Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/September

HOW TO LEAVE A TAG ON IMAGE!

11 License tagging for File:MARIE MATIKO 006DMV Meera Simhan 011 A.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MARIE MATIKO 006DMV Meera Simhan 011 A.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

HOW DO I LEAVE A TAG ON AN IMAGE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjj1987 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To add a copyright tag to an image do exactly what the message on your talk page tells you: "click on the link shown (i.e., the image page) and then click "Edit this page" (at the top of the image page) and add the tag to the image's page. However, this looks like a screenshot, so it is likely non-free, in which case you will have to obtain permission from the copyright holder and know exactly what copyright licence (i.e., copyright tag) they are releasing it under, otherwise we may not be able to keep it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read the section at the top of this page called "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". If you have specific questions about those steps, feel free to ask again. When you upload a file, if you fill out all the forms and drop down menus, the system will add a tag for you automatically. But if you forget to fill out all the forms when you uploaded, just follow the instructions I mentioned at the top of this page. Good luck. All that said, the image you uploaded appears to be a screenshot from TV or a movie. We generally do not accept copyrighted content that you don't own, such as that, and it will likely be deleted. Please read up on our image use policy (WP:IUP), and again, feel free to ask any questions you may have here.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

THE CAME FROM DATE MOVIE WHICH WAS MADE BY 20TH CENTURY FOX! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjj1987 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture of a Coffee House

I'm not sure what category this picture would fall under - I got it from their website, but anyone could have taken a picture of the coffee house. Is it automatically public domain or copyrighted since it's from their website? Also, is the fact that their logo gets caught in the picture a problem? ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The copyright belongs to whoever took the photo or the company they were working for at the time, unless the copyright holder has explicitly said otherwise. Basically, assume images are non-free unless you know otherwise. This would not be legit to upload. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of the logo in the photo would be OK because of de minimis, to answer your other question. I agree with J above. If you live in the same city as that building, just go there and snap a photo of it yourself (or you could locate a Wikipedian, probably, in that city to do it for you). good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tag

Please explain how I insert the tag. I own this photo and it is the right photo of Campbell Law School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolofLaw (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read at the top of this page "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". If you have further questions, please feel free to ask, but be more specific. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

i share the view of this author. why can't you editors just spend a minute explaning this complicated rule? by the way, you did not even give a link to the page "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". i suppose you guys really think everybody is so familiar here as you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhangbaozhong (talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I did not provide a link is because I said "Please read at the top of this page". This is such a common question, that we give the answer at the top of this page. Did you read it? Just scroll to the very top, and look for the text "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". We have it at the top to cut down on the number of users who ask it over and over (but apparently, it's placement still isn't enough to curtail all the question ;) Please, I urge you, read the section at the top of this very page (scroll up), and if you still have questions, feel free to ask them here. I'd be glad to help, but if you just want to know what's already written at the top of this page, it isn't that helpful for me to copy and paste that text down here, you know? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair use question: Clips of clips

I'm wondering about the use of an audio/video clip, or part of a clip.

Example:

• In a 3 hour radio show, there is a < 1 minute clip of a politician speaking (say, from a speech or other tv/audio source than the programme); would using that same clip infringe the copyright of those running the 3 hour show? On the one hand you have used a miniscule amount of the 3 hour show, but on the other you have used the entirety or substantial amount of their clip. What does the "substantiality" part of fair use apply to? The entire programme or to the clip? --bodnotbod (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On WP it is not if it is legally an issue, but if it meets our free content mission. (I would think in the US it would be hard to disqualify the claim of fair use of a 1 min clip from a 3 hr show). As for sounds, we only allow sound clips up to 10% or 30 secs in length, whichever is smaller (30 sec in this case), and re-encoded in a specific low bitrate (see WP:SAMPLE). But if it is just someone speaking and there's no need for the audio part, it is strongly recommended you highlight the key phrases that are needed to support the article in text and avoid adding any new non-free aspects in the first place. You can still source those quotes to the radio show, but you also can't quote a complete minute verbatim most likely. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be curious why we would need to hear someone speaking, when quoted text should suffice. I'm not sure such a clip would meet WP:NFCC #8 as hearing it wouldn't significantly increase our understanding more than text alone. Why not use a transcript? It's more accessible that way anyway (but keep in mind, we also have limits on the amount we can quote from copyrighted sources as well). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair point. I guess my thinking is that some people might question a citation that consists of, say, a radio programme on the grounds that someone will struggle to verify what was said; clearly if you have the audio it is much more persuasive (albeit someone could conceivably do an impression of a voice). --bodnotbod (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A last request

This is my last request. I was talking with a lot administrators and no one wanted to help me. When I was started at Wikipedia I didn't knew how editing working so I was made I a lot mistakes and now I only want that to be deleted because is no need to be there. My only request is if there are somebody that can do this, is to delete my contributions in history of this uploaded file and to delete in my Upload log page all files that were been deleted because there is simply no need to be in that list. If there is someone who is willing to do this little thing, I'll be eternally grateful. Thanks in advance. Corey.7.11.1992 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

please don't be too concerned over making mistakes. An upload mistake is corrected by deleting the uploaded file. Unless you made an offensive file name or summary there seems to be no reason to hide the entry on the upload log. Are you trying to invoke the WP:Right to vanish or trying to remove your errors from the log? From the upload log you cannot tell if there was any problem, and at least some of your uploads are good with fair use rationales. By mentioning it here you have advertised what you did, however if you still want to delete but not say why in public, you are welcome to email me and explain the reason. Don't be embarrassed by a mistake that you learned from. I have uploaded many files that have since been deleted, because they ended up known to be copyright violations or fair use that became unused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted Photo with Holder's Permission

I may be able to obtain permission to use an image from the holder of its copyright. If so, what do I need to do to satisfy WP's requirements re: yes, the image is under copyright, but the holder of that copyright is granting permission for it to be used?

Thanks!

We hope (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The process is explained at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

tag

dear editor,

I must say I was so frustrated by the tag sytems you have here. It's so horribily compilicated for someone who is not familiar with this. I am simply the creator of the image and certainly have the copy right for this, and this is clearly indicated in the decription of the image, I do not understand what else information you want. I have briefly read your instructions, but I did not find the place for the creators.

sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhangbaozhong (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the creators section: WP:ICTIC. Anything else I can help you with? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to resolve copyright issues File:End_of_texts.jpg‎

Hi, Re: File:End_of_texts.jpg‎.

