikipedia and Wikimedia users mistake "free" as "public domain", which is not accurate. Not everything distributed by Wikimedia Commons is public domain, but everything is supposed to be "free". A few specific examples - it has become fairly common for registered trademarks to be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons as "public domain" or "no copyright", however you could not place that trademark on an item for sale if it implied that the item was actually a product of the company that owns the trademark. Another type of specific are files licensed via a CCL where moral rights, including attribution, are part of the licensing terms. If you were to use one of these images on a product for sale *without* required attribution it could result in issues. (To see how somehting like this has affected a rather large Wiki project read the German Federal Archives won't extend collaboration with Wikimedia article in a recent Signpost. Part of which is that users are not following the license terms of attribution such as the case of a vendor who had offered 104 of the images as "vintage postcards" in a militaria marketplace, the Bundesarchiv had him excluded from that marketplace and charged him 4,000 euros in fees.) So the best answer, without any specifics, it to say you need to take each file and clearly understand what the terms of use are. Also keeping in mind such things as Derivative works, De minimis, Freedom of panorama and moral rights and personality rights. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

About using public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale- II

Thanks for your answer. The images I am talking about are posted at Commons Wikimedia with a clear notice regarding public domain, like ( here goes a copy paste) "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years" Mostly botanical illustrations and 1900 fashion illustrations. Is this enough to consider the image in public domain? Thank you so much again. Silvia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.115.127 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

But *what* is that image? Can you provide a link? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

About using public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale- LINKS

(see #Can I use public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale?) – ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, here goes the links of some of the images I intend to use as part of my designs:

THANKS A LOT Silvia

A cursory inspection indicates that these are probably in the public domain since they were all stated as having been clearly published before 1923 (in most cases, WELL before then). Note that neither I nor the Wikimedia foundation can warrant if this is absolutely so (read this Wikimedia Commons disclaimer). To be absolutely airtight about the status of the images, you would probably have to obtain copies of the sources from whence the images were derived. The larger your financial stake in re-using these images and profiting (nothing wrong with that) the more diligent you should be in verifying the copyright status of those images. It's all about risk-benefit analysis. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

About using public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale- III

Thank you so much for you answer. I am doing jusy some pieces, not a big businesse. But if you can answer one more thing... I case I want to do as you said, to obtain copies of the sources from whence the images were derived, I suppose I should contact the "USER" mentioned at the FILE HISTORY of each image? The user owns the original image?

for example, the file File:CorsetsSM A laParisienne1913.jpg at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CorsetsSM_A_laParisienne1913.jpg

FILE HISTORY Date/Time Thumbnail Dimensions User Comment current 21:52, 20 August 2007 1,314×3,039 (228 KB) Haabet (talk | contribs) (

File information
Description

Corsets S. M. A _la Parisienne; S. MAURICE & Cie; 208, Boulevard Voltaire. = PARIS

Source

LES DESSOUS ELEGANTS advertising page

Date

JUILLET 1913

Author

P. D.

Permission
(Reusing this file)

PD


The use in the case would be "HAABET"? Many many thanks Silvia

No, no, if it's public domain, well, it's public. Haabet probably just found the picture somewhere and decided to upload it. If something is truly public domain, you can use it for whatever you want. The source of the image is "LES DESSOUS ELEGANTS advertising page". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I use this?

(NOTE: See also Commons:Questionable Flickr images that lists this Flikr account as containing "images from various non-free agencies and magazines" Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

[1] seems to have been uploaded by the genuine author, but I'm not sure. Can I have a second opinion, please? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can upload that image. We recommend you upload it here. Click the "image from Flickr" choice. License it with Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 (CC-BY-SA-2.0) and fill out everything else appropriately (source, author, etc.). Jsayre64 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
No, he can't - see below. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No, you can not use it here. The image was taken by Kevin Winter and is being sold via Getty Images. Glad you asked however because had you uploaded it first it would have been speedied as a copyvio. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Chicago Fabulous Blog should be asked to change the licensing on the Flickr image to "copyright" to avoid giving the impression that the image is a free use one. Yeah, it's definitely a mislabeled copyrighted image. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (In reply to this) No, I doubt it is an "honest" mistake as all the images I have looked at are "licensed" the same but they are all from different sources. For example this was taken by Johnny Nunez. This is clearly watermarked and says "Photo by Nigel D". This one was taken by John Parra. And this one was taken by Theo Wargo. That is just a simple look. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see that Getty Images thing. Sorry. Now the copyright is being held by Getty Images. So even though the Flickr version was created first, you can no longer upload that image to Wikipedia, right? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That is not fully the reason - see my reply above. That Flikr account is clearly hosting other peoples work, which based on the users name, could mean they may be purchasing images from Getty and other sources to use on their "blog." Even so they can not re-license them as they do not own the copyright. In general material from commercial content providers is not allowed on Wikipedia, even under claims of Fair use for various reasons. One of the biggest being our "free" use fails "respect for commercial opportunities". Also I don't see where "the Flickr version was created first" - The image was taken at the MTV music awards on September 12. The Flickr account says "onstage during the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards at NOKIA Theatre L.A. LIVE on September 12, 2010 in Los Angeles, California" and Getty says "LOS ANGELES, CA - SEPTEMBER 12: Usher performs onstage during the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards at NOKIA Theatre L.A. LIVE on September 12, 2010 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)" (and as an aside - not all images are vague in their sources - see this one which actually syas "(Photo by Michael Loccisano/WireImage for Verizon)") Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I know about uploading to commons, and usually use [2] to do so. I have often been caught out by these sorts of images, and it smelt a bit suspicious, so I thought I'd ask first. Oh well. Thanks again! Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a classic case of Flickr washing, so it is good to see editors are carefully checking Flickr uploads. There are many false licences which may be due to ignorance of copyrights or on purpose. ww2censor (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. After this discussion I agree that I and everyone else should be much more careful examining Flickr images to determine whether or not they can be uploaded. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Would this be a fair-use image?

A Wikipedia biographical article would benefit from an image of the subject. Seeing as the person died in 1998, could I use his photo which I downloaded into my PC from this BBC site: [3] It is highly unlikely that an image will become available in the future, so can this be considered fair-use? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we are really talking about "non-free use" as opposed to "fair use". If you can satisfy all the non-free use criteria then yes, it can be uploaded and used. – ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Choosing the correct image tag

The photograph in question has been given to me by the son of the person to whom the photograph was originally given by Jane Carr herself, hence the handwritten information on the lower front of the photograph.

I am not sure where to find the correct place to add details of the license status of the image, and your instructions do not seem entirely clear. I shall look forward to receive further instructions.

One of the main reasons for wishing to include details of this lady on Wikipedia is that she was one of the first, if not the first person to appear on a British television transmission, through assisting John Logie Baird.

It is unfortunate that there is another actress by the name of Jane Carr, and I am inclined to think that using dates to differentiate the two would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhendry (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing anything I can say that no free license license currently meets has been given to me by the son of the person to whom the photograph was originally given by Jane Carr herself. In order to use an image such as that Wikipedia needs permission from the *original* source/author - which seems to be vague, but the closest might be "Jane Carr herself". If the image is *of* Jane Carr than she would need to also establish if she owns the copyright on the the image, and, if so, how she obtained it. (i.e - she hired a photographer via a "work for hire" contract to take photos of her). Unfortunately an image given to you by someone who got it from someone else who got it from someone else is never going to pass as a valid permission. Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for more detailed information on how to proceed.
NOTE: I am guessing you mean File:JaneCarr1943.jpg? I have tagged it as {{di-no permission}} as "Ron Wall, son of original recipient" and "I own the original" are not valid permissions because the "original" (As in negative, not a print) would belong to either the photographer or Jane Carr. As she has died if the copyright was owned by her it would have passed to a family member. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

on Robert Gaudino Image

I received a notification about this image. I added a Non-free use rationale to the file. Have I done enough to prevent the file from being deleted? If so, could someone remove the warning? If not, what do I need to do? David.Kane (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If the copyright owner has given permission to use the image, assuming that permission is for all purposes and not limited to Wikipedia only, you don't need to worry about non-free use rationales. Just send the permission to OTRS as described at WP:IOWN. The permission will be reviewed and if it's OK, the image will be tagged accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

3 Image Questions

1) Provided a suitable rationale is provided, is this a suitable image for the Perry Como statue?

Perry Como - Musician Statues on Waymarking.com
Perry Como Statue

Waymarking Terms of Use

3. License to Use Site; Restrictions
6. License to Use Submissions

2) Is it ever permissible to use a portion of a magazine cover when the subject of the article is not the magazine?

3) Under what conditions can screen captures from TV shows or movies be used?

Thanks!

We hope (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For (2) you cannot grab a cropped part of a magazine cover and use it. There may be some special situations, such as if the picture is and old public domain image, or too simple for copyright (eg one word).
For (3) this is a non free image usually. You could use it if the movie was so old to be public domain, (or work of US govt). As a fair use you could use a TV station logo on the article about the station, or a screenshot of a character on the article about the character, or one iconic picture from an episode for an article about the episode. You still have to satisfy the fair use criteria Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much! Will keep fingers crossed re: statue photo! We hope (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
For (1) the image is not licensed to be free, and someone else could take a free picture, so I don't think you can justify that image under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again--will just have to hope someone might have a free picture of it. We hope (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The other issue with (1) not mentioned by Graeme Bartlett is that of freedom of panorama which in the US applies to modern statues/artworks (post 1978) per the commons FOP entry for the United States. In essence the statue/artwork is the copyright of the artist and any image of the statue is a derivative work and requires their permission for a free licence and even though someone can go out and take a photo and then release that photo under a free licence, the statue is still under copyright and that restricts the use of any image of the statue irrespective of the photographer's copyright wishes. Under such FOP restrictions, images of modern statues are sometimes used under the fair use doctrine but this is usually in articles about the statue/artworks itself, such as File:Zephyr Small.JPG used in Zephyr (Wooldridge). ww2censor (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like I'd be better off forgetting about a photo of it entirely. Had hoped a suitable one would come along but it doesn't sound like that's going to happen. We hope (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Originality vs Sweat of the brow

Am I right in thinking that something like File:Carpenters (Carpenters album).jpg would be {{PD-text}} as it doesn't meet the threshold of originality and is American based. I'm fairly sure about that. However, how far would originality go. Would it stretch to File:The Carpenters-The Singles 1969-1973 (album cover).jpg.

Furthermore, am I right in thinking that PD-text wouldn't apply to File:Katy B - Katy On A Mission.jpg because the label is British and the sweat of the brow would apply to British works. What would happen for File:Lights On.jpg (clearly not original). The label is now Columbia Records (American) but probably a UK branch, or is all that irrelevent and would depend on where the graphic artist made it? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

First file, PD, second file, possibly PD?, third, PD (we base it on US laws as we are in the US, I think?), fourth, same as third. I tend to be a little too lenient in applying PD textlogo, though, so I'd ask for another opinion, too. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue of originality isn't just a case of determining the simplicity of a design. If that were the case then Mondrian's paintings could be considered as just a bunch of colored squares. Our opinions about the amount of originality are ultimately only determined by litigation. How much effort was expended in determining the exact shade of the background, and the design of the font used for the cover of the album? Who determined the color and size of the font, the proportion taken up by the entire cover, and the location of the text? And, yes, this is a slippery, difficult, ambiguous way to go about things (as with almost all of intellectual property law). Far easier to err on the side of "not public domain" here. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in the case of the album art, I'm fairly sure that fonts and basic coloring don't matter, but taken as a whole, it may very well not be PD. I'd also just leave them here rather than deal with more issues on Commons if you transferred the files. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, Commons are far more given to declaring something PD for insufficient creativity than we are. I've had a Commons editor argue upside down and backwards that UK road traffic signs couldn't possibly ever be copyright, even though what they had in front of them was the original documents from the creators of the original scheme for traffic signs in the UK, who invented the full set of colours, signs, shapes, fonts etc, and every single image was stamped Crown Copyright. Go figure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't planning on moving any to Commons really but I like yo get a grasp of the licenses. It should really be the other way round as en.wiki only requires PD-US but Commons requires PD-source-country as well. Even though the US may interpret most UK road signs as PD if the UK doesn't then they shouldn't be on Commons. As for my examples I find it hard to deal in hypotheticals, so like to quantify things against real examples. Personally, I think only the first example would be a dead cert. for PD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

District of Columbia = U.S. federal?

Are D.C. agencies, such as the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, operated as part of the U.S. federal government? I ask to determine the copyright status of booking photos taken by the aforementioned agency. Thank you. KimChee (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Copyright status of work by the U.S. government and the cited Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices, § 206.02(c): "Works of the government of the District of Columbia, as now constituted, are not considered U.S. Government works." Unless for some reason the agency is run directly by the feds (which it doesn't appear to be since it links to a city HR site for employment), I'd say no. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. KimChee (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

When are movie screenshots acceptable?

WP:NFC says that (movie) screenshots are acceptable to use, but nothing else really goes into detail about them. When can they be included? Swarm X 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you use a screenshot, it must meet all the requirements of WP:NFCC (the part in the blue box transcluded onto the page you cited. So you can't use it just to illustrate what the movie star looks like, but you could use it if it was say a character shot or an fx shot, and you were talking about the movie, the character's makeup or the special effect in the article, and the picture showed what you were saying more clearly than just text would. It has to meet the requirements re resolution, minimum usage, not using in a gallery, having a properly written fair use rationale etc. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

James Ross Snowden

Hello. I am posting here to let everyone know that I believe I accidentally uploaded a photograph without proper permission. The photo is File:JamesRossSnowden.jpg. I believe that this should be deleted for two reasons. #1: When I uploaded the photo, I was a very new member I did not thoroughly understand the rules of what constitutes a public domain image. The image comes from www.usmint.gov, but they give credit for the image to the Numismatic Guaranty Corporation. #2: I have since discovered that the photo is much more likely one of George T. Morgan and not James Ross Snowden. I sincerely apologize for the oversight on both counts.-RHM22 (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add that tag, but it didn't work. I tried it a few different ways too, but it all it was leave a small red link that said "Template:Db-author".-RHM22 (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Edit: I have added the right template. Thanks goes to both Jsayre64 and ChiZeroOne for helping me figure out how to nominate the image for deletion.-RHM22 (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I work as city staff for the City of Pine City. We'd like to have our newly-adopted, official city logo in prominant display on the "Pine City, Minnesota" Wikipedia page.