I've sent the Email Michael Krausz copyright email for this to permissions address. I've also asked him about the permission for krausz2.jpg. I tried adding some information in the meantime. The entire process is far more complicated that we imagined and I can only hope I'm getting it right eventually.

Thank you. Elizabeth D. Boepple —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eboepple (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

how to add copyright tag to an uploades picture

how to add copyright tag to an uploades picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel344 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The top of this very page has instructions on how to do just that! -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Santa Fe F7 300C.jpg

Dash bot removed this picture from my user page twice. The file has a notice that requires the person who uses the file to put the website on or near the picture. here you can see that I have done all that is required. Am I missing something? Fastily was my original contact and s/he agrees with me. User:Tim1357 suggested me here. thanks--intelati 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Dashbot sees this, and other images with the {{Trainweb}} template as non-free images and has remove it from your user page for that reason per WP:NFCC#9. That template was deleted from the commons in 2007 but was recreated here and all the images tagged with it are strictly speaking non-free so any images using the template should really have a fully completed fair-use rationale for each use. ww2censor (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Soo...Can I use it, or not? --intelati 02:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This one is not an easy yes or no, but probably not on any of your userpages. ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Can we change the tag?--intelati 03:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm done. This is annoying so do what you want. 10-4. Peace out.--intelati 04:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Identical images on Commons and Wikipedia with different sources

File:Convention placement vues dessin technique (fixed).svg and File:Convention placement vues dessin technique.svg are local and Commons images respectively. It seems that they were independently created, even though they're identical. How do I go about deleting them under F8? Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well update all the pages using the local file to use the commons file. Then you can add the db-f8 template to the unwanted local file. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what I mean; since the en:wp is in the public domain, should I attempt to re-mark the Commons image as PD, since it's clearly just a copy of the (older) PD work here at en:wp? My problem is that the Commons image uploader may be falsely claiming copyright, since I have a hard time believing that these images could be pixel-by-pixel identical by accident. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

fair use of artist's painting

Can I upload an image of an artist's work if the image is very small (500 pixels) and low res and call it fair use? If yes, what is the limit to the number of images for a single artist? In all cases the images would be shown as representative examples of the artist's work. Also, if yes to above, I do not see a "fair use" copyright upload option?

This could be fair use. The normal size though would be 300 pixels. The article would have to talk about that particular picture. You could use one or two, but more would look like excessive use. An artist could release a low res under a free license themselves, and thereby allow use of more images in an article. use the template:information and Template:Non-free use rationale templates. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential photos for Razer (robot) - can they only ever be fair use?

I am in the process of extensively reworking the article for Razer (robot), a successful contestant from the British television series Robot Wars. In doing so, I have contacted the team captain of the trio who constructed and maintained Razer and asked if he has images of the robot that could be released under WP:CC-BY-SA. Discussions are positive; he's pleased there is an article on his machine and happily sent through a number of excellent photos. I've asked him to confirm the free licence under which he would be willing to release the photos (if any). However, I became aware yesterday afternoon that toys, sculptures, and so forth cannot be the subject of free licensed images on Wiki(p/m)edia because they are considered derivative works.

My question, therefore, is whether I should continue in asking the robot's owner for a free licence to use his photo when it can, by nature, only ever be a derivative work and hence fair use? Forgive me, I am no legal expert. The machine is very much a mobile 3D-sculpture - here's an off-Wikipedia photo if you've never seen Razer/Robot Wars.

Please let me know if there is anything else which I need to ask Razer's roboteer, or indeed further information I can supply myself.

Thank you very much for your time. Best wishes, CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 09:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The creator of the toy can grant a free license, so a blanket statement about toys and sculptures is incorrect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I follow that. What would I need to ask the creator of the robot to grant in order to use his photos - a free licence for the images is a given, but what about the photo being a derivative work based on the robot itself? How does that work? Thanks for your help. :-) -- CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 13:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem. A similar example is File:KeysToCommunity.jpg, a photograph of a statue that hasn't itself been released into the public domain or under a free license; this image is fine because the sculptor photographed it and posted it online with an explicit CC-by-3.0 release statement. Any copyright holder has the right to permit derivative works to be released under a free license; we don't need the subject of the photograph to be released. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you so much for clarifying. If I may ask a related question, I have contacted a user on Flickr who photographed Razer at a live event back in 2005. The photos with most encyclopaedic value were listed as 'All Rights Reserved'; I have contacted the photographer to ask if he is willing to release the photos in question as WP:CC-BY-SA, or similar. In this case, where the photographer is not one of the team behind the robot, is there anything I should be aware of in seeking the use of these images? Thanks once again, CountdownCrispy ^{talk contributions} 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that photographs of toys, sculptures etc are derivative works and have the potential to infringe the copyright of the creator of the toy, sculpture etc. Assuming your photographer took pictures of Razer in the UK, s17.3 of the Copyright Designs And Patents Act 1988 would apply In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work. (US legislation is very similar here). Hence, while your photographer could quite legitimately release a picture of Craig Charles taken at the event, he cannot release the image of Razer, as he does not hold the copyright. The Razer team can release photographs, because they hold the copyright in both the photo (assuming the creator of the robot took it, or had it taken as a work for hire by a pro photographer) and the robot itself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I follow. Forgive me - I openly admit that whilst I know a lot about the subject of this article (and related articles which I hope to expand in due course), copyright is by no means an area of expertise. Thank you very much for your help. :-) CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 22:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No problems, copyright's not something most people have to deal with.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FfD input request

Could someone assist with an opinion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 3#File:Dagbladet 1995-09-02.png? __meco (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

1648 map

Joan Blaeu (1648) Regiones Inundatae - The Fens

I have a map Blaeu, J (1648) Regiones Inundatae which I purchased for £1 from my local library. I would like to scan and upload this map into wikimedia commons. However, I suspect, despite its age, this modern facsimile of this old map has a modern copyright. Would I be correct? --Senra (Talk) 14:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• That depends. If it's a slavish reproduction of the original, with no new content added to the map, then the producer can't claim copyright any more than I could claim copyright on a map made today, just because I reproduced it. The copyright of the original long ago expired (if ever it really existed). A derivative work might be copyrightable, depending on how it was done. But, a slavish reproduction is not such a work, as no new material that could convey a copyright exists. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • as a result of the response above, the map (pictured) has been uploaded to wikimedia commons using {{PD-old-100}}{{PD-1923}} tags. For anyone interested, I may use this map for one or more of Aldreth, Hereward the Wake, Gesta Herewardi and maybe Little Thetford, as it shows the area flooded as it was in 1648 and possibly it would have been similarly flooded in the 12th century too. It also shows the course of the River Great Ouse further south-east of Ely from where it is now --Senra (Talk) 18:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Now seeing the map itself, it certainly appears very much as a slavish copy of the 1648 original. They can't claim copyright on it. They can certainly charge for it if they like; nothing stopping them from doing so. But (noting that I am not a lawyer), any attempt to defend their 'copyright' in court would most likely fail. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How to licence

I uploaded the file File:St. Matthew's Academy, Saltcoats.png which is a photo I took myself that I'm willing to release into the public domain. I'm new to uploading photos to wikipedia and I would like some advice on how I should license it. MWhite148 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit the file description page and add {{PD-self}}. This sort of material could go on Wikimedia commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Google Maps or Wikimapia

In order to give reference to a city or town on Wikipedia, I need to put a small portion taken from Google Maps of that town. Please help me if there are any restrictions to it and if not what should I select if I wanted to upload this image file. Thanks. Bariuk (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Google Map images are not free and cannot be used. Please use {{Location map}} or something similar instead. §hep^Talk 23:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the File (File: KERN-AM.jpg) alright now, or is it still up for speedy deletion. To me, it should be o.k. now! (JoeCool950 (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC))

Claimed Fair Use

300px

This picture of the new iPod nano claims fair-use, however it is also claimed to be a direct copy from [1]. I don't see how a picture posted on Apple's web site here could be construed as a press kit. Is this really fair-use? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Once the product is released it will not be fair use because the image could be replaced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks! Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

“Happy Birthday” lyrics

Is it allowed to use the “Happy Birthday” lyrics as a page title? --84.61.172.89 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether a copyright applies is controversial. See Happy Birthday to You. In my opinion, copyright has expired based on its 1912 publication, but a false claim to copyright was made in 1935, so as long as courts in USA recognise that, it would not be appropriate to have the entire lyrics as a title. It would be excessively long and repetitious as a title anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia images of Native AMerican basket makers in a book about California basketry

I have tried to understand the copyright rules for use of Wiki images in a book, but failed. Specifically, Wiki has a number of images of Native ASmerican basket weavers such as Dat So La Lee, Lucy Telles, Carrie Bethel, etc., which we would like to use in a commercial book (with appropriate references). Exactly how do we go about doing this; are the images in Wikipedia free to be used for a book, or do I have to locate each and every original owner of the image and contact them? There are 6 or 7 such images of interest. Thanks Gene . —Preceding unsigned comment added by GXMeieran (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you click on each image you will get the description page, and a link to the full size. There is a section called licensing that explains it. For File:Datsolalee2.jpg it is on Wikimedia commons, and you can read it is public domain and why. This means that you can reuse and modify the image as much as you like, and not credit is necessary, however you may wish to explain where the picture came from to show authenticity. For File:Carrie Bethel.jpg copyright was from the US government, so you are free to reuse etc as well. You will almost always be able to use images from Wikipedia in a book, as that is the intention of Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. (the disclaimer here is to check that the license looks valid, as some upload incorrect licenses). Even if the image had a creative commons license, you should be able to attribute the photographer with a name given on the description page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Images taken from Facebook

Hi, I go to Kean University, and I've realized that the school's wiki page doesn't have any images of the school. So I'm wondering if I can take images from the school's facebook page, and add it to it's wiki.

Here's the url: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=169317&id=33035876673

The images were posted by Kean University on their facebook page. Since the images were taken by the school for promotion of the school, I don't see why the school wouldn't allow the images to be viewed on their wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzey jon (talk • contribs) 19:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

But when it comes to copyright matters we cannot rely on such an assumption. We have to assume they are subject to copyright and without a specific release or a Wikipedia-appropriate license, we cannot use them. As you are a student there, why don't you take some pictures and upload them to Commons under an appropriate license so that they are available to all Wikimedia projects? – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Note a specific problem is that even if we assume the university will have no problem with their images being viewed on their wikipedia page, which is problematic in itself, it doesn't mean they are willing to release them under a license we would accept. We don't accept images simply released for wikipedia or allowed to be used for promotional purposes but require a free license which allows anyone to use them, in accordance of the terms of the license, including making derivatives and for commercial use. This means someone could sell their images, use them in a book, use them to criticise the university etc without requiring permission from the university or running afoul of copyright problems. Many people are in fact not willing to release an image under a free license even if they are technically willing to let us use them Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reproduction of Australian Banknotes & Coins

I've started a template Template:Non-free currency-AU-Note with information about a general permission for reproductions of Australian banknotes, using information from the Reserve Bank of Australia. I've placed it on File:100_Australian_dollars_front.jpg, but can't get to the commons banknotes File:AUS$20 Mary Reibey.jpg and File:AustraliaPNew-5Dollars-(20)05-donatedowl f-1-.jpg at the moment. I imagine there are many other images of Australian Banknotes on Wikipedia - we could start with Banknotes of the Australian dollar.

I've also started one for Template:Non-free currency-AU-Coin with information about applying for permission to reproduce Australian coins. Since the Mint reserves permission, a free-use rationale is required. Some of the existing ones are incorrect as they assume that a photographic (2D) representation is not copyrighted by the Mint.

I've tackled most of the coins on Coins of the Australian dollar, but I'm not sure about pre-1969 coins, which the Royal Australian Mint doesn't own the copyright on. Who does? twilsonb (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics#Reproduction of Australian Banknotes & Coins twilsonb (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A revisions deletion.