However, everything I've tried doesn't display the photo. I have followed step-by-step uploading instructions but it still doesn't appear. Can you assist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2690 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but it's not large enough, and it's not entitled the "seal". It's a logo.

If you could assist, I would appreciate it. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2690 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The log and seal image sizes are pre-determined by the template to give a similar look and feel to similar types of articles. It appears you have a conflict of interest in this article and you may not have a neutral point of view especially when you want to have our newly-adopted, official city logo in prominant display, so please be careful and read WP:COI. Good luck and please sign your posts by adding four tildes to the end of your posts, like this ~~~~. ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Could you try to use this file = File:Official Pine City Logo.jpg and upload as the City's logo? It's not a conflict of interest. Thanks. It's just simply not working for me.

I fixed the infobox to display the logo properly. I have also made a number of other edits to comply with the Manual of Style and the external links guidelines. And yes, you do have a conflict of interest, a big one, please take a look at WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Adriaan Blaauw

Most of the current text in the article Adriaan Blaauw has been copy&pasted from the web site of the Kapteyn Institute here. Could someone please have a look at that? I'm not familiar with the procedures on the English wikipedia. Thanks. --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and user warned about copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Coyright permission question

hello Im trying to download a picture of wreslter Jennifer blake... I TOOK the picture, its mine. Im not certain how you credit ownership... is it the name IM uploading under? If its been posted on the internet... its still mine . Othewise I have another one I could post that hasnt had any exposure. PLease direct me to a CLEAR how to... IM tired of somebody pinging me off and not really clarifying what the problem is. Seems rather immature and Im willing to learn... Seems a shame you have a picture up thats not current.

this is one of the links... http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_Blake_(wrestler)&oldid=400325796<ref>http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_Blake_(wrestler)&oldid=400325796/ref> <ref>16:32, 3 December 2010 CommonsDelinker (talk | contribs) m (12,797 bytes) (Removing "JenniferBlake_1.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Krinkle because: Copyright violation: google - http://forums.rajah.com/showthread.php?t=139610&page=38.) (undo)/ref>

NOw.. Im the owner of this.. regardless of where it ended up... how do i prove it? I have another i can post in its place from the same series... though i liked the first one the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey1960 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

John Turner

I would like to use this image of John Turner on our John Turner page. It is a copyrighted image. Could it be used on that particular biographical page at an appropriately low resolution? --Doradus (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, under non-free content criteria we don't allow copyright images of living people, because it is presumed that a freely licenced image can be taken of the subject instead of the non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Unresolved

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory website disclaimer regarding copyright status reads:

LLNL-authored documents including, but not limited to, articles, photographs, drawings, and other information subsisting in text, images, and/or other media, are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required.

So are LLNL works copyrighted or PD?Smallman12q (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think copyrighted. What it seems to be saying is that the Federal government acquires the copyrights produced by LLNL in the course of its work. The Federal government may acquire copyrights, and once it does, it's just like any other copyright holder.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't the acquired works then be eligible under {{PD-USGov-DOE}}? There's a discussion at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE#Note on this template but it seems dated.Smallman12q (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, no - it appears to me to be an assertion of copyright and does not suggest that the license to the US government extends into a general public domain license. Only the named party (the US government) seems to retain a right to republish these documents. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It looks like the US has bought, en masse, copyrights to everything the lab produces. When the US does that, it stands in the place of the lab when it comes to copyright. The example I always give on this page is official portraits of Supreme Court justices, the government doesn't take photos of them itself, it allows the justices to hire someone and then the government contracts with the photographer, and the US then owns the rights and controls distribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec w. Wehwalt) My understanding is that if a US governmnet department hires a photographer onto the payroll, and sends him out to take pictures, the law requires that these are PD (same for the text on the website) and no copyright can be created. However if the department funds/sponsors/commissions an agency to do a piece of work, the department may have bought the copyright in the work, or the grant agreement may specify that the department is allowed to use the copyright work. In both cases a copyright exists, and the US government is not prohibited from holding copyrights, only from creating them using public funds (there's a principle here I suspect) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Elen: As a lawyer, I try to use words carefully. I said "the government contracts with the photographer". An independent contractor is a whole other ballgame. He is not an employee, does not get a ten percent discount at Holiday Inn, and the government can buy his rights and then stand in his shoes. Which I think is what is going on here. Sorry about the lecture. So, basically what you said is correct. I'm sure there are volumes written on the policy reasons for the distinction.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
For those who may not fully understand the distinction from your explanation, I'll note that holding a license does not make you the copyright holder. For instance, we grant Wikipedia license to our contributions, but we remain the copyright holders. As set out at Bitlaw: "A license (or more properly "an express license") is an agreement where the copyright owner maintains its ownership of the rights involved, but allows a third party to exercise some or all of those rights without fear of a copyright infringement suit. A license will be preferred over an assignment of rights where the copyright holder wishes to maintain some ownership over the rights, or wishes to exercise continuing control over how the third party uses the copyright holder's rights." Cf. [4] Unless there is other language elsewhere, it does not seem that rights have been transferred through purchase; the copyright holder remains LLC, but because of their sponsorships the Feds have non-exclusive authorization to use or license the material for government purposes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

-If that's the case, then there are quite a few mis-licensed images. I have brought the matter up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.7B.7BPD-USGov-DOE.7D.7D_Laboratory_image_use.Smallman12q (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people label based on wishful thinking, I'm afraid. I've done it myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It is a sad truth and is made difficult because there seems to be a reluctance to delete on Commons, or at least that is what I have experienced. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/US government portraits is a classic example of when does a contractee become an employee. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a government work, and the LLNL employees are not federal employees. The contract between DOE and the manager of LLNL governs whether DOE becomes the copyright holder or just a licensee. For example, DOE contracted with Commerce Clearinghouse to publish the official reports of DOE and FERC. In fact, the federal government paid CCH per keystroke for the editing, printing and x number of copies. However, CCH resold the same series and even placed a copyright notice on its private edition, which was otherwise identical to the one generated under its DOE contract. Similarly, West Publishing prints a number of court cases from various states. They don't really hold the copyright in the court opinion, but they claim the copyright in the page numbering and citations. Racepacket (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made a deletion listing at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_November_28#United_States_Department_of_Energy_National_Laboratories_images in hopes of resolving this matter.Smallman12q (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

jpg scan of magazine article

Can I use a .jpg image of a magazine article providing I have the editors consent?
I want to use an interview with John Gordon (author) which was originally printed in a literary magazine. I have the permission of both the subject and the magazine editor, so copyright shouldn't be an issue. My questions are:

  1. Does Wikipedia allow scans from publications to be used as resources, and if so are they treated as images (both administratively and legally)?
  2. Can the file be used as a link on the page (eg. in References or Further Reading)

Thanks, Selseywill (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Permission to use on Wikipedia is absolutely meaningless to us. In fact, it's even a criteria for speedy deletion. So copyright is still very much at issue. If you want to get release of the interview contents, then your best bet is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to obtain release of the material under a free license. You can source commentary in the article to that interview, but using the contents of the interview verbatim or in a scan will violate copyright, even if we have their permission to use it here. We must have release under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Permission to use on Wikipedia isn't absolutely meaningless (see {{Non-free with permission}} and it takes care of WP:NFCC#2); it's permission to only use on Wikipedia which is almost meaningless, and it would still need to be treated as non-free content. As Hammersoft said, it needs to be explicitly released into the public domain or under a free license for it to be usable. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that I need to release the material under a free license (I have done so with other material using CC-by-SA 3.0), however my question was more: would this application be successful (i.e. are Wikipedia cool with scans) and if so (creative commons license granted) would the material be filed as an image and free to use as such?
Just wanted clarification of the protocol rather than the legality. Selseywill (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in principal wrong with scans, as they will produce a better result than photographs of the same thing. One thing to watch out for is artifacts produced from the dot pattern, so you may have to scan at a high resolution. And another obvious thing is to make sure that the material is flat on the scanner. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, misunderstood. Yes, if you upload a freely-licensed scan it will be treated just like any other image, and you could link to it in a citation or further reading section. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks Selseywill (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Question from IP

HOW TO SAVE THIS FILE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.243.201 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To upload images (if that is what you are trying to do), you will need to create an account. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

why is wikipedia so strict with copiright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeys 9711 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

See Copyright_infringement#Criminal_LiabilitySmallman12q (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Even more than that, it is because wikipedia is, in many ways, an ideological project. The whole idea behind wikipedia was to create a free content source of knowledge that could be freely used, distributed, and modified without the restrictions of traditional copyright protection. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Permissions question

I've been working on various articles about the Ashley-Cooper family and have questions about uploading images. Dinah Ashley-Cooper (wife of the 12th Earl of Shaftesbury) has emailed me some photos and given permission for me to use any images from the estate website. In uploading the images, I'm guessing that Dinah is the source for those that she has emailed, with the website as the source for the other images. Do I choose "The work of someone else, who has given permission to release it under a free license or it is already under a free license" or "An image from a website" when I upload? It's kinda either/or with Dinah sending me some images that are also on the website. I'm guessing she will need to send an email stating permission for use. What does she need to say in the email? Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your help, Cindamuse (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The procedure in WP:PERMIT can be used, but she will needto be clear she is not just donating them to use on Wikipedia, but making it free fro all. The simplest solution would be to attach a statement of a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license for all the images on the web site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Couple of tags I need help with

I'm new here, my account is Toothless99. I uploaded a couple of photos for articles, but I don't know what to tag them with. The two files are File:Kosmoceratops.jpg and File:Return to the lost world book cover.jpg. I have provided the URL for the page they came from, but I can't do much else. Please help,

Toothless99 (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

  • For the first it looks like you lifted it off a web site. I cannot see any evidence on this site that the images are free. If you know of a copyright statement that permits free use and modification of the images, then please link it on the image description page and state the copyright license, otherwise the image will have to be deleted. If you do not know what license to use for someone else's picture it probably means that you cannot use it here.

Wikipedia and commercial use

If I create test prep study questions based upon Wikipedia text, can I copyright the sample questions and answers that I created based upon the Wikipedia text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.168.181 (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This page is for copyright within wikipedia. For information about reusing Wikipedia content, see WP:REUSE. Basically, you will have to abide by the Wikipedia license, which is "share-alike", meaning any derived works (which probably includes such test prep materials) will also have to be freely licensed. We do not give legal advice about reusing Wikipedia content, and suggest you speak to a lawyer. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#Images question about the use of a sequel's box art in an article about the original game

Guyinblack25 raised an issue of whether the box art of a sequel can be used in an article in addition to the box art of the original game in Talk:Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#Images. I would appreciate any opinions. Thank you. Vyeh (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Graphics from really old newspapers

Question: Can I grab a graphic from the Los Angeles Times of November 1, 1899, as posted on a Web page provided by the Los Angeles Public Library to use in Wikipedia? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to do this since the contents of a November 1, 1899 issue of the LA Times is in the public domain. Could you be specific as to what you mean by a "graphic?" There's always the possibility that an old graphic could still be under coverage as a trademark. If it's a photo or a drawing within an article, there shouldn't be any problems using it. Also, how do you intend to use the graphic? Non-profit personal use is a lot less problematic than for-proft commercial use. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The graphic would be a news photo or a drawing originally used to illustrate a news story in the L.A. Times. My present use would be to illustrate a WP article — possibly in two categories: (I1) To show what a person looked like where no other likeness exists or can be found, or (2) to illustrate a historical scene such as an accident or cavalry charge or explosion aftermath, which words alone could not accomplish within the WP article. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What you're seeking to use seems to be pretty unambiguously in the public domain. I've personally used pictures from pre-1923 works for just such purposes. You're actually on more solid ground in that the pictures and drawings you're seeking to use were actually published. I.e., you can prove that they're in the public domain (though I doubt anybody would question them). --Quartermaster (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, QM! You have cleared up a lot for me this morning. In uploading such a file, what rationale should I use to assure the cautious and curious that it is truly a Free Image? I have had bad results previously in having certain files deleted, perhaps by tyro editors who didn't know the rules or who were not adapt at expressing them. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm used to uploading to the wikimedia commons, but, independent of the specifics, so long as you cite the source of the image to be LOS ANGELES TIMES, November 1, 1899 (specific page would be nice also); that should make it clear it is in the public domain. Determining whether something is PD or not can be tricky, but in this case it's pretty clear cut. The key is to cite the source properly so those who are overseeing image and copyright issues will see that this is indeed in the public domain. Published items' copyrights prior to 1923 are all expired. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a rather unusual and possibly macabre question, but does Al Qaeda retain the ability to copyright its works? I ask because I'm working on an article that involves the murder of Nicholas Berg, the famous individual wearing the orange jumpsuit surrounded by the armed terrorists. Obviously I don't plan on using a screenshot of the actual killing, but the image is iconic enough. It was created in Iraq by Abu Musab Al Zarqawi (killed in 2006), which apparently has no copyright treaties with the US, but because of the occupation has its own strange laws, as noted in: File:Iraq, Saddam Hussein (222).jpg. If I can't make a case for PD, I'm going to use historical relevancy, but either way I'd like to know what kind of legal ground this is. Please send responses to my talk page. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A terrorist or criminal can copyright something. But what is relevant is if PD-Iraq applies, if the photo was taken on 7 May 2004 then the new law applies (for a week) and it will be protected till 50 years after the author's death (2056). If an image was iconic, then it may be possible to use it under fair use in an article about the picture. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Scans of old membership cards?