Hi, I have a small request if someone can do. That is if is possible to delete in my contributions page three revisions. It was this, this and this. I am for a long time on Wikipedia so I really don't want to somebody tell me that we all make a mistakes and that revisions from actual articles can't be deleted. I know that can't be deleted all but I don't want to be deleted all, just these three. So if someone want to delete I will be very grateful, and I really don't think that this is a big thing for doing. Thanks in advance. - InfamousPrince (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again/still, wrong place. As the header says "This page is for questions about copyright on images and media on Wikipedia. If you have a question about how to use Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk". If you want any of your contributions deleted, check out Wikipedia:Help desk or somewhere else. In any case, I can tell you the chance your contributions will be deleted just because you made a mistake (baring cases like when that mistake is something that violates copyright where our intention is to remove the copyright violations or you revealed private information where our intention is to do our best to hide that information again) is basically zero. And yes, we do all make mistakes, people won't or shouldn't hold it against you if they're just minor things and you do your best to avoid repeating them. In fact if anything, your question here is more likely to negatively affect people's opinions of you then your mistakes. Just learn from your mistakes and move on. There's no need to change account or delete the revisions or whatever so people don't know you make mistakes. Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Big Dig#Origin

Big Dig#Origin includes several continious paragraphs which are direct quotes from an interview. While these are clearly presented as quotes and sourced to the interview transcript, other then being a poor way of writing an article, do others feel this likely raises copyright concerns? Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright expired?

In looking at the information for "Darnley stage 3.jpg", the assertion is raised that the copyright on the original two-dimensional portrait has expired. Because the painting is believed to be from ca. 1575, before the creation of copyright, how can this be?

Van —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanhorn (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the USA taking a photo of a two-dimensional portrait is not considered a creative act so the copyright on the photo expires the same time as the original portrait (or if the work was already too old for copyright protection when the first copyright law was passed, then both the photo and portrait were always in the public domain). Jc3s5h (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Felipe de Souza Campos

Hello

Please re-image the former Brazilian player Felipe de Souza Campos

Now there is a new image of the same name !

Thanks Slmcom Slmcom (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you want this deleted, renamed? --I'ḏ♥One 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Logo image

I plan to use File:Damaged Chase logo.jpg in this essay, but I'm not quite 100% that I really have the choice to license the image. Is my photo focused on the logo? If it is, is still okay because the logo is damaged? It's okay if I have to take down the image but I'd still prefer not to. Jsayre64 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore my above question. I have just gotten an answer (that fair use does not apply in userspace) on the help chat. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Image problem

Yesterday, I uploaded the following image:

file:RDKeyes_Monterey_Coast.jpg

There was an issue with the copyright status, which I resolved. The image will sill not appear on my user page:

en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Jevid

I have several other images on the user page, and they show up fine. Can you tell me why the above image will not appear?

Thanks!

Jevid (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong place next time try, WP:Help desk as the header recommends. Also do remember do give a header to your question, I've added one for you. It may be better to use the 'new section' tab rather then adding your question to the end of an existing discussion. But I fixed your problem with the image which was due to you linking to the wrong image name in your user page. The image is called "RDKeyes Monterey Coast.jpg" not "RDKeyes Monterey Coast.JPG". Case does matter, except for the first character. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

German government images during World War II

I vaguely remember seeing somewhere that images produced by the German government during World War II are now in the public domain, both in Germany and in the USA. Is this correct, or are they still under copyright? I wonder because I came across this image, which was taken by a German military officer and which may be deleted because of an insufficient fair use rationale. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed in various places over the years. In general, these images are not public domain in Germany (there was confusion on this point for a while, over a misunderstanding of the difference between a "photograph" and a "photographic work"). Images from the German government archives seized by the Allies have historically been treated as public domain in the seizing country, but I don't know if that's still the case. --Carnildo (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We've looked into this question in a lot of depth, and with the help of our colleagues on dewiki, and the answer is basically no: these photos are not in the public domain. German law has a very restrictive view of what is an "official document", and it is almost impossible to see that any image would pass that test: the German courts have ruled in the past that the copyright of photographs taken by servicemen on duty belongs to the photographer, not the state. Obviously, enwiki has been quite understanding towards non-free use claims that such images are irreproduceable, so long as other non-free content criteria are met. Physchim62 (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of image from website

Hello there, I wanted to use these images on the page Baloch people since images are hard to get from that region. Can I use these images? and how do I reference them?

http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Middle_East/Iran/East/Sistan_va_Baluchestan/Zabol/photo971396.htm http://iranbaluch.4t.com/photo.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC) BalochMedia (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The first website has a clear copyright notice of the photographer and on the second website there are no statements regarding copyright but the images look like a collection of different style photos taken from other websites; some even have watermarks. None of the images found on these pages are clearly freely licenced so I am sorry but we cannot use them unless you get permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I just wanted to add on a couple of things - at face value the first image would not be acceptable for use anyway because according to the website's TOU all images are to be used for non-commercial use only. Beyond that it also states that You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit, publicly display, prepare derivative works based on, or distribute in any way the images located on the site (or anything else). The website has a nonexclusive global license to publish the content and global nonexclusive adaptation rights over any content. The use of "nonexclusive" implies you could still contact the photographer and have them send an email to OTRS.

The next part is just information to think about - the photographer lives in Iran. Given that than this may be relevant: According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office (Download PDF from the US Copyright office), Iran has no copyright relations with the United States. In plain English, anything that has originated in Iran is not under any copyright in the United States. It is important to note that if it was unpublished it is under copyright here - but if it were unpublished we would not be having this discussion. According to Section 104 of title 17 of the United States Code if, on the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party, or is a stateless person, wherever that person may be domiciled than the image would be under copyright. That does not seem to be the case with this image. However the next section may apply - If the work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party than the United States honors a copyright. As the TrekEarth.com website is registered to a company in El Segundo, CA it would appear the image is now protected by a copyright.

As an add on - the second link does not contain that much information, but if all the images were first published in Iran than the above would apply as there would be no copyright. The problem is there is not much information about the source of the images.