I would like to upload scans of some old membership cards for the now defunct trade unions, NUCPS, PTC and CPSA to help illustrate those articles. I assume that any residual copyright would now reside with the successor union PCS, though the original organisations no longer exist. Would I need to seek permission or would this constitute "fair use"? Many thanks. KenBailey (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on the dates those images would have been created, they would still be copyrighted. I would also guess that the copyright now belongs to PCS, but it would depend on whatever the merger agreement (or similar) said. What exactly is shown on these membership cards? WP has stringent rules for the use of copyrighted materials that are even stricter than what fair use would allow - see WP:NFCC. Depending on how important it is for the images to be used, we might need to get permission from PCS for them to be released under a free license. By the way, something like this image would fail the requirement that it significantly add to readers' understanding. (That is, readers can understand the article perfectly well without seeing it.) So if it is something like that, your only option would be to seek consent from the organization - see WP:CONSENT. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Alternately, if the image is extremely basic (say, it only has basic fields like "name" etc, and it belongs to a relative so you hold the copyright to the photo on it), it may be ineligible for copyright. If you believe this to be true, you can upload the image and we can advise further. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your views. The cards are mine and contain basic fields (name, branch, membership number etc but no photo). I take the point about it not significantly adding to readers' understanding. However, I particularly wanted to illustrate the logos so perhaps a crop of just the logos would be appropriate? KenBailey (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
If they have logos, then they probably wouldn't be PD. (The logo is probably creative enough for copyright protection.) I'd just crop the logo, upload it, and tag it {{non-free logo}} with an appropriate non-free usage rationale (probably {{logo fur}}). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That sounds a good plan. Thanks for your help and advice. KenBailey (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hindi movie posters

I want to use the movie posters at galmsham.com for the article Toonpur Ka Superrhero, which has the old movie poster (notice the new spelling i.e. superrhero). Well, can I? And a related question: what is the copyright law in India about movie posters? --Siddhant (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well you could use one poster under fair use, so if you want to use a different poster, you should get the old one deleted. The exception would be if there is critical commentary on both the posters. This is really a topic for the article talk page to determine what one is best to use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

question

Greetings, I am trying to post my article about Ramón Smith under username Herrero Ragde. I tried uploading a photo, but now I know there is a process of approval before it can go public. I apologize for my ignorance of these details. I would like to understand the steps to specify the copyright status of the photo, and then how to post the article, with the uploaded photo. This photo has belonged to my family for over 25 years; so I really have no way to know who took it originally. I'll appreciate your help. The Photo in question is labeled R.Smith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herrero ragde (talk • contribs) 18:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are slightly confused about the process. If you set the information correctly at the start, then further approval is not required. That is the idea of the free license, that approval is granted by the copyright holder in advance. The information that we need is to show that the image is free. So We need to know the license, Is it public domain, or a Creative Commons license? Who is the copyright owner and what is the evidence that they released the image freely. Just because you own a photo does not mean that you own the copyright, and the photographer, or their heirs would. If you are the heir then you can grant the free license, but if you just don't know who owns copyright, or can show somehow that the picture is public domain, then we cannot use it on Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

what is the tag used to upload your own pictures

what is the tag used to upload your own pictures prefix:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitarlady (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded the picture which was taken by me? how do i add the tags to show that it belongs to me? can i get some examples —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitarlady (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks as if you uploaded about 5 different pictures using the same name at File:Paul hm.jpg. you could add tages like this: {{CC-BY-3.0|Paul Livingstone}} {{CC-BY-SA-3.0|http://www.tanpura.com/}} or even {{PD-self}}

giving

Some other suggests are to load up different pictures under different names, and to use commons:upload so that pictures can be used in other projects and languages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I previously upload my image and i was in a hurry and i forgot to put a Copyright Status. The Image is Indra Putra Mahayuddin (Indra_Putra_Mahayuddin.png).

So i uploaded another similar image, but this time i put the copyright status in. (IndraPutraMahayuddin.png)

I hope it is ok, if it is not, you are free to nominate the image on speedy deletion and you are free to do anything with the image until this problem is solved.

i am really sorry if i caused any problem to you and i hope this would not be a huge of a problem.

Thanks for your time...

From user name 016iman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 016iman (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You've done well with the most recent copyright tag on the image. But can I ask what MNT FC@ Images is and your relation to it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for replying, I am the one of Malaysia National Football Team Fan Club© ( MNFT FC© ) admins and one of their founders. My task is to upload any images that is related to Malaysia football. As you know, all of my images is about Malaysia National Football team, so my relation with MNFT FC© is that i am one of their founders and i am one of their admins.

Thank you, i hope you reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 016iman (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ally Sloper's Half Holiday

File:Ally1884.png and File:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg are redundant (but not identical) images of the 27 December 1884 cover of Ally Sloper's Half Holiday. Both files are public domain in the United States (if I'm not mistaken, also in the source country, the UK) and could be moved to Commons under the {{PD-old-100}} license tag.

However, the source for File:Ally1884.png no longer works and File:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg contains a "British Library" mark. Would it be acceptable to move File:Ally1884.png to Commons while changing the source to http://www.bl.uk/images/content/ally1884.jpg, or does that pose an attribution or copyright problem? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia considers faithful reproductions of the original to be void of any copyright, so it wouldn't be a problem. But the easiest solution is to include both the old and new source with the exact explanation you've just provided here to avoid any unnecessary ambiguity. Commons will certainly take it under this situation - at least I don't think anybody would be enough of a stickler to nominate it for deletion.
Also, for licensing, you'll want to make sure it follows {{PD-UK}}, which deals with not the year of publication, but of the death of the artist, if known. Are we sure that Emilie de Tessier and/or Charles Henry Ross had passed away before 1940? Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
There appears to be some controversy (see here and here) as to who actually created the character: Charles Henry Ross or his wife, Emilie de Tessier (a.k.a. Marie Duval). Ross died in 1897 ([5]). I could not find a year of death for Duval, though I did find that she was born in 1847 or 1850 (based on the claim that she was 18 years old when she married in 1868 or 1869). William George Baxter, who created this particular cover, died in 1888 ([6]). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

book cover

I want to add a photo of a book cover to a page. I have been granted written permission by the publisher to use the image on wikipedia. They created it and have full rights to it and have extended that right to me. When I went on my account it said that Bolt or something had removed it. I should I identify it when reapplying it to the page so that it stays. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corydjhughes (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the owner of the copyright has to release his rights completely so that the image can be used anywhere, not just on Wikipedia. That's it in a nutshell, but others more knowledgeable that I can tell you more. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We may be able to use it under fair use, I will check it out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
We can certainly use it on English Wikipedia as fair use, meaning without their permission. However, if we want the freedom to use it more broadly (e.g., to add it to your userpage, or to upload it to commons for use on other language Wikipedias), we'd need the explicit release under a license. "For Wikipedia" isn't good enough for legal reasons (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F3). A good place to follow instructions is {{Di-no permission-notice}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
One problem that I see is that the image is not used yet in article space. For fair use the iamge must be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
In simple words, without getting too complicated, why is it "fair use" to use a book cover? Didn't an artist design it for a specific use, and doesn't that artist have as right to control where the image is placed? I have a book cover myself (my own book) that is used all over the Web, including Amazon, and I have no problem with that, but I'd just like to know where they get the right to reproduce it? (If somebody could just answer the question without referring me to another page, I would greatly appreciate it.) Sincerely, your puzzled friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Copyright laws in most countries permit the use of copyrighted works, without permission, by other entities under certain conditions. This is called "fair use" in the United States (where our servers are based). A simple example; if I were to create my own book, and use your cover, I would be violating your copyright. If I were a news anchor talking about the NY Times best sellers list, and showed your book cover as an example of one of the top ten, I'm not violating your copyright. That's "fair use". There's a huge amount of law underpinning this, and there's little in the way of black/white on the issue. But, in a small nutshell, there you go. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, that is very clear, Hammersoft, and I appreciate your courtesy in responding so promptly. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan/EPA image

In a deletion discussion, someone said that since an image was taken in Afghanistan, it's in the public domain. The image was taken by a professional photographer for the EPA. I thought the photographer or the EPA would have a copyright claim, regardless of the fact that it was taken in Afghanistan. What would be correct in this instance? Swarm X 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The PD claim made by the admin is false. Afghanistan does not have an agreement with the US/Berne Convention about Copyright so material that is within that country (i.e - a film, a book, a newspaper) is generally considered copyright free. However any reporter, or other entity, that is working within Afghanistan for someone else outside of the country is not creating copyright free material simply because it was done *in* Afghanistan. For Wikipedia purposes the image in question is owned by the European Pressphoto Agency, which is headquartered in Germany, and they distribute it worldwide. The implication by the admin was that anybody who steps foot inside of Afghanistan and creates something is doing so without any copyright protection. That is not true. You can take a look at Afghanistan and copyright issues for more general information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That's how I strongly felt, but I initially didn't know where to start to counter his claims. Swarm X 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A question

Hi, i uploaded a recent file which is a self portrait photo which i took which was then edited via photoshop to appear as a cartoon. I was then warned about file deletion due to lack of copyright so have added what i think is an appropriate copyright but was just wondering if i have completed this correctly as my WP skills with things like this can be abit rubbish Johnsy88 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to use your own work, you have to release it under a free license (copyrighted works can only be used to illustrate articles). The two most common ways of doing this are either releasing it into the public domain by using {{public domain}}, or reserving some rights by using {{self|Cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}. Swarm X 00:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of our images - can I allow free use to others, but require them to insert a hyperlink to our site?

I have a few wonderful images that would help women with adhesions, pelvic pain or infertility. I would be glad to post them on Wikipedia for others to use, but I would like to place a source, preferably a hyperlink on our images, that people would include, if they want to use them. Is this OK? How do I do that, and make sure it is not deleted by others?

Thanks! Larry cptherapy@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.122.6 (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, our clinic paid for the illustrations, and we own the images I would like to donate. I am concerned that if I include a hyperlink back to our site (the image owners) with each image, someone could delete that hyperlink, and the image would become free to all to use - without any attribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.122.6 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied via email. Swarm X 00:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The type of license that you would need to use would be the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. (This is accepted by Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons should you wish to upload it there). The attribution requirement should be specified if you want a link to appear on each page. To be even more specific, in 2005 a user asked Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig, about Attribution:
  • Question: "I'd like to know why I can't plug in my own attribution requirements. For instance, if I release a picture under the CC, I want to specify that any page using that pic must contain a specific link. According to a discussion I had on cc-community, apparently I can't do that under the CC."
  • Answer: "Actually, you can use the new attribution license to specify the attribution, including a link."
Source: and so it begins
You can also read the full legal code at the Creative Commons official site. You may also want to read Why we cannot take certain donations to see if it applies to these images. Saying "our clinic paid for the illustrations" raises some potential issues so you would need to verify you have authority to release the images, normally this would be done via an email to OTRS. (See Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia for more information) Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting unused photo

Would you please delete this photo :File:KateChase_in_1873.jpg I uploaded the image over four years ago and it is not being used for the Kate Chase page. Calm Seas101 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Swarm X 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 Deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Right Livelihood website

I am a bit confused about using images from rightlivelihood.org website. The website claims that Texts, photos and other contents not marked with a copyright notice may be freely copied and distributed unless otherwise indicated. Does this mean that we can use these pictures on wikipedia as public domain? Cheers --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 19:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The permission must also enable derivatives or modification. The permission given is not the same as public domain or all rights released. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
So under what licence can we use these images? Is it going to be fair use? --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 20:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The wording on the website is a bit too vague. A "free-to-use-pictures" does not mean it is "free enough for Wikipedia." For example the Terms of Use file that is part of the downloads says "all images are free to use without financial compensation" which implies "non-commercial use" only. Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries is an example letter you can send to the website, listing the exact images you want to use, and see if they will clarify the terms for those specific images. Outside of that it would leave fair use, but only if the image meets all 10 of the required criteria. If these images are of living people it may be considered as failing NFCC 1 for example. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. --Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Confused about image licenses

Hello, I uploaded three images: File:Rapid mix image.jpg File:Rapid Mix Cost 1.jpg File:Rapid Mix Cost 2.jpg

For the first image, I created it on MS paint myself, so what would the license status be?

For the two remaining images, I scanned them from a book, so what would the license status be?

Thank you,

Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahcarrots (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you did create the first one you can use {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} if you want to retain copyright or {{PD-self}} if you want to release any and all copyright claims. The other two, as you scanned them from a book, could only be claimed as fair use by you as you do not own the copyrights. For that you need to see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and make sure those images meet all 10 of the criteria. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File:JohnCameronBell.jpg

I have no idea where you would like me to put this copyright tag. I included it under changes when I reuploaded the image, but this has not solved the problem. The image is mine, and I am happy for it to be freely available. Can you please make this happen so that the picture is not removed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryhbell (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is File:RatingsgraphR.jpg a violation of [this page], which has a copyright notice? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My gut reaction is to say that the picture qualifies as ineligible for copyright since it's a simple graph, and isn't a trademark or proprietary information. But it's possible that the mere fact of its location on a copyrighted page makes it copyrighted. As a note, the lone article that includes this image has been prod'ed as a joke article failing notability guidelines. Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 05:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Kobe_bryant_5th_championship.jpeg

Blatant copyright infringement. Speedy delete. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/102210243/National-Basketball-Association -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 12:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar . . .

The Guidance Barnstar
To all who give advice on this page and maintain good cheer while doing it. We learn a lot from you.GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Images from Bureau of Prisons Website

At least eight images have been copied from the BOP website:

Unlike other government website that are very careful about identifying the source of their photos, BOP is relatively silent on who took those photos and whether the photographer retained any rights in them. It is not stated whether the photos were taken in the course of the photographer's employment by BOP. I have sent an email to the Department of Justice asking about this but have not received a response. Could we adopt a policy as to whether it is proper to download photos from the BOP website and then upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The BOP is an agency of the Department of justice, and includes a link to the department of justice legal policy, which includes a public domain declaration. I would have thought that this was sufficient as a declaration that those photo's were in the public domain and generated by the BOP? This seems more straightforward than the national laboratories discussion above. Ajbpearce (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I have followed a number of these controversies, and the BOP is an unusual sloppy case. BOP does link to DOJ disclaimer which "apply only to the Department of Justice site" and not to all Department of Justice sites. So it is not clear whether the BOP website was ever reviewed by a lawyer, and what it intended by the disclaimer. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I am disappointed that this user may be pursuing this as a matter of retaliation as there as been an ongoing discussion regarding these photos at Talk:Chandra Levy#Bureau of Prisons photo. I pre-emptively pursued a discussion at image copyright help here and at commons to make sure I was proceeding appropriately regarding images from federal government websites. Then deletion requests were posted by anonymous IP 66.173.140.100, timed so that the GA reviewer would direct the removal of files that had previously been in the article. As this is a novel method of gaming the system that I had not encountered before, I am concerned that there may be a breach of good faith here. KimChee (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC) / 15:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • - Well, wikipedia does take copyright issues very seriously and there does seem to be a doubt as to the licensing status of these pictures, so it is better we get it absolutely correct. I gather someone has contracted them and asked them the question, I am in favor regarding copyright of, if in doubt, keep it out. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is interesting that both image copyright help and commons expressed concerns with the course of action -- uploading BOP photos without doing the work necessary to determine their copyright status--which resulted in the photographs listed here. Perhaps this is a case of WP:HEAR? Also note that unlike the legal policy link on the BOP website which goes to the DOJ disclaimer, the Privacy Policy link on the BOP website, goes to a separate BOP specific page that describes the BOP website as being separate from the DOJ website. Racepacket (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I spoke with Ann Diskell who handles BOP photo permissions and releases. She reports that in general, the photos posted on the BOP website are government photos, but it is possible that some are not. Each facility controls its own website, so she does not know the source of the photos of each facility posted on each of those pages. When people write to her asking for reprint permissions, she will sign a release and generally asked for a photo credit attributing the photo to the Bureau of Prisons. She said that she knew that File:Federal Bureau of Prisons Central office.jpg was taken by a government employee and is not copyrighted. Racepacket (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense for the person who wants to upload a photo that was taken from a website to stop and figure out whether that particular photo is copyrighted or not? If the website clearly indicated one way or the other, that would be easy. But here we have quite a confused mess. Alternatively, if the person seeking to upload the file to Wikipedia was willing to indemnify Wikipedia and anyone else who later uses the image from any future copyright claims, I guess we could "assume" that the files were just fine. I suggest we get this straightened out. Racepacket (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the website as a whole is a work of the U.S. Federal Government, so it is reasonable to think that the components of the website (the HTML, the text, and the pictures) are also works of the feds. If the picture truly was taken by a third party, the U.S. Government would have to take care to identify the picture (i.e. this pic was taken by Joe so-and-so). It would be the fault of the U.S. Government for failing to identify the copyright holder. We can say "feds, you put it on your website, and we saw no information to the contrary, so we have every reason to believe that it is your work" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I would say that the foundations position is the opposite to Whisper to me's comment. Its like an addition in content, it is not that the addition-er has a claim to add it, if it is disputed then it is up to the person that desires to add it to show how it is suitable, this is compounded when it is a claim of freely distributing to the public domain the content on another organizations website. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
But are there reasonable grounds to make the dispute? I elaborated on why we must make the assumption above. There is no evidence that a third party photographed these pictures, and because they are featured on a USGov website, we must assume that they are works of the USGov; if they are third party works, the US Government would take care to post identifying information; if they don't, that is their fault. By appearing on a USGov website with no contrary information we have every reason to state "This image is a work of a United States Department of Justice employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties." Racepacket asked us to consider whether a government contractor did the work. If this was the case, the website would state this as such, as it would have to do so. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Correct (to Off2riorob before the insertion). The upload must read the template and make sure that the facts stated in the template apply. For example, {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} requires you to state the photo is the work of "a United States Department of Justice employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties." (BOP is a subsidiary agency of DOJ, so this is the closest template.) Racepacket (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Responded above. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Suggesting that it is their fault if they haven't made it clear is not a very strong claim of public domain and not one I would legally want to claim in a court of law. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, generally if anything that is a product of a USGov employee is in the public domain (that claim is not in dispute), then it is the role of the U.S. government to differentiate what is PD and what is not. It is reasonable for a user of a USGov website to assume that content on it is PD unless the US government makes it very clear that this specific content is not PD.
So when dealing with content on USGov websites we need the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality. Our job is to make sure that the websites do not have evidence that the content is from a third party (a contractor, someone else, etc.). But if such evidence does not exist, then we assume it's PD.
It would be irresponsible for the third parties to not demand for the addition of copyright information, and it would be irresponsible for the USGov to not clearly indicate which content is not PD.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
After reading more of what is above... Here's how to settle this.
We should compile the contacts for each BOP facility, and the contacts will be able to tell us if the photos were taken by a third party.
If we get a response saying that the photo is copyrighted (and from a third party), then we e-mail the BOP asking them to add a photo credit and delete the photo off of the Wikimedia servers.
Each BOP facility has a dedicated e-mail address in its "Contact" page.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There is an easier alternative. Free Use is a bit of an "in your face" approach. The uploader is saying "I have investigated this, and I declare to the world that nobody out there has any copyrights in this image." However, Fair Use is more conservative. It is saying, "even if somehow there is a copyright out there, the way that I am using it in this Wikipedia article would not infringe that right." I think that most of WhisperToMe's uses of the images would qualify as a fair use. You are writing an article about a prison and the infobox shows the prison so that people will recognize it. If you were to upload the images to en.wikipedia and include a fair use rationale template, the problem would be solved for those prison article. However, people would not be able to use the images to "decorate" random articles that have little to do with the prison. Racepacket (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No sorry, re-read WP:NFCC - we can't use fair-use images where a free image could be created that would serve the same purpose. I think we must reluctantly conclude that, as the BOP does not seem to have considered copyright/ the needs of wikipedia when creating its website - and so cannot say with certainty whether images are free or not, that absent a specific public domain declaration from the BOP, we can't use these images on wikipedia. Ajbpearce (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, since we have the contact information for all of the BOP units, and we know that the BOP has an obligation to differentiate what is PD and what isn't.. it will no longer "not seem to have considered copyright/ the needs of wikipedia when creating its website" after a few well-placed e-mails that will get to the bottom of things. I am now awaiting responses that indicate which units have images that are not PD. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree; the obligation of the BoP is to run the prison system. Beyond mug shots, we do not know they have any experience in photography, and it is entirely a reasonable possibility that they would contract out. This means that it would be an acquired copyright, and the feds stand in the place of the photographer for purposes of copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The BOP refers to the DOJ legal policies. The USDOJ says: http://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies.htm "Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission." - This is presumed to apply to the BOP site in addition to the main DOJ site. The DOJ copyright notice doesn't say "Watch out as pictures are taken by other people and are therefore copyrighted!!!" - If these copyrighted photos are a significant factor in the website, the DOJ has a responsibility to indicate where they are copyrighted and make a note of it in the general copyright notice.
Also it is common to see government agencies use their own employee photographers, including military and civilian agencies.
I have already sent out the e-mails inquiring about copyright status, and I will send more. In receipt of any e-mails saying "Oh yes, this is copyrighted" I will ask them to indicate the copyright on the photo and on the USDOJ copyright disclaimer
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes? So? That disclaimer does not say anything about the website's content; it is a general statement of copyright law. It tells us nothing about what on the website is and is not generated by DOJ. And please, if you say they "have an obligation", be so good as to point out the relevant statute or regulation.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
"It tells us nothing about what on the website is and is not generated by DOJ." The DOJ didn't generate the very copyright statement on its own website? How do you know this?
A copyright statement ought to be taken at face value. It ought to be a general statement of everything we need to know about the website's copyright.
"so good as to point out the relevant statute or regulation." - It is a moral obligation. An obligation doesn't have to be under law. It is not ethical to have a copyright statement that doesn't warn people "Hey, this website has some copyrighted information that is NOT public domain like most things are"
The beginning of this discussion indicates very reason why this is under dispute is because of a deficiency in the BOP's reporting of the copyright status. The copyright status should be straightforward and clear. Apparently in this case it isn't.
The BOP understands this is an issue, so now it is working with us to resolve all of the copyright disputes.
WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, you have asked for help here, we are trying to help, please listen. I simply noted that the DoJ disclaimer does not address what on their website is PD, since we do not know what is DoJ-generated and what is not. We cannot go with an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, anyone seeking to use material should be cautious on copyright status, that way no one gets sued. The government does use photo contractors from time to time, I often give the example of official portraits of Supreme Court justices. When I did the Scalia article, I could not use either of the two official portraits he has had, as they were not done by government employees, but rather by contractor; the government purchased all rights and now controls them. The Court was willing to have them on WP with conditions; those conditions ran against our policies therefore we did not use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay - My point was that if the DoJ does not sufficiently address what is PD on its website and what isn't PD on its website, then it needs to begin doing so.
At the moment we will have to ask the DoJ about every image on its website and we will have to take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach. However this becomes aggravating as they will have to respond to constant requests asking "Hey, did you take that picture?" and editors will have to take time out to send those messages.
I get the fact that the USGov does use contractors. But my bone of contention is that the USDOJ disclaimer in this case does not warn people about this, and that content from contractors is not clearly indicated. Racepacket had said above that "I have followed a number of these controversies, and the BOP is an unusual sloppy case." The problem is that the USDOJ does not clearly warn people that this is the case.
I understand that we want to avoid legal trouble and that all uploaders need to take care that a particular image had the correct copyright. But at the same time government agencies need to be crystal clear on their copyright statuses so that our jobs as Wikipedia editors and image uploaders are made easier, and their jobs are made easier (as they don't have to respond to a battery of questions about image licensing).
Consider this copyright disclaimer: The State of California Department of Corrections says here: "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." - This does two things: it establishes that most content on the site is PD, but some material is not, and it also states that the state will give a heads up on whether a piece of material is copyrighted
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The person I spoke with at the Bureau of Prisons Public Affairs Office seemed cooperative. I think that she would give us an answer on specific images on her website just as she did on the photo of 320 First Street. It would be best if our request listed the specific images that we want to copy from the bop.gov website, and we would get an answer as to whether they were Federal Government works. In response to Ajbpearce, WP:NFCC does not control this situation. If the only image we have of a prison is one of dubious status, we can claim fair use on that image. Wikipedia does not expect us to travel around the country taking our own photos of each federal prison. But if a free image is available, such as File:Federal Home Loan Bank Board Building.jpg, we should use that instead of File:Federal Bureau of Prisons Central office.jpg, which may not be. My suggestion to WhisperToMe is to use the questionable material under a fair use claim, rather than assuming that it is free content. Racepacket (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Good. I'll be happy to collect a series of links to all BOP images on Wikimedia servers, so you can send them to your contact.
    • Fair use can be possible IF we are prohibited from taking a representative photograph of the particular facilities. If a representative photograph can be taken, then equivalent fair use images cannot be used.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is what we have: We should say that we want to "copy" these images, and we'll get an answer for them: BOP images on Wikimedia of prisons

Also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supermax_prison,_Florence_Colorado.jpg states that the BOP is the author, although the image was printed from the Miami Herald website (which credits the BOP)

I would also like to inquire on the status of the new MDC Guaynabo image at http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/gua/index.jsp WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any quick way to translate those into URLs from the bop.gov website? Racepacket (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes - Lemme match the URL to the image. Done. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The point about fair use if photography is prohibited may not be correct. I would suggest consulting User:Fasach Nua, who is the expert I consult in that area when questions arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the translations. I am working on wording the inquiry. Racepacket (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, contractor photography is a common problem. I worked for the Federal Government years ago, and was involved in some construction matters. My agency's files had many photographs documenting facility construction, and few photos were taken by Federal employees. Most were taken by the architecture/engineering/construction firms. I can see how if a new prision is built, the architects and construction contractors would take photos and share them with the BOP central office. It would be less likely for a BOP employee to spontaneously have the urge to photograph the prison building for the website and/or files. Racepacket (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I am unsure if this will address the contractor issue, but I received the following response from info@usdoj.gov:

Photos on the BOP's public website are considered to be in the public domain; but if you plan to use them, we ask that you appropriately credit the Federal Bureau of Prisons as the source.

The Bureau's Public Information Office is (and has been) located at the agency's Central Office at the following address:

Federal Bureau of Prisons ATTN: Public Information Office 320 First St., NW Washington, DC 20534

We hope this helps.

The above was in response to the following inquiry sent to info@bop.gov:

Hello,

I am gathering basic research for an article. I would like to ask the following:

  • What is the copyright status of images on the BOP website. Are they in the public domain?
  • Where is the BOP's Public Affairs (IPPA) department located? Do you recall if this address changed in the past 10 years?

Thank you very much!

Out of curiosity, would this pose a problem with WP:OR? KimChee (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:OR addresses original images (images self-taken by Wikipedians) - it does not address images from other parties.
AFAIK it's okay to use the image is the contacts say that the images are PD.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
What he is doing is not a problem, he is simply ensuring that images are suitable. It might be best to forward the replies to OTRS, so I would mention the image file name and give them a link in the request.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Public domain?