I guess this was more of an FYI than anything. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I've never understood details of the fair use criteria

Having written James L. Swauger, I'm tempted to upload this image of him; it's not free, but he's been dead for several years, and I don't believe that this will harm commercial opportunities. However, I've never exactly understood — to what use must I put this portrait of Swauger in order to fulfill criterion #8? I can't produce any sourced commentary on the image itself (it's just a portrait that I would add to his article exclusively to demonstrate his appearance), so I have a nagging feeling that it would be nominated for deletion (regardless of the fair use rationale) because it will never be the subject of sourced commentary. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about 8. There's been a lot of debate about it's wording in the past (WP:NFCC8). My personal favorite template to use with these types of images is the one at File:Elmer Gedeon.jpg, but File:Jack warner.jpg passed an FAC with its rationale so that form should work as well. §hep^Talk 20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; I've uploaded as File:James L. Swauger.jpg with a slightly modified version of the Gedeon description page. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

American town flags/symbols/insignia

How can a flag not be free-use? They're meant to be seen and used, the idea of a flag not being free-use seems unreasonable, especially in the US where almost everything made by or for government-related usage is free. Any way I was asked on my talk page about these files. Are town symbols free? --I'ḏ♥One 23:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

US Federal government has free works, local and state governments typically exert control over their images. In this instance it does not appear that these symbols are free. §hep^Talk 01:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any real rule that says a flag isn't free? If the flag was created, approved and claimed by the town then the image replicator can't claim much ownership of these uploads. --I'ḏ♥One 03:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Rule? No. Law? Yes. Copyright law. Within the U.S., whether you display a flag only indoors in a private office our outdoors on a flag pole makes no difference. Copyright is, for many years now, conferred on creation of an original work. A flag qualifies. There's no special application required to gain copyright. It's automatic. Until such time as we have proof of release under a free license or public domain, then a local or state government can claim rights. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• These flags weren't released to Wikimedia by the town. One is from a travel site, the other apparently an advertising company, therefore they're not even apart of the government that is using these flags. --I'ḏ♥One 13:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• And? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• And in that case how are either of those above websites eligible to decide what the copyright of the flags are? And why are we just assuming that insignia is under a copyright if its "owners," presumably the town, don't seem to make any effort to demonstrate that they have, claim or even want their logos copywritten? For instance, no one seems to have dome so on a big city's flag like New York's and if it was under copyright it should require fair use, shouldn't it? And that would severely cut the number of pages linking to it, as it would the USA's flag. The concept of a flag being copywritten also makes me wonder about the subject of flag burning. And isn't the usage of a flag, since it's a represenative symbol the same as giving credit of that flag; For instance, if a US flag is placed somewhere, isn't that essentially as though the flag itself contains the USA's "signature" since the flag is meant to represent the USA? --I'ḏ♥One 15:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless of where the images were grabbed from, the original creators (usually) is the actual source and rights holder. The place where the images were grabbed might have permission to use the images from the rights holder. Doesn't matter in any case. We assume things are copyrighted because in the U.S. things are automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation. That's law. Any given web site doesn't have to explicitly state their material is copyrighted in order to enjoy the protections of copyright. If you want to ask the rights holder for release of an image under a free licenses, follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Note that getting permission to use on Wikipedia is insufficient, and such images are routinely deleted (see Wikipedia:CSD#F3). As for the Flag of NYC, it is public domain by way of age. Things created prior to 1923 are generally (not always, but generally) in the public domain by way of law with respect to age. That's the case with this flag. See Government_of_New_York_City#Official_seal_and_flag. The licensing on Commons is actually incorrect, but still a free license nonetheless. The remaining issues in your post do not pertain to copyrights, though I will say that whether something is copyrighted or not does not affect whether it can be burned or not under law. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "We assume things are copyrighted because in the U.S. things are automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation. That's law." Not quite, almost anything made by a US federal government agency, ex: The white house, NASA, Department of Agricultural, a branch of the military is instantly public domain unless stated otherwise, which is what makes me wonder if things created by more local government areas are free, in fact THIS seems to prove that the flag and seal of the town I was asked about is in the public domain. --I'ḏ♥One 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • It varies from state to state and the ky words you used are unless stated otherwise. That can amount to an awful lot. For example in Florida state university are allowed to obtain, and retain, trademarked logos. As are any state agency that needs a logo in connection with the sale within this state of goods or services. A state police department may also be able to due to the misuse or deceptive use of state agency seals or logos. In specif regards to California - Trademarks and Service Marks suggests trademarks are allowed - The Secretary of State’s office maintains registration and all updates of California state trademarks and service marks. For more on that, the California Business and Professions Code, in particular the Model State Trademark Law, has details.

Also I think a lot of people get confused in regards to a trademark/logo and copyright. According to the US Copyright office copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark. A lot of the boiler plate gov temples in use go off the broader "It's PD" concept without bothering to specify there may be exceptions in regards to logos/trademarks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• IdLoveOne; I was speaking to the abstract not the specific, attempting to educate you on the matter. Of course there are exceptions. There's exceptions to just about every law under the sun. That's not the point. You were apparently of the belief that we need to find proof of copyright before we can assert something is non-free. That's backwards. I hope you understand that now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To above - I'm still not convinced. Firstly, does a flag qualify as a logo? That seems to me to come close to comparing a government to a business. According to the SOS page a "registration" only lasts 10 years max, so if this is older than that does that clear everything up? Nextly, yeah, if you want to join a WikiProject to relabel each and every license template, go ahead, but I think most people know the exception/loophole thing about most laws. I'm gonna have to try and get some real clarification. And no, I listed a bunch of reasons above for my feelings. If it was a photograph a person has a right to decide what happens with their image or work, privacy.. Or a piece of recently created artwork I could understand, but the design of a government flag is made to be public and I would assume the artist(s) release the design to the community in question. --I'ḏ♥One 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • All I can tell you, as I've said above, is that your assertions regarding things intended to be put into the public eye are false. LOTS of things are intended to be displayed in front of the public, yet carry copyright. Just because something is to be public doesn't mean people automatically waive their copyrights. For example, sculptures displayed in public places in this country can maintain copyright, even on photographs taken of them. See {{Non-free 3D art}}. Whether or not something is displayed publicly has absolutely NO effect on whether it is copyrighted or copyrightable. A particular thing might be free of copyright due to other considerations, but not in any sense because it happens to be in a public place (the exception here being in the U.S.; architectural works, but that's not the case in every country). Flags are no special exception to copyright law. An entity that otherwise is not required to vacate copyright on works they create can create a flag and maintain copyright on it. I'm sorry we have failed you in conveying to you that this is the case. Feel free to explore other options for having this explained to you. However, I can assure you that such efforts will not result in a different result than the one being explained to you here. Many flags can and are copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this site follow your sharing policy?