Is this single cover artistic enough to be copyrighted, or is it PD? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The cover is very simple and is probably covered by a PD-text, but trademark still applies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons

There's an image licensed under CC-by or CC-by-sa, with the author's name, e-mail, website, signature or other infomation visibly in the image itself. if I modify the image, removing these infomation in the image, but keeping them in the image metadata or image description page, is that still possibly a violation of the CC-by license, which states in its human-readable summary that "you must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor"? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  • This is allowed because derivatives are permitted, and that can involved stripping bits of the image off. But you must still attribute the image in the associated data. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But the author him/herself put his/her name in the image, does it mean that (s)he intends that the user of the image shall attribute the work in the manner of keeping the name in the image? And further more, what if the author clearly announces that the users must attribute by keeping his/her name in the image? is that a valid announcement? --Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
      • We interpret the text saying "manner specified by the author" as the content of the text used for attribution, and it does not mean where it is placed. The part of the CC-BY-x license says: "The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner;" Which means that the location of mechanism for attribution can change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Image of a CBC journalist

Hi people. I'm trying to source an image for Neil Macdonald, a Canadian journalist, for the article, which is currently photoless. Flickr came up dry. Would using one of the images from CBC.ca, such as one of these, be permissible under Non-Free Use? The Interior(Talk) 03:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No as the image is replaceable by a free one; if some one went and took a photo of the man. This means it fails to comply with at least one of the fair use criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme. I'll email off a permission request to CBC. The Interior(Talk) 20:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP image

What's the status for images that were uploaded as a result of promotional advertising for a particular event, but which depict or include photos of living persons? I am a bit aware of Wikipedia:NFC#UUI, but I can't wrap my head around whether or not promos are acceptable in current use or as fair use material (this is in context of the file I uploaded File:Mitsuki Saiga seiyū.jpg). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Lovers1.jpg

Regarding [[7]] I got a message to add a copyright tag. It is public domain, and I found a tag from "the list." I'm not sure where to add it, based on your instructions that didn't tell me, so I wrote it in the "description" and uploaded it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eameece (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the template to PD-US-1923-abroad Please check. file:Lovers1.jpg to see if the template text is correct. We also need you to be clearer about the source. Did you scan a card, did you lift it off a web site? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot of math functions

Is it legal to use copyrighted software to make plots of math functions (e.g. y=x^2), take pictures of those functions, and use them on Wikipedia? Would that fall under "uncopyrightable because its a math function" or "picture of copyrighted software"? There are no trademarked images in the pictures. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You could use it only if there was too little creative content. For example if it was line axes, gridlines and simple plots of the values, I am sure it could be used. Loading into commons would be best. You may be able to claim copyright if you added in an original function never before used. But if you had fancy icons and framing then this would not be allowed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! (It is only axes, lines, and numbers.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

permissions for image

I have permission from the creator of the image and sent it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. What else should I be doing to be able to link it to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hostel_(2010_film)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imgreenthumbs (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You may have to await a fortnight to get a response from the OTRS volunteers. If you have attached the image and given the exact anme you want it it may be uploaded for you, else you may get a ticket number to confirm an existing upload is authorized. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Source information

I would like to know how to source an image every time I try to upload images to this page they get deleted. Even though my photographer gave me permission to upload the image of myself onto the Kinda Hibrawi page. It is my photo

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kinda_Hibrawi 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrawi (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hello there Kinda Hibrawi, the problem is the copyright looks to be held by Micheal Forbes photography. For this an email from that company to Wikimedia as in WP:permit could prove permission. However you may be able to get that company to upload the phot themselves. It helps if the photo has not been published elsewhwere before. Aopther possible way to prove that it is public domain is to put the picture on your own web site with a statement that it is public domain and then link to it from the picture description on Wikipedia.

For your earlier pictures, File:Kinda2712.jpg, File:Kinda220px.jpg one was deleted because it was only licensed for use on Wikipedia. We need a free to use license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0 or public domain. The source is exactly where the picture came from. You can explain that the photographer took it as a work for hire by you and that you own the copyright, and that you are uploading with whatever license you are granting. Normally the source is inserted with the information template {{information|source=whatever|author=photographer|date=|description=}}. Somehow you managed to upload these two images without any templates to descibe or source or license the images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this license compatible with for Wikipedia?

Is this license compatible with for Wikipedia? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes CC-BY-2.0 and CC-BY-SA-2.0 are permitted on Wikipedia along with country variations and the other versions like that. One way to find out is to type the license in the search box and see if you come up with a template that can be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Wonderful, the instructions at commons are so confusing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Using photos shot by professional photographers

I happen to know a photographer who works for an international news agency and often gets sent to photograph meetings of international dignitaries, press conferences, sports matches or even war-torn areas such as Afghanistan or Iraq. I assume only a small portion of shots taken actually gets distributed by the agency so I was thinking if I could ask him to donate some of the leftovers to Wikipedia. Would that be possible? I don't know what the regulations are regarding his ownership of images which he might have taken on agency duty (I know that he sometimes exhibits his work in a local gallery so he must have some form of copyright ownership), and I don't know what would be the correct uploading and tagging procedure if this was really doable. Thanks. Timbouctou 02:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that you said the person "works for an international news agency." If that is the case their work may all be a work for hire, which means they would not own the copyright on the "leftovers". In order to use their work here they would have to submit an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating they own the images. They would also need to confirm that the "international news agency" does *not* own the work. If any of the images being considered for release here are being, for example, licensed (sold) by a commercial content provider they need to establish it is not an exclusive contract. If they are to be released they need to be released under one of the Wikipedia acceptable licenses. You can see an example of the type of letter they would need to submit here: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What if you attend an event and a professional photographer is retained to take pictures of you and your organization at the event but your contract with the organizers stipulates that all pictures taken of you and your organization are then handed over and become our property. The only thing we provide is a photo credit. Where does this stand in the legal scheme of things in terms of image use on Wikipedia? Any input on this would be appreciated. XenergizerX 09:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

See Work for hire for information about that. What the requirements are however depends on the actual contract you have with the photographer. If, as you say, the contract states they turn over their originals and assign copyright to you in exchange for only photo credit than you need to establish that when you submit an image. As I said above you would need to send the information to permissions-en@wikimedia.org in order to verify it. You may be asked to provided a copy of the contract showing the photo shoot was done as a work for hire and the photographer turned over copyright to you. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Roma

Hello, all. I uploaded File:1930.05.06 Advertisement for Radio Broadcast With Lisa Roma.gif ] and provided what I thought was a thorough explanation of what the illustration showed and the context in which it would be used, but I received a message stating it was not sufficient. What would be sufficient for this image? Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to consider if Template:PD-Pre1978 applies, it is too low resolution for me to see if there is a copyright statement or not; Template:PD-US-not renewed may also apply if the copyright was not renewed, and for newspapers this is often the case. The problem with your text on the description page is that there is no WP:fair use rationale. Use the {{Historic fur | Article = Lisa Roma | Source = }} template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Graeme Bartlett. You are a prince, or maybe a princess! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of Kasnia.png

While trying to clean up duplicate images - files on both en.WP and Commons, I noticed File:Flag of Kasnia.png. I deleted it, but then I saw the discussion, including the comment "The series is copyrighted, as is the character of Superman. The flag is not, and anyway an independent illustration of it for non-commercial purposes ought to be covered by fair use."

As I understand it, a fair use file should not be on Commons. What do the experts think, is this under copyright or not?--SPhilbrickT 15:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it fails the originality/creativity test (it's just basic shapes and colours) so Commons' PD-ineligible looks right to me. – ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll leave it on Commons.--SPhilbrickT 18:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Category for img w/author permission from US govt site

I've been unsuccessful in finding the right license category to upload an image. It's an illustration of a fish on a US Fish & Wildlife Service site and it has the artist's info and an authorization for "Use by news for printing or display approved by artist." Page w/image is at http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2000/r00-012.html. Which category applies, or does this image not qualify for use under the circumstances? I don't know if the why is important, if so, there's an article (stub really) for the fish in question http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Vermilion_darter and I was hoping to add the image to it. Thank you for your help. Tadiew (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not free enough for Wikipedia, as we demand that the image is free for all uses, not just news or display. People must be able to sell it on a postcard, print it in a book, use it in a document etc. Also we need permission to make derivatives. So at this point all you can do is link to it, and not copy it here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I added an external link to the page (used external image template). First time I've done this. Would you be willing to check to see that I did it acceptably? I'd much appreciate it. Better I find out now if I blew it. Thanks again.Tadiew (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
What you did looks OK to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(No header)

what is hydrolic technical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viranga kaushan (talk • contribs) 10:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This looks to be the name of a company "Hydraulic Technical Services"[8]. However it is nothing to do with copyright, so the WP:RD/MISC is the place to ask. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Images from early 20th century Finland

I stumbled across three images uploaded by User:Welshentag that came from the National Library of Finland:

These were incorrectly tagged by the uploader with {{PD-self}}. I added {{Information}} tags and attempted to fix the licensing. The {{PD-old-70}} tag seemed most correct, at least for the two architectural drawings, which were drawn in 1895 and about 1905 by an architect who died in 1917. But the architect was Finnish, and I'm not sure how Finnish and U.S. copyright laws interact in this case—could someone confirm that {{PD-old-70}} is appropriate? For the last picture, the portrait of Carl Ludvig Engel is surely in the public domain (as it was created in 1829), but there is no information provided on the National Library page about the source of the portrait of Nyström. It must have been created before Nyström's death in 1917, but other than that I don't know anything. I tentatively added {{PD-old-70}} to that too, but this I am less certain about, since I don't know that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. —Bkell (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that the images would have been published as part of the construction process, in which case they would be PD-1923 in the USA. No comment on the portraits. Nyttend (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little unclear about the 1923 date in the United States. Anything published before 1923 in the United States is in the public domain in the U.S., but what about things that were not published in the U.S.? This is why I asked about the interaction between Finnish and U.S. copyright laws. In particular, I have no reason to believe these architectural drawings were published in the United States before 1923. —Bkell (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay, I just discovered {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, which seems to address my question. —Bkell (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

Can someone with knowledge of Egyptian/Israeli/Syrian copyright law please review the historical images in this article? Many of them are tagged as PD in their country of origin, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who uploaded them might have been a bit cavalier in tagging them as PD. Raul654 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that knowledgeable about these countries' laws, but I would guess that File:Destroyed m60.jpg is PD in Egypt — it was likely published in 1973, and it might be considered a simple mechanical reproduction of the scene, and if so, it would have become PD in 1988. Can't say for certain, however. On the other hand, File:Yom Kipur War Suez Canal IMG 0961.JPG is not tagged correctly. It has a template saying that Israeli copyright has expired, but the shortest possible copyright term, according to the template, is 51 years; only 37 years have passed since the photo was taken. The uploader claimed it as an own work; if that's true, the PD template should be changed to PD-self, but that's a rather unlikely claim. See the DR at Commons. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Question.

Hey I am normally an uploader of fair use rationale images. But now I plan to upload this image. What license should I use? − Jhenderson 777 01:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The first issue is it would not meet all 10 of the Non-free content criteria policy. Namely NFCC 1 - No free equivalent. Use of a non-free image of a currently living person is generally considered unacceptable use of a non-free image.
Beyond that what is the actual source of the image? The watermark says "Comingsoon.net" - Emma Stone Goes Blonde for Gwen Stacy! is the "source", but that, in turn, links to Superhero Hype Gallery at another site, which contains three watermarked images stating "Comingsoon.net". This seems to be a subset of Crave Online, which has a general terms of use that give two general "disclaimers" about material:
  • In regards to user submitted material You are solely responsible for your User Content that you upload, publish, display, link to or otherwise make available (hereinafter, “post”) on the Service, and you agree that we are only acting as a passive conduit for your online distribution and publication of your User Content. and Company takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any User Content that you or any other Users or third parties post or send over the Service.
  • And in regards to *all* material: Except for your User Content, the Service and all materials therein or transferred thereby, including, without limitation, software, images, text, graphics, illustrations, logos, patents, trademarks, service marks, copyrights, photographs, audio, videos, music, and User Content (the "Company Content"), and all Intellectual Property Rights related thereto, are the exclusive property of Company and its licensors.
The overall issue is the site seems to be sort of like Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons in that it accepts material from anyone. As there is no real source of the image given I would suggest doing more research as to who the photographer was, even if it were of a non-living person.
EDIT: The images appear to have come from Getty Images. For example this "Comingsoon" image is cropped from this one at Getty Images - Sourced to "FilmMagic" and the photographer being Michael Tran. That being the case the image 100% fails the Non-free content criteria policy.
Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your information. Is there any way you can use the image as a fair used image for a certain article. − Jhenderson 777 17:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
No, as mentioned above, it would have to meet all of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria which are stricter than "fair use". – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I was planning on forgetting about it anyway. I originally wanted it on the Untitled Spider-Man reboot article but beggers can't be choosers. − Jhenderson 777 02:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Image not displaying properly Lisa Bradley article

Hello,

I tried to include an image using the following tag and this does not work:

| image =

Silence and Immutability
Silence and Immutability

Could you please let me know what I can do to insert the image?

Thanks a lot!

Fiona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueridinghood (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fiona, firstly the image at File:Silence and Immutability 1997 ol 47 x 38 Collect Academy Mus.jpg has not yet been uploaded. If the file is permitted on Wikipedia, click on the Upload link on the side of the page and fill in the details to upload it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Westonaprice.jpg

This is image seems to from this website [9], since the image size 361 x 500 is identical. Weston Price died in 1948 and was 53 in 1923. There is no indication that this picture was taken prior to 1923. The image appears to be under copyright of the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation. [10] Should the image file be tagged?Mathsci (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on your sources I doubt the image was published before 1923 so the copyright tag you applied is likely improper. Because he is dead, you could reasonably claim fair-use for the image so long as it complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. ww2censor (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an enquiry about the user who uploaded the image, not me. The uploader has clearly misrepresented the image, which should pobably be deleted. I was interested in learning how the image could be listed for deletion on wikipedia. I solved the problem myself. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

'ote'a picture

I found and excellent picture for this article here: http://hawaii.edu/uhmmusic/ensembles/tahitian.htm

My question is can I use a picture from an educational site?--Macarenses (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A picture hosted on an educational site confers no authoritative copyright status one way or another. You have to consider the copyright status of individual images, independent of where they are located. You can attempt to inquire to the institution in question as to the copyright status of an image on their site. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with File:Sinosauropteryx_eating_Zhangheotherium.jpg

I don't know the licensing for File:Sinosauropteryx_eating_Zhangheotherium.jpg, but have added a link to the site it comes from. It is the sort of image wanted by the WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration. Please help me with the tagging because I'm not good at it. Toothless99 talk to me (View my Contributions) 18:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find a suitable license or release at http://www.carnivoraforum.com/ so I have tagged the image accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

changing the picture

May I change the picture image for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloKori (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about KevJumba? If you have a better free image you can change it. Read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for what happens if there is a disagreement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are these PD?

(I'm copying a help me question, which belongs here).--SPhilbrickT 21:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if some images from the Kentuckiana Digital Library were in the public domain and if they are acceptable for use on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Many of the images were created by the WPA and some were created prior to January 1, 1923. Below are links to sample images:

Thanks! J654567 (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  • The image from 1918 is PD by way of age, being pre-1923. {{PD-old-100}} works to tag. The Paintsville City Hall image does not qualify as PD-old, as the collection appears to be from 1936. The author died in 1961, so it's not {{PD-old-70}}, and there's no release statement to PD or free license at the site. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
And the Library's other images would have to be reviewed case-by-case. – ukexpat (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Image Fair Use question - Not clear how to identify a Fair Use image

I was notified that an image I uploaded to Wikipedia http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Viking_Modular_SATADIMM.jpg possibly violates the Fair Use policy and may be deleted. I have looked around at other similar images, but I am not clear how to word the tags or templates to justify or show fair use on this image. I have put verbage that I believe is appropriate and sufficient, but I don't know where to check to compare. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I don't think you can justify it. The image is copyrighted, and regardless of how many websites it is used on, or the company using it for promotional purposes and the company being really happy that Wikipedia uses it, we must still use it under terms of fair use here. Per WP:NFCC #1, we do not use such copyrighted images when a free license image can be reasonably created. Since this product exists, there is really nothing stopping anyone from taking a picture of it and uploading it here under a free license. Make sense? I've tagged File:SATA Mini PCI-e-(hztl).gif similarly. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur with Hammersoft. Also I changed the {{Non-free fair use in}} tag to the correct one: {{Non-free promotional}}. While the images mentioned are not of people the same concept applies - Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. Just replace "living people" with "product shots." Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the feedback. What if the company that created the images approves their use on Wikipedia? How would they do that? If a company posts images to their web site and states they are for use by editors and writers in the media, is that sufficient for us to use it on Wikipedia? § Music Sorter § (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the copyright status of File:Artemis Gounaki.jpg. The license says it was released into PD by the copyright holder, who hasn't edited WP since 2006. The image looks a lot like this. I'm guessing Amazon didn't get the image from WP.

this page asserts a copyright by Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf.

How should this be handled?--SPhilbrickT 21:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This should be handled by a listing at WP:Possibly unfree files. Since the C6 image predates the Wikipedia image it casts doubt on the license release and OTRS would be needed at least. You can also attempt to email the uploader. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 21:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

i want to upload images for my references

i want to upload images for my references, i hope i can be allowed to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsas Olivian Mignon (talk • contribs) 04:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally, we only accept freely licenced images that are within the scope of the project but, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY, Wikipedia is not just a repository of images, so unless they are useful to us they may well be deleted. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Donating Flickr Photos To Wikipedia

I want to donate my Flickr photos to Wikipedia, is there a relatively easy way to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Picton (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You can upload them to Wikimedia Commons under the "entirely my own work" option. For each image, make sure you provide the URL at Flickr for "other versions." Then you select any free license compatible with Wikipedia/Commons under which you wish to release each image. If you want to put some of these images in Wikipedia articles, you edit an article and add a link to each image in an appropriate place in the article (that still works even if the image is on Commons). Hope this is of help. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to add on to what Jsayre64 said - make sure you use the same license on your Flickr account. Look over the Free licenses that are acceptable here and make sure the Flickr account is using the same one. In other words, for example, don't upload the image here via {{Cc-by-3.0}} if the Flickr source says "all rights reserved." Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirm fair use for a publicity photo

I would like to confirm if I can upload this picture for a wikipedia article: http://www.pophistorydig.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/1990-paul-michael-60.jpg and would it be using the tag {{Non-free promotional}}?

It appears in this article: http://www.pophistorydig.com/?p=2517 with the caption: "Michael Jackson & Paul McCartney together in 1990, reportedly to dispel rumors about their falling out over the Beatles song catalog Jackson then held."

And in the article it is described as: "In 1990, McCartney and Jackson appeared together in a photograph to allay fears – publicly at least – that there was no bad blood between them."

It is explicitly distributed for public relations purposes and I am not aware of any free image that can replace it or who the creator/original source is. It also appears here: http://themavenreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/jacksonmccardm_468x362.jpg

The date of the photo as given in the above article seems to be incorrect. Based on Jackson's appearance, it appears to be from 1985-1987. So instead of a specific year, I would write that the picture was taken after Jackson's purchase of the catalog (which was in Aug 1985)

Let me know what you think. Thanks. Verapar (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

  • The first knee jerk answer would be "Sure!" However to follow the requirements the source would need to be presented - and this is not the actual source. The second link appears to be a better "source" but it is still not *the* source. You state that it is a publicity/Promo photo but I didn't see any credit to a studio, a label, a publicist or a photographer with any of those links you provided. There is also The Daily Mail, but that doesn't give any credit either. Nor does Music Radar. I also found a blog that sources the story at least, to "Paul McCartney.com" via "Spinner.com". I cannot find the images there however. Most of the other like images of them together are sourced to photo and news agencies. Aside from that why do you want to up this image? For use in what article? Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The two quotes above from the pophistorydig.com article state that the photo was taken for public relations purposes. I wanted to use this image to incorporate the information in the above quotes for the article Northern Songs. The authors of those articles you listed might know the source. But can the source be partly attributed to McCartney and Jackson themselves? Verapar (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What I meant is that the owner of the copyright might be the artist's company e.g. MPL Communications in the case of McCartney or one of Jackson's companies, in addition to the above entities that you listed. Thanks for your search. I think I may have saw it in the L.A. Times at one point as well. So anyone reading this, you can let me know if you have any info about the photo. Verapar (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted images of statues

Re File:Thehillclimber.JPG, can a copyrighted image of a copyrighted statue be used under a fair use claim? As I understand it there are two separate copyrights for this, the statue and the photograph; I'm thinking that the "non-replaceable" criterion would only apply to the statue as someone could take their own photo of it. January (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I added some images that I took but forgot to add the copyright tag. How do I do so without deleting it and uploading it again? Marlinite (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

go to the image page, click edit, and change the text you see. If you have forgotten what you called it look at Special:Contributions/Marlinite or click my contributions. File:LakeWaco1.jpg File:LakeWaco2.jpg File:LakeWaco3.jpg File:Valleymillselementaryschool.jpg File:Tarletongraduation.jpg File:Popupcamper.JPGare your recent uploads. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I see you have worked out how to do a cc-zero license! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Image issue

The uploader tagged this image [11] as "self-released CC-by-SA and GFDL". However, they are screenshots of a copyrighted and non open-source (but free) program. I tagged them with "non-free screenshot", but I am not certain that is right either. In any case, I removed the "copy to wikimedia commons" template since the image is not a candidate for copying to commons. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this, Miro Samek is the president of the company that develops that software. If he's the uploader (Mirosamek (talk · contribs)), he might easily have the right to do so. Note also this appears to be a similar image, hosted on the company's website. I'd say that the ideal course of action would be to ask him to follow the WP:CONSENT procedure, but even if he doesn't, I'd say that this is a reasonably credible assertion that it is his own work. (Does anyone have an opinion on whether images of copyrighted software would for some reason cause us not to accept a credible declaration of authorship?) TheFeds 07:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Files from Scholarpedia

Is is okay to upload to Commons files from Scholarpedia, such as this one, which state that they can "be copied, distributed and/or modified under the terms of the Free Documentation License." --Epipelagic (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It is legal, as the GFDL is one of the compatible free licences. However, it's troublesome, because the GFDL requires that the text of the licence be reproduced when the work is reproduced (e.g. when anyone prints the image, they also have to print the text of the GFDL). If you can convince the copyright holder to offer it under a better licence (CC-BY-SA 3.0 would be the obvious choice), or find an alternative image, that would be preferable. TheFeds 08:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
And strictly speaking, this page is for English Wikipedia, not Commons questions, but in this case, the same answer applies to both. TheFeds 08:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ayurveda Official Photo - May 2010 (Heather Ainsworth)

Help! I got a ticket for Ayurveda's Official photo for use on User: Whysosirius/Ayurveda (band). I assume that gives me a green light to use the photo and I assume it has been successfully uploaded. Where do I find this photo now?...And how can I get it onto my page? I don't see where I have a "photo library" of any kind. Please help; I've been working forever and a day to get this pic up. Molte grazie.Whysosirius (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The photo is located at File:Ayurveda Official Photo - May 2010 (Heather Ainsworth).jpg. To insert it into an article, simply place [[File:Ayurveda Official Photo - May 2010 (Heather Ainsworth).jpg]] into the article. More information on how to use images may be found at Wikipedia:Images#Using images. Netalarmtalk 15:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Death anniversaries

Am I right in thinking that in US law the term of copyright ends on December 31st of the relevant "death anniversary" year? So that from January 2011, works whose authors died in 1940 will be out of copyright. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the fact that copyright terms end at the end of the year: that much is true. However, I'm not aware of any 80-year copyright terms in the United States; are you sure you weren't thinking of the 70-years after the death of the author rule, which doesn't apply for pre-1978 works? In any event, there are complicated provisions that can lead to a couple possible scenarios. Consult this flowchart and this table for precise explanations. TheFeds 16:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Oops, just my maths! Changed to 1940. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Youtube image capture

I am looking for an image of Kathy Dunderdale and found this Youtube video which features an image of the Premier at :47 I would like to capture and upload, for that article. Is this an acceptable use? What information would I need to add this screenshot as the non-free use rationale to the infobox? NorthernThunder (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As she is still alive, you cannot use an image from a copyrighted work for her picture. We only allow for free images of living persons to be used. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Can you suggest a legitimate alternative? NorthernThunder (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You are going to have to find or take a free picture of her that can be uploaded as public domain or the appropriate Creative Commons license. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem seems to be that Canadian copyright law conflicts with CC licences. I wouldn't even know how to ask for a compatible picture, from any Canadian politician, whose image is protected under this law. NorthernThunder (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
It is completely possible that there exists no freely licensed image in the world of a given subject. But, as long as the subject is alive and not a recluse, an unfree image can't be used here, because in theory, it is replaceable - there is nothing stopping you (except, perhaps, many, many practical issues) from personally photographing the subject, and personally releasing that photo under a free license. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of creating a free encyclopedia, is that not every biographical article can have an image of its subject. -Seidenstud (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The article NHS primary care trust contains a picture of which the filename is File:JerichoHealthCentre20050326 CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg. Is this permissible? --rossb (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Certainly. When a person releases an image under a free license, they are not releasing copyrights, but rights of reproduction specific to the license under which they are releasing it. So, unless they release an image into the public domain, they certainly can retain copyrights. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Eab_article_11July1936.JPG

I'm trying to cleanup some files which appear in both en.WP and commons. While doing so, if I see copyright issues, I want to run them by the experts here, or otherwise handle them appropriately.

I'm looking at: File:Eab_article_11July1936.JPG

If I read this correctly, the copyright status of a scan of a newspaper article is the same as the status of the newspaper article itself.

If I read this correctly, if it were published before 1923, it would be PD, but if after, then it is still under copyright (for a US newspaper).

One issue is that the newspaper isn't identified. I think it is the NYT, but it doesn't say, so I'm not sure what implications, if any, that has.

The scan didn't include the date, although the title implies that it was in 1936.

I'm thinking that it isn't likely it is PD, so planning to post it to WP:PUF unless someone points out that I'm missing something.--SPhilbrickT 17:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It's extremely unlikely (virtually impossible) that the uploader is the source and copyright holder. That alone throws it into question. We can pin the date of this article; See this source. Roosevelt dedicated the bridge on July 10, 1936. The article was printed the same day ("In his address today..."). Please note that the image needs to be brought to task both here and at Commons, as it exists there as well. It is very likely this article is still under copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a possibility the copyright wasn't renewed (see this and this for the U.S. Copyright Office). This has more details and links to the documentation.
Incidentally, I checked the copyright records for the NYT (on Google books), and the July 1936 editions were apparently copyrighted properly for the first 28-year term. But the renewal records on Project Gutenberg indicate that for some reason, the NYT appears to only have renewed its copyrights for March 1936, and not the other months (v. 85, no. 28526–28556, dated 1Mar36–31Mar36). That would put the unrenewed ones permanently in the public domain due to expiration c. 1964. (And note, that's renewal for March 1936 out of the entire scope of that 29184-page document that allegedly contains all renewals taking place from 1950 to 1977. That has significant implications for all NYT content from c. 1949 and before—this is a topic worth investigating further.)
Unfortunately for you, I also checked the NYT archives—and it's not there. It may not be a Times article at all. You'll need to know the source to identify whether the periodical is copyrighted. (And it's possible for authors to have a separate copyright registration for individual articles, so make sure to search the title too.) TheFeds 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the Edward Abraham Byrne article where it's linked, it's from The New York Sun (which may be The Sun (New York)?). Oh, and not that it matters for this image but as I recall after a certain point the NYT renwed their copyright as a single index annually - it's been a while since I went looking though, but it's a safe bet that anything published since 1923 in the NYT is still copyrighted without some serious searching. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the NYT, I saw some entries for the New York Times Index, but presumed they referred to this, the index that the NYT publishes containing a list of articles in the preceding volume—which seems to be a separate work and which doesn't contain the articles themselves. Is there a provision somewhere in the U.S. Code or copyright regulations that allows periodicals to incorporate the contents of an index by reference into their copyright filings? I know that currently, you can file periodicals' copyrights in monthly blocks, but that doesn't seem to have been what they did in the past. TheFeds 02:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
So, I think I understand what I was missing with that Gutenberg document: it applies to "[b]ooks, pamphlets, serials, and contributions to periodicals", but not to entire periodicals. Accordingly, I've found a series of GIF-format scans of the periodicals section that demonstrate appropriate day-by-day renewals c. 1964 for the NYT issues published in 1936 (here, from this list). Actually, there are entire pages devoted to the NYT in the scanned renewal list. That probably means their copyrights are in the dreaded 95-year group after all. (Still...it might be worth it to dig for omissions.)
But I also had a look for copyright registrations for The Sun and several variants on that. I found a registration that apparently includes the July 1936 issues. However, I can't find a timely renewal of this article in the same Gutenberg document (searching by title, there are no matches; there are a couple dozen unrelated articles listed as being in "The Sun, New York"). Furthermore, and most convincingly, in the scans of the periodical renewals for 1963 and 1964, I can't find any renewals of entire issues for "New York Sun", "Sun" or "New York World-Telegram and Sun" (with or without a preceding "The", in case of alphabetization error).
Provided you can identify it as having come from the Sun—don't you wish the Sun published an index like the NYT?—this article is apparently in the public domain. Copyright expired due to non-renewal by the end of 1964. (If anyone wants to check my reasoning and research, please go ahead; I could certainly be missing something.) TheFeds 07:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Armand Vaillancourt by Joe Sioufi www.JoeSioufi.gif and others