I was looking on the web and I found this web site mirrored your information and I did not see attribution to Wiki. It looked copied.

http://closefocusresearch.com/22-long-rifle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.229.112 (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It says "Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the bottom of the page.Smallman12q (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Uploading an image to Wikipedia page

Hi,

I would like to upload an updated image of thin film to the Wikipedia page entitled 'Thin Film Drug Delivery.' I do not own the image, but I work on behalf of the company that does. What approval / credentials do I need to produce in order for Wikipedia to allow me to upload this image of thin film?

Also, can you provide me with a simplified explanation of the steps required to upload the image once I obtain the necessary permissions / licenses / credentials for the image?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ereiss (talk • contribs) 15:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Upload to upload an image to this Wiki, or you can go to the main page to see links on your left to other language Wikis where you can upload it or you can upload it to Commons which is inter-lingual (the link to the upload page should be in the second >carrot marked 'Toolbox', Commons might not be best in the cases of some images due to different copyright laws in different countries, though Commons is usually the preferred route, that link will be in >Participate also on your left. You'll see that most images on Wikipedia are uploaded or have been moved to Commons - Note the statement "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons..."). That and an account is all you need to upload the image, though, yes, you will have to state ownership and possibly prove you're allowed to upload it or it could be nominated for deletion. When you upload a file there's a form you fill out that'll show the name, author, source etc. Here are some English Wikipedia copyright tags, here are some for Commons (because they're different projects they generally don't work interchangeably, but the tags will be shown on any language Wiki page of the image). I hope I explained that well enough, let me know if I didn't. --I'ḏ♥One 15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on your comment (I do not own the image, but I work on behalf of the company that does.) the answer to your question is, before you upload the image, have the copyright holder send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org (if you are uploading it here) using the sample template found at Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Make sure you list the name of the file, as it will be uploaded. Use a unique name - not just "Filexyz_123.jpg"ot the like. *After* this email is sent, upload the image and place a {{OTRS pending}} tag on the image page. I advise you to use the template found at the "Mini how-to" and than place the tag next to "Permission". When an OTRS team member reads it you will get a reply with a ticket number. If you upload the image after this reply you can tag the image with {{PermissionOTRS}}. If there are any questions please drop me a not on my talk page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT QUESTION: WOLFRAM AICHELE

I have just been informed that the pictures used on the entry for Wolfra Aichele page are at risk of deletion because I neglected to put a copyright tag on them. Help! Wolfram Aichele owns the copyright for all images that begin WOLFRAM-AICHELE. Please can someone add a copyright tag to these so that they do NOT get deleted. Thanks. MisterHistory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterhistory (talk • contribs) 13:01, 9 September 2010

I just noticed this on my watchlist and it appears from the above that Misterhistory isn't clear what the situation is (or maybe is clear as he reverted it just after he wrote it, and I'm putting it back). It looks as though the files he uploaded, eg File:WOLFRAM-AICHELE-PARIS.jpg are copyright. So perhaps they should be deleted until and if someone releases the copyright? Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Have I done this right?

File:Dernier-mohican-giffeu-delagrave_1937.jpg The person who uploaded it claims to be the creator of the image, which seems highly unlikely as it's the cover of a 1937 French copy of the Last of the Mohicans, and I don't think he's a nonagenarian. I think it's a good faith error in that I believe he photographed the book cover, although it's unlikely to be PD unless the creator died shortly after the book was published. The image is on Commons - I've warned the uploader that he needs to have another look, and maybe move it to en.wiki where it may be possible to use it under our non-free content rules. Have I tagged it correctly - I don't understand Commons tagging at all? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes and no - as the file is not at Wikipedia but Commons the deletion tag here doesn't really do anything. The deletion process there is very different than here as well. You are correct however in that the uploader is most likely *not* the author of the artwork, nor representing the books publisher. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Urk. That figures. I kind of hoped if you tagged it here it would transclude there. Do you know what tag I need to add to the Commons image? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already done it. You can read about the Commons deletion process here: Commons:Deletion Policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why there is a problem with the copywrite for my image

I recently uploaded File:LogoBrumHums.jpg to Wikipedia Commons and clearly stated that I created the logo and own the copywrite and that I am happy for other people to use it. I can't understand what else I need to do. Can somebody help please?

John Edwards signyred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.105.249 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You would need to being that question to Commons if you also uploaded it there. (Although I cannot find any image with that name at Commons) The version here was deleted August 14 as F4: Lack of licensing information. You may want to read the Mini how-to guide and use the suggested template next time you upload an image. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pax cultura logo

The Pax cultura symbol

The description page for File:Pax cultura.svg states that the image is "a logo of an organization, item, or event, and is protected by copyright", but I can find no evidence that this is the case. I think this is most likely an ancient and un-copyrightable symbol, and the warning can be removed. --Doradus (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a ∴ --I'ḏ♥One 20:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Without question this logo is ineligible for copyright being composed of a simple circle and three dots, so should be licenced as {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-shape}} or even {{PD-textlogo}} but in respect of its use by an organisation should be tagged with the {{trademark}} template and the fair-use rationale can be changes for a simple information template. ww2censor (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your opinion. I'll make the changes you suggest. I'm also dubious that this is a trademark, but it can't hurt to err on the side of caution. --Doradus (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

However there is no source information, etc., so please fill in as best you can, the missing data. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I did a Google search for "pax cultura", browsed the resulting pictures, and then drew our image file from scratch, making it look like a kind of "average" of the images I found. Not very scientific. Do I need to do something more than what I've already done on the file's page? --Doradus (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So just say that you made the image based on other images found online. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done. Thanks again. --Doradus (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Replacing an image with a better version and copyright concern