The uploader User:StarlightPhotography, who states that he is the creater of the images, has uploaded a number of images with copyright watermarks AND GNU / CC licencing. How does the watermark copyright impact licencing? Active Banana (bananaphone 20:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

They do seem like self-promotion. But funny enough, CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL 1.2 are irrevocable. If he was authorized to upload those on behalf of the copyright holder, it's a done deal—anyone who got the image from the Wikipedia page can use it under licence, forever. (He may have an equitable remedy if he can show that the upload was by mistake...but realistically, he filled out a rather explicit form before uploading, so I seriously doubt it. Besides, he'd have to sue to make that argument.) He's essentially saying that all rights are reserved, except for those granted under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL 1.2 or later.
As for why we'd want them, who knows, maybe someone will have use for a cropped image of a raised fist.... TheFeds 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A few things.

  • Watermarks, text, copyright info - whatever it may be - does not have an impact on the license itself.
  • The author appears to be the actual uploader. So there is not really an issue of if they did it with permission.
  • "irrevocable" is not entirely true, it is just a blanket statement that pertains to the overall license. The license can be terminated if the usage terms are not followed by an end user ("You" in the license), that right is explicit in the license itself. In plain English that means if someone takes a CCL image and uses it, but does not follow the terms of use, than that *users* license is terminated. The "You" could be Wikipedia itself, or it could be anyone who obtained the image from Wikipedia.
  • Outside of the image listed above the other images seem to just have a copyright tag, which, again, has zero bearing on the license itself. However such a notice, if given, should be kept. (i.e "...keep intact all copyright notices for the Work"). Also the question that always comes up in regards to text on images is Wikipedia, but the core is the source license, not Wikipedia policy. In other words the CCL is explicit in that the "Work" is being licensed by the "Original Author" to "You" under the terms set forth in the license. If Wikipedia accepts the license then they are bound by the terms of it "unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent." and/or "This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You." So if Wikipedia does not follow the terms than Wikipedia can have it's license to use the image "terminated". Also, while the right to "remix" is given any such "remix" would/should be thought of as a "Adaptation" and it needs to me marked as such. So File:Armand Vaillancourt crop.png could be looked at as not meeting the license terms and the license could be terminated if the author wanted to do so.

Wikipedia has the right to simply say "no thanks" to any image, even if the license is acceptable. As far a the license goes, all of these images are licensed via an acceptable license for Wikipedia. Now the issue simply becomes: Does Wikipedia want to say "no thanks"? Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point regarding the retention of copyright notices (per CC-BY-SA); I'd always assumed that it meant you must reproduce the copyright notice in any reasonable manner (like the credit notice, if any), because a derivative work could take almost any form, including ones where it is impossible to retain the original notice (e.g. a CC-BY-SA movie with a copyright notice on the title card, which I adapt by mixing the soundtrack; how can I retain the original notice in that medium?). I can see how that's ambiguous, though: it could be interpreted to limit the kinds of derivatives permitted, contingent on the original notice being reproduced in the derivative.
And yes, I should have been clearer about irrevocability: you can't revoke the licence as a whole, but each instance of the licence is self-terminating when it is broken by the licensee. GFDL has a clause that allows you to undo violations; CC-BY-SA doesn't, so there's some question as to what it means to terminate—is termination also perpetual for each licensee? How is that supposed to work for Wikipedia, a collaborative, long-term project with little ability (at present) to track licence terminations. And who has the ability and authority to break the licence on behalf of Wikipedia? Hypothetically, could a malicious user create intentional violations in order to automatically terminate licences on useful files? TheFeds 20:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
TheFeds asked "could a malicious user create intentional violations in order to automatically terminate licences on useful files?" Well, yes they could. But I tend to find a slightly larger issue. For example there was recent image that was upped here that was a derivative work. The uploader did the correct things - they used the same license, the cited the origianl, they said it was a derivative. The problem was the original contained other copyrighted material and the "new" version was cropped to show *only* that copyright material. The first point made by the uploader was that the CCL allowed for "remix" so how was the derivative a copyvio? In that case there was no "malicious user" involved, just someone who read/s the general summary of such licenses. (i.e - cc-by-sa "deed")
I have come across numerous articles, with images, out on the web simply sourced to "Wikipedia" and nothing else. Again - maybe not done by a "malicious user", but if one simply takes the text of an article and re-posts it and grabs the "associated" image/s as well they may never see the information found on the image page. The Wikipedia specific issue comes in various shapes and sizes - more so now that many "free enough for Wikipedia" files are being moved over to Wikimedia Commons and deleted from here. I have seen this happen: A user finds an image on the internet. They upload it and claim "self" via a CCL. The image has a credit in it - maybe a website, maybe a photographer. Another editor comes along and makes an "adaption" by removing the text but never says that the image is now an "adaption". Somewhere down the line the image is "moved to Commons" and the "source" is deleted here. At this point there is no indication the work is an "adaption", only that the file was uploaded at Wikipedia by "user:Istolethisimage". Unless someone actually spots the image and either knows it is there, or is a copyvio, there in no way to really verify if the uploader was, indeed, the true copyright holder. (And I am not saying that all uploaders are creating copyvios, only that the "original source" can be lost translation)
The other part of the Wikipedia issue is that CCL's are generic. They are worded to be used across any and all media - the "reasonable to the medium or means" is meant to reflect that, but too many take it solely to mean "a still image used at Wikipedia." Editors should understand the concept of "attribution" can be many things and found in various locations. A song licensed under a CCL might carry attribution requirements that the author and performer (and the musicians who played on it) have to be "attributed" if used in a film or on a CD, along with a copyright notice such as "copyright 2010 DIY records". But there may also be another attribution requirement that states if played on the radio only the performer has to be mentioned. Those are two very different "medium or means" of public display for the same media. You raised the issue of a film and a soundtrack - the exact same concept applies. There may be a large list of credits (Attribution) that is required to appear on the film itself. One can't simply cut off the head and tail credits and say "We consider attribution requirements to be satisfied because it is a 'reasonable manner' to show the poster outside of the theater" Or vice versa - again, "insert your use here" Common sense should dictate the obvious. If you remixed a soundtrack and than release it the license states "a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors." If the original mixer got a full card credit in the head credits for 15 seconds than the same type of credit must be provided to the remix.
Still images are not different in that sense. I can agree that File:Armand Vaillancourt by Joe Sioufi www.JoeSioufi.gif is a bit over the top, but, as far as the license itself goes, there is nothing "not allowable" about it. But, as I said, File:Armand Vaillancourt crop.png seems to break the actual License. And anyone who takes the croppped image and uses it would not have knowledge of the original, unmodified version. "Joe Sioufi" is listed as the source but the original text said "Armand Vaillancourt photographed by Joe Sioufi http://www.JoeSioufi.com" and the copyright notice that is one the original is not left intact. Nor is there any clear indication it is a (severely) cropped version of another image. Yes there is a link to the "source" here, but what if [:File:Armand Vaillancourt by Joe Sioufi www.JoeSioufi.gif]] is deleted?
What it comes back too is, first, what the actual copyright holder is saying. They may not list any sort of attribution or copyright notice, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't be listed if known. On the other hand they may be very explicit. The argument/s that is/are most used seems to split between "Wikipedia does not allow people to require attribution" (Ignoring the fact "cc by" is allowed) and "Wikipedia ignores any specific attribution requirements feeling as long as the uploaders name appears on the image page it satisfies the 'reasonable to the medium or means' portion." Both of those seem to be rooted in outdated guidelines/policy when it was fairly common for admins to delete images that claimed "copyright" or contained "conditions". There was (Maybe still is) an interesting discussion at Wikimedia Commons where someone uploaded an image using a CCL and paraphrased some of the terms. The files was sent to a deletion discussion, the argument being files with such restrictions are not accepted. Kind of silly in my eyes, not the license but the nom. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Denmark Japan Locator.png

I have changed the map. I want to ask if it still will be deleted? The map is used in many bilateral relations pages. Ahmetyal 13:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the map you made is based on an earlier map, perhaps File:BlankMap-World.png. Please state which maps you have based yours on. This will help researchers know what date the country borders are from, or what level of detail is included. Others could use this to make an SVG version. Even if the original is public domain, you should not claim credit for the whole of the work you made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Licencing the image

Hi,

I want to upload image files to use it in an article. The images can be put under Public Domain.. Whenever I select the apt licence.. I get the following message..

"Dear uploader: This media file, which you just uploaded, has been listed for speedy deletion because you indicated that only Wikipedia has permission to use this file. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, since explicit permission to use it was given, this is in fact not the case. [1] [2] Please do not upload any more files with this restriction on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it. See our non-free content guidelines for more information. If you created this media file and want it to be kept on Wikipedia, remove this message and replace this with {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. If you did not create this media file but want it to be used on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may replace this message with one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license."

I don't have clue where to put the tag and what to replace.. Can anyone please guide me? It is urgent.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanshi1323 (talk • contribs) 09:19, December 21, 2010

Thank you

Are you certain that you actually took the image and are the copyright holder? My google image search says the image came from facebook. Active Banana (bananaphone 14:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Image uploading

hello,

I want to upload images from this site. I sent an e-mail to this e-mail address. The webmaster or author gave me the permission to use the file. What should I do now, to get this under a free licence? Please answer me. I am a newbie about image uploading and the licensing stuff. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to provide evidence of the permission to OTRS. Once the permission has been reviewed and confirmed to be broad enough for Wikipedia (NB, restrictions for use just on Wikipedia are not sufficient), you can upload the images and they will be tagged with an appropriate OTRS template. – ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It also depends on what you asked of them and what they responded. Asking for permission to use on Wikipedia, and getting it, is not useful to us. They must have released the images under a free license. If you didn't ask for that, and didn't get it, you can read WP:COPYREQ for instructions on how to do so, and what to do with the result. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(edit conflict)

  • It depends on what the image is. If it is from the game than you need permission from Nintendo. If it is user created, but still from a game, than {{derivative}} would apply - meaning the permission would only apply to the image, not to the content - so the permission would still have to come from Nintendo. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I really, really need this maps. In the future I am going to improve this article, possibly to FL level. So I need this images badly. And thank you for your help; I never knew that it would move so fast (alot of edit conflicts).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
          • If you're intending on creating a list of maps for the game, and uploading images to depict each map, you'll end up violating WP:NFLISTS. Just in general; it's not common that we "really, really need" non-free content. I'd recommend a thorough reading of WP:NFC before continuing, and don't read it with a pre-biased eye that gleans out only the elements that seem to support your particular desired usage. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Emulators? Not sure what you're getting at, but if the game is originally authored by Nintendo, they hold rights to the maps. It is unlikely Nintendo would ever release rights to the maps under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Shadowstats.com images

Can the Shadowstats.com charts be uploaded under a free license? Their Chart's republish page states "ShadowStats.com gives you permission to re-publish any charts on our website except for subscription-only material" and that it requires hotlinking with "Courtesy of ShadowStats.com" link.Smallman12q (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Short answer, no. On that same republic page it notes "All Charts must be published without modification in any way". On Wikipedia, images not used under fair use and non-free content policy must permit derivative works. So, the charts might be 'free' but they're not free enough. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Photographs of recent artwork - OK for "fair use"?