Hello, checking on the presence of a paiting I have seen this morning in the Prado Museum in Madrid I have confirmed it is available in a rather blurry version here http://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/wiki/File:Cornelius_van_Dalem_001.jpg. I found a much better version here http://www.kalipedia.com/literatura-universal/tema/prosa-renacentista-ficcion.html?x=20070418klplylliu_80.Kes . Would it be ok for me to replace the present verion with this one or would I be breaking some sacred copyright law written at the time of Moses? The painting itself must be in the public domain as the author died in the 16th century...--Rowanwindwhistler (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The painting itself may be in PD but whoever took the image may not have placed their image of it into PD. A quick look at the second link has © Prisacom S.L.- Gran Vía, 32 - 28013 Madrid [España] Tel. 91 353 79 00 at the bottom of the page. I would contact them to see what the image license is before uploading it here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if the photo is a "slavish reproduction" of the painting, then the photo is not sufficiently creative to be copyrightable on its own, and would therefore be PD just like the painting. --Doradus (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying - last time I checked Madrid was in Spain and the website this image in on is in Spain, and a photographer in Spain, or from Spain, holds the copyright to the images they take anywhere in the world. It doesn't matter if the the picture is of a reproduction of a PD painting - the picture of it is still available for copyright in Spain. My suggestion to Rowanwindwhistler is still valid - contact the person/business in the copyright notice. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

And Wikipedia's servers are in the US. Generally speaking, for images that are simply reproductions of 2 dimensional PD works of art, we allow them to be uploaded and tagged {{PD-Art}} or the equivalent tag on the Commons. Commons has a page about that, and calls out Spain and the UK for their attacks on the general notion of a "public domain". [2] This is a special rule, because in most other PD cases, to be hosted on the Commons they must be PD in the US and the originating country (otherwise, they must only be uploaded to en.wiki). However, reproductions of otherwise PD works of 2D art are a special case that Wikipedia has decided to take a stand on. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew I think you are missing something - the image being talked about is not yet at Wikipedia - that is the whole question. We can't take photographs form the internet and upload it here using the reason that "Well, it's now located in the US so therefore it is PD-Art". By the same token I can't take a photograph of, say, a TV that has American Idol on it and claim it as my own - the photo, yes, the subject matter of the photo - no. A new painting of Mickey Mouse that the artist says releases to PD does not change the fact that if a photo of it is taken that photos copyright is owned by the photographer and that the subject matter - Mickey Mouse - is still owned by Disney. We don't go "No it's {{PD-Art}}" simply because, as the tag says, The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin. As with many of the other PD tags in use it takes too broad of a stroke. PD = PD, yes. I am not saying it isn't. But there would be a huge difference between, say, File:Mona-lisa-through-glass.jpg, File:Mona Lisa Louvre.jpg, File:Mona Lisa versão .JPG, File:Carnival Rio Mona Lisa costume.jpg and File:Mona_Lisa.jpeg. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the US, everyone can agree that Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp found that "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another" does not contain "originality" and thus a slavish photographic reproduction of a 2D piece of art that is in the public domain would also be in the public domain. This would not apply to any of your Mona Lisa examples except one, because none, except the one, are slavish reproductions. We acknowledge that in some jurisdictions (Spain, UK, etc), there laws allow new copyrights to be claimed on such slavish photographic reproductions. However, it is our guidelines that Nevertheless, under Commons rules the {{PD-Art}} tag can be used for "faithful reproduction" photographs of 2D public domain works of art even where copyright might be asserted under local law in the source country. This is a rare case were we are taking a stand (and perhaps throwing in a little civil disobedience). Is there a question on whether the image in question is a "faithful reproduction" or not? Otherwise, it is fine to upload, even if it may be technically a copyright violation in Spain. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Soundvisions1 is generally correct here. It is a regular misunderstanding that if something cannot be copyrighted under US law it is therefore PD because Wikipedia's servers are in the US. This is not the case if the image actually IS copyright in another country. However, in the particular case of "slavish reproductions of 2d artwork" (ie a photo just of the painting, that doesn't show the frame, the wall it's hanging on etc), the WMF itself seems to have elected to follow US law and oppose attempts by organisations such as the National Gallery in England to claim copyright on photographs of paintings in their collections. So in this case, Andrewc is correct that the image can be uploaded as PD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for offering a 3O. I want to apologize if I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to imply that we only follow US laws being on US soil. We explicitly do not allow content on the Commons which may be out of copyright in the US, but not in other countries (outside of the 2D art thing mentioned above). Some cases, it's ok to upload to en.wiki, but not Commons. Some cases, its not OK, unless it's a fair use claim. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies equally if I misunderstood what you were saying and put the wrong words at your fingertips (it happens, it happens). At least we agree on the outcome in this case and gain a better image thereby :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:US_Territories_1850_alt.jpg really pd-old?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:US_Territories_1850_alt.jpg looks like a Hammond map from the 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.231.4 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Look under the map. It says 1967 and Hammond on it, then revised by USGeoSurv in 1970, so you are correct that it is not pd-old. Maybe the copyright wasn't renewed, maybe it was a work of the US government, and thus it may still be PD. But, unless you have further information regarding the original copyright, I'd recommend nominating it for deletion on the Commons. Since the file is hosted there, there is nothing we can do here (otherwise, I would have recommended taking it to WP:PUI). -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A fresh issue by US GeoSurvey might make it PD, as I believe that is a federal organisation, but only if Hammond was not claiming copyright also as a derivative work. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with find non-free images

(Moved from help desk)

I'd like to add images to the article Murder of Victoria Climbié but I'm not sure on the rules and how to go about it. There's a bunch of images here but am I allowed to just upload them under the free use criteria? I'd like to add pictures of Victoria (the child, now dead), more than one if possible, her two former guardians (both in prison), her parents, and Lord Laming, the person in charge of the inquiry following her death. Can someone advise on which are allowed and which aren't and what the best way of obtaining these images is? Christopher Connor (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

NO, you are not allowed to upload them all under Wikipedia's non-free content policy. First you need to check to see if there are free images of the imprisoned parents or Lord Laming. If there are, you should use them. If you can find no free images, you may not use non-free ones. You can upload one non-free image of the child, as it is unlikely that a free image exists (although you still must check first) - you could possibly also get away with the photograph of her injuries, if the photograph formed part of the discussion of those injuries.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Can I ask how do you check for free images? Christopher Connor (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have searched Commons for you and cannot find anything useful. Your best bet is to search upload sites such as Flikr, also in this case check sites associated with the case, as they may have pd images. Note that the image must actually have been released on a pd license, not just appear on a site without any attribution. Others will probably have more suggestions as to good places to search.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded an image. Can someone check this is acceptable? Would also like this. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Victoria Climbié.jpg needs a fair-use rationale (see WP:FURG) otherwise it will be deleted. The BBC image is easily replaceable by a simple drawing someone can make, so you can even claim it under fair use. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean can't? I've now provided a "FUR". Please have a look to see if it satisfies the policies. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was being discussed here as well. I answered your quesiton on my talk page. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

License status - Help!