For an article about the neon sculptor Stephen Antonakos, I'd like to use a photo of a sculpture located in a museum. The photo itself is a derivative work that can be licensed using a Creative Commons license (attribution-share alike), but Antonakos himself hasn't licensed the use of his sculpture in the image. Is this a Wikipedia-acceptable application for fair use? Thanks, Easchiff (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Where is the sculpture located? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • That's quick - thanks. The photo was taken during an exhibit in San Diego about a year ago (Museum of Contemporary Art in San Diego). Easchiff (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry the next response was slower! Anyway, in the United States, there is no freedom of panorama for works of three dimensional art. Therefore, whoever holds copyrights to the sculpture, also holds rights to derivative works, including photographic works taken by third parties. Since his work appears in public in countries where there is freedom of panorama for such works, uploading a non-free image of one of his works for purposes of general depiction of his work would not be acceptable, as free alternatives can be obtained. If the work in question is the subject of sourced commentary, a non-free image (i.e. photograph) of a given work might be acceptable. Probably sounds like you stepped in a spot of quick sand, huh? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks. In the article, there will be an explicit discussion of this sculpture. It's important to the article. To most art historians, Antonakos' most distinguished contributions were his pioneering neon works in the 1960s similar to this particular sculpture. I've scrounged around looking for photos of relevant sculptures taken at European installations - but no luck. Easchiff (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
          • That's the wrong direction to take. I think you need to look at his works from the 60s, and see where they are installed (images existing or no). If any are installed in countries with freedom of panorama, then your case for inclusion here of a non-free image wouldn't hold. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your thoughts. I may have to try to get a free-licensed image from Antonakos directly; he's got usable images on his website, but rights are reserved. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading

how to upload a picture??????????????????????????????????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittywrinklex3 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You need to be an autoconfirmed user; the criteria is that you are registered for four days and have made at least 10 edits. Right now you don't qualify but you can make a request at Wikipedia:Files for upload. ww2censor (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:WWTV5.jpg

This is obviously a copyrighted logo NOT created by the uploader. Not sure how to fix this for FAIR use. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

belated thank yous! Active Banana (bananaphone 19:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Aircraft's look.jpg and File:LSA plane.jpg

Would WP:WATERMARK apply to these images? The "Flight Design" on the logo refers to the plane's manufacturer. It could be cropped out of the second one. January (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

While both images have watermarks, so WP:WATERMARK does apply, however and more importantly, they have no source so we cannot actually check if the copyright status is correct as applied by the uploader. The Flight Design website clearly shows a copyright notice but I was unable to find the images and we would really need to get permission sent to the OTRS department for such images in order to confirm the copyright tag. I have tagged them for deletion as having no source. ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Jusst a note the uploader works for the company Flight Design and has been creating articles on the company products with text and image copied directly from the companies webpages. I understand they may be brought up at WP:COIN shortly refer Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. MilborneOne (talk)

Photos of posters (UK)

I hope these are OK, because they're helpful to the articles, but I can't be sure: File:Monken Hadley Common noticeboard.JPG and File:Coppett's Wood noticeboard.JPG. (I know no more than is on the image description page). ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Since you are reproducing a poster or sign, you don't actually own all the rights in your reproduction of it, so you are not entitled to release it to public domain. Copyright may be owned by Friends of Hadley Common for the first one. Although they may be useful, they are not actually "free" images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Ogmackie.jpg

File source problem with File:Ogmackie.jpg. I am not quite sure what you are asking here. The picture is over 100 years and was scanned from a photo in my personal collection. What is the exact issue? RichardLowther (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry Congressional Gold Medal

Sup WP:MCQ,

I am trying to upload an image of the Congressional Gold Medal issued to Oliver Hazard Perry. These medals are issued periodically from US Congress to certain individuals who have distinguished themselves in one way or another. I have two Options and would like your I/P. Here is the first:Image 1. Non-Gov website of a US Mint Issued reproduction. Can I upload it as PD with {{money-US}}? Here is the second: Image 2. Here the website claims a license but since it is a reproduction of a US Congress issued Medal, can {{PD-USGov-Congress}} apply here or on both? TY for your time. QuAzGaA 13:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding image 1, it's a medallion, not a unit of currency, so avoid {{money-US}}. Typical practice is to treat the coins as 3-D artwork, so the photo may embody the photographer's copyright, which is probably still in force—therefore avoid image 1. For completeness, there's also the matter of the diemaker's copyright (it involves craftsmanship that goes beyond reproducing the original sketch). Assuming that the restrike was using the 19th-century dies (and not new ones prepared recently), we can assume his copyright has expired (because it was created prior to 1923). And of course, the original designer's copyright is similarly expired (pre-1923).
Regarding image 2, we don't know if it's a reproduction (i.e. using the medallion as a model), or the original sketch used to create the medallion. This could be a work for hire, or could be the work of a government employee, so there might be a case for {{PD-USGov-Congress}} or the ordinary {{PD-USGov}}. But fortunately we don't need to care: image 2 was published in the United States prior to 1923 (1919, in fact), so it falls under {{PD-US}}. That's the most important fact here, and what normally allows you to take advantage of the policy that faithful 2-D reproductions are not eligible for an additional copyright.
However, the site hosting it claims: "It is true that the original drawings that many items in this collection are based on have long passed into the public domain. However, by the time we have scanned, cropped, cut out backgrounds, fixed broken lines, simplified, sharpened, and otherwise cleaned up the original drawing, the result is a new artwork derived from the earlier drawing. The derivative work is protected by copyright even though the original is in the public domain." At issue is whether that restoration process results in a new copyright, and the factual question of whether that particular image has been so altered. See Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag for a more thorough explanation.
Here, at page 260 ("Erie, Lake, Battle on"), is an image of the medallion in the book, scanned by Google from a University of Michigan original. If you are satisfied that there's no original artistic input in the USF scan, you can upload the high-resolution TIFF file to Wikimedia Commons (don't bother uploading at Wikipedia—the image can be still be used in articles if uploaded to Commons), tagging as {{PD-scan|PD-US}} per Commons:Template:PD-scan. If you're going to place it in the article, also enlist some assistance converting it to SVG (Commons:Help:SVG).
However, maybe there's an even better way to achieve the desired outcome: we could ask USF to upload their archive to Commons (technical assistance with that can be provided). If they can live with this, then that's a win for everyone. (If that appeals to anyone, interested Wikipedians should discuss logistics before proceeding.) TheFeds 08:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Help

I don't know how to find the liscense for File:Houthis.jpg. Could you help me find it? Thanks. American Idiot1 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We can try to give you advice, but you've got to tell us where the image comes from—sometimes that will allow us to determine the copyright status. Normally, when you upload a file, you have to already know what the licence is, or have to provide a valid fair use rationale.
The fair use rationale you've attached is incomplete, and in any case, the image doesn't appear to meet all 10 of the non-free content criteria. (Mainly #1: why couldn't it be replaced by a free equivalent? Is there something special about the event pictured?) TheFeds 18:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

i have uploaded an image of Suzanne de Passe. File:Suzannedepasse-photo.jpg This photo is a press-release, headshot image. Any help as to what copyright license should be included would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knssilm (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Press release images are usually copyright as this one is, (see the copyright notice at the bottom right of the source page), so there is no licence we can suggest you add to it. Besides that we don't accept unfree images of living people. Perhaps you can get the copyright holder give their permission to use the image as freely licenced (wikipedia use only is not sufficent), have them follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION, otherwise we cannot use it. Sorry ww2censor (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I am requesting permission from the copyright holder right now and will add the correlating tags to the image description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knssilm (talk • contribs) 06:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There is also the case of {{Non-free promotional}} Verapar (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone back me up or correct me re. the copyright question I raise here (with some Reliable Sources)? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Copyright#Originality_-_Can_I_get_some_more_opinions.3F The claim is indeed backed up by the source, but I'm willing to bet that authoritative sources contradict it. --Elvey (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Australia-geo-stub picture 35px.png

Doing some cleanup of old images and ran across this file. It is a derivative work of File:Australia-climate-map MJC01.png, which is GFDL/CC A/SA. However, the uploader of this file, now long gone, licensed it as PD. How should I fix this and attribute the derivative work? Kelly hi! 02:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a derivative template, on commons there is a better one that names the sources used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I can just change the license to the more restrictive one. Kelly hi! 06:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of toys

What's the latest consensus on toys? I ran across File:Armada Jetfire RM.jpg and File:Jetfire-classic.jpg - should they be tagged as {{non-free character}} or {{non-free 3D art}}? Kelly hi! 05:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Also File:Jet Convoy.jpg and File:Magna Jet Convoy.jpg. Kelly hi! 05:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
non-free 3D art looks like the correct template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm if I can upload this image

Please let me know if I can use the image of wood stem cell in the link below:

http://www.google.co.kr/imglanding?imgurl=http://www.pkwrite.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/wood-stem-cell-copy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pkwrite.com/blog/category/biophilia/&h=450&w=557&sz=276&tbnid=G8TW35j92a2NSM:&tbnh=107&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dplant%2Bstem%2Bcells&zoom=1&q=plant+stem+cells&hl=ko&usg=__0olihaz328q2qA80FsqqwpX2OHY%3D&sa=X&ei=nyQYTbuzKIKosQP924i9Ag&ved=0CFoQ9QEwAw

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 김찬양 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You cannot upload this image as it has not been released under a free license. No license has been granted on the page. You may be able to ask Patrick, who apparently took the photo to release it under a cc-by-sa-3.0 license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Too simple for copyright?

Is File:Beyoncé, "Broken-Hearted Girl" (2009 single).jpg under the correct license? I think that the font is too simple for copyright, but I would like a second, more experience opinion. Thanks in advance. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

But that's what the license says: "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:Threshold of originality#United States for decisions by courts and by the Copyright Office. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

help

File:Rattinasami_Nadar.jpg is a man who died on 1911 according to this reference http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2054164.pdf. I was trying to establish the source of the picture from the uploader and our coversation is here. i would like to know what would be the appropriate copyright tag. --CarTick (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If Mayan302 really did own IP on the image then PD-self would be appropriate. But it would need an explanation of why this ownership is so. Is this the first publication of the image? If it was published before then the law of the country it was published in may apply, and it may be {{PD-India}} but we may have to know when it was previously published, or whether creator died before 1950, which is likely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This pic is owned by the Nadar sagham(local caste association) for many years.it is widely used by the nadar sagham.n the sagham gave me the permission to use this pic where i want to.wat should i do? i dont if this pic was published b4 the independence o not.i jus know dat it is owned by the sagham.thank uMayan302 (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to provide evidence of the permission. Note that it has to be permission for all purposes, not just for use on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

ok...Mayan302 (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please detag File:Van and dog.jpg

Copyright tag is now in image.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on Edward Colver's wikipedia article (long overdo)

all the images belong to him and are his property.

what should the copyright tags be for HIS article which I am working on for him.

here's the images (so far)

File:Edward-Colvers-Flip-Shot.jpg and file:Punk-photographer-Edward-Colver-Brooklyn_Museum-sq.jpg

thanks very much indeed being an accomplished photographer, naturally we want to include a good selection of his powerful works which will speak louder than the words in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan martin (talk • contribs) 02:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Detaged, but the permission field needs to prvide evidence that the image is under free art license, because you are not the photographer. The procedure at WP:Permit explains how to prove permissions grants. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

tagging and copyrighting correctly

I want to include several photographs all rights belong to edward colver, and I am representing him and developing his article on his behalf with his permission.

how should I tag these shots?

here's one:

File:Edward-Colvers-Flip-Shot.jpg

also, is it ok to watermark his images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan martin (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all please take a look at WP:COI -- as his representative you have a big conflict. Second, to enable the images to be used on Wikipedia, the copyright owner should release the copyright as described in WP:IOWN. Note that a release for use on Wikipedia is insufficient, it has to be a release for all purposes. Third, see WP:WATERMARK. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

hello,

how do I upload a sound file here in the wikipedia with no copyright? And how do I find this copyright? For example: I am playing a youtube video, then I open Audacity and record it. Then I cut it a little bit off and save it as a ogg VORBIS file with unknown copyright holder. What should I do know? Whom I should send an e-mail? Please help me, I really have no idea what to do. The video is here. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)\

This is a Russian animated film released in 1966 (I've checked elsewhere). I believe that its copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author, so it's still in copyright. I believe that the sound carries at least the same copyright (can anyone tell me if 'isn't a soundtrack' for this sort of thing applies outside the US?). Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Under what tag should I upload it? The director lives, but I doubtly think, that the other participants still living. So please explain it to me, as a catechumen, what I should do now. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't. It's copyrighted, and we can't accept obvious copyright violations like that. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Licence Tag

I uploaded File:Poleshift-Spiral-WBN.jpg. I created it in 2002. It is free and open to all. It seems, that I did not give the right licence tag. I want to use the picture in an addition to the article "Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis". What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Baltensperger (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want it to be completely free you can tag it with {{PD-self}}. For a list of all free licenses you can use, see Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses. To use the image in an article, edit the article and add a link to the image using two brackets "[[ ]]" around File:Poleshift-Spiral-WBN.jpg but with no ":" at the beginning of the filename. If you want, you can also add "thumb" to make it a thumbnail, align it to the left or the right, add a caption, and specify the size in px in parameters of the link, separated from the filename by a pipe character "|". I hope that all makes sense to you, Jsayre64 (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the picture not showing up?

Tried to insert picture of PROJECT Trio into an article about PROJECT Trio. But all I get is a gray box, with my caption text. thumb|PROJECT Trio isn't that the code? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlinchong (talk • contribs) 21:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


File:PROJECT_Trio.jpg It's not showing up on the page. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlinchong (talk • contribs) 21:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Photos of trading cards

Can pictures of trading cards be used in Wikipedia articles? I mean is it a) generally okay to use such pictures and b) okay to use this picture (File:MagicCards.jpg) in the context of the Magic: The Gathering article to show what Magic cards look like.

Recently some IP-user was on a frenzy removing images like the one just mentioned from articles related to toys with the comment of "Derivative of non-free content: Derivative work of copyrighted ...". The picture I'm talking about above was amongst those. Can you give me some guidance here? All I can find is policies regarding copyrighted material, but how do pictures I take of copyrighted material relate to that? Nothing I could find seemed to be directly relevant to this picture. OdinFK (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

All Magic the Gathering cards (and their backs) are copyrighted by the game's publishers (in this case Wizards of the Coast) so any usage on Wikipedia has to conform to all 10 criteria in WP:NFCC and you would need to write a fair-use rationale for the image in question. There should also be 'critical commentary' in the text about the image. I see that the article already contains four non-free images and personally I am not sure that all of them are necessary (do we really need to see the card's back for example) and the fact that these are present means that the reader can already see what a Magic card looks like. Boissière (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Then I suppose some of the images are indeed not strictly necessary. The picture in question has six Magic cards depicted and thus fails 3a of WP:NFCC as the depiction of a single card would have almost the same effect, right?
Yes, a montage of multiple copyrighted images is (almost) unlikely to be justifiable in any circumstances. I see that the article is currently a GA. I don't know if you or the other contributors to the article are hoping to get it to Featured Article at all but if you are then you should know that the reviewers there are very hot on the justifications for non-free content. Boissière (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Currently nobody working on the article has the experience and/or drive to get it to FA, but generally it is one of the primary aims of the associated project. I will improve on the images. Thanks for helping out. OdinFK (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2010/December&oldid=1258408310"