Hi there I have received a message regarding the recently uploaded file: Holly Kenyon at The Cannes Film Festival 2010.JPG Apparently I have not indicated the license status of the image, which I probably have done in error as I find the whole process kinda confusing! I have tried and failed to follow the instructions given but am none the wiser on how to do it. Can you please instruct me through this? I took the photo of the actress myself and am giving full permission for it to be used on Wikipedia. If it is still not appropriate, can you tell me how anyone ever gets a photo of actors onto Wikipedia??? Thank you 5litres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5litres (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The most common would be the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} license. I suggest reading the overview as well as the full legal code so you understand what rights you have under the license. Also just a few suggestions - for "source" I would put down some informaiton about the camera rather than "I created this work entirely by myself." With a lot of pre-published images the "source" might be the magazine, paper or website it came from. In your case it appears to come straight form your camera. And for "Author" I would put down your full name. This goes along with the license which allows you to specify attribution (Photo credit). On the other hand if you only want "5litres" as the credit that is fine as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your help. I really appreciate it. I will have another go at this!! 5litres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5litres (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Upload another person's picture

I would like to upload a picture of Kenneth Kamal Scott in the full Wiz makeup that he created. What do I need to do?

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermarie (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two requirements that have to be followed, and possibly other requirements. First, the picture must follow the privacy requirements at WP:IUP#Privacy rights. Next, the photographer or other person to whom the copyright has been assigned must grant an appropriate copyright license. See WP:IUP#Adding images. Finally, there may be other issues connected with the makeup that I am not qualified to discuss. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of Press Association images

The deletion debate at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_September_18#File:Victoria_Climbi.C3.A9.jpg is turning rather personal - could some of the knowledgeable people at this board offer an opinion as I think more voices on all sides could perhaps defuse the situation. In short, it concerns the use of a Press Association image in an infobox. Thanks for your help. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Una and the Lion

I uploaded File:Una and the Lion.JPG from Spink.com. I'm wondering which copyright tag is applicable to this picture.--intelati^(Call) 01:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unhappily, it is not a free license. A coin is not two dimensional, so you can't say it is a faithful reproduction of a work of art. You might want to ask Spink for permission. This has come up repeatedly as I've tried to improve the coverage of US numismatics. Beautiful coin. I am not sure of the fine points of this piece, was it ever officially currency, or just a pattern? If it was just a pattern, you should instead base the tag for the artwork be the artist being dead 70 years. So you need two tags, one for the photo, one for the coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The coin is British, from 1839 and it was actual currency. Here is my (new) article where the image is.--intelati^(Call) 01:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware it is British; you still need a tag for the photograph, and as a coin is a three dimensional object, you can't use PD-ART.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I already have the Non-Free Fair use tag and rational for the image.--intelati^(Call) 01:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is good. Still, free use is better and so you might want to email Spink. or see if there is another image someone is willing to release. Bit pricey to get hold of yourself!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, the email is sent. What should I do if they accept the offer? If they refuse, what should I do?--intelati^(Call) 01:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If they accept, there is a procedure whereby you forward the email to OTRS and they will put a tag on the page indicating confirmation of the license. I will happily advise you as to the nuts and bolts of that if you get a positive response, come to my talk page and let me know. If they say no, or if they don't respond, there may be other possibilities. Check around for other images, especially those of coins in public hands, and make similar requests. Images can be a pain sometimes! My talk page is always open for any questions, not just about images, I've written one or two articles on the wiki and now and then someone says something nice about them. Besides, my advice is free, and worth every penny!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, Nice pun, and I will do that. At least it's fair use so we can use that right now. --intelati^(Call) 02:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If I recall correctly, Gibraltar reused the design for a gold piece a few years ago. You might want to mention that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Susan Cinoman

Hi, I'm Susan Cinoman, the person about whom the article 'Susan Cinoman" is written. A photo of Suzanne Sommers has been posted indicating that this is me, and it's not. I am happy to provide a photo of myself for this article. Thank you! Susan Cinoman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.59.235 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC) by SineBot-->

I've looked at images of both and agree that the image is more likely to be of Suzanne Sommers. I've removed it but what do we do about the image? Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Susan Cinoman could upload a photograph of herself no problem. Very kind offer in fact. The other image could perhaps be listed for deletion as we can't be sure who it is?? At the very least, it needs the information on it changing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The other image seems to have vanished. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

II don't know how solve the problem. I received the photo from the artist's (Ketty La Rocca) son. He is the owner of all property right of Ketty La Rocca and he agrees with this use.

I don't know how solve the problem. I received the photo from the artist's (Ketty La Rocca) son. He is the owner of all property right of Ketty La Rocca and he agrees with this use. Can you help me. Wikipedia does not show the page that I created. Thank in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugomatrix (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The second part of your question would do better at WP:HD, the help desk. Your page does show up here User:Ugomatrix/Ketty La Rocca. You created it in your userspace (sometimes called "in a sandbox"), because pages in the userspace can be used to work up rough drafts, and are not "live". You'd need to move your article from there to Ketty La Rocca before it would be considered "live". I can try to help you further if you want to contact me on my user talk page, or (since I am not online that often), other users would be glad to help you out at the help desk (WP:HD). As to the first part of your question, we need to have the copyright holder's permission on file, via e-mail. The link provided above about Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials gives more details on that. Also, you can always find pages and contributions you have made in the past by looking at your contribs (the link is at the top of every page, on the right hand side when you are logged in). Hope this helps some. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Counciller by Thomas Rowlandson

I am interested in uploading a low resolution copy of The Counciller [sic] by Thomas Rowlandson from the Lewis Walpole Library under {{PD-old-100}} licence. By low-resolution I mean 515x768 pixels by 72dpi (although I would prefer a 400dpi version :(). Would someone confirm if this would be allowed please? --Senra (Talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add The Counciller was first published on 1 January 1801 and the author died 1827. --Senra (Talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. The Yale library's page has some text about asking permission, but I think that is just generic and does not apply to this image. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Nor could it. The original is out of copyright. See the above #Replacing an image with a better version and copyright concern, and the comment on the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Logo fair use question at FAC

There is a good faith difference of opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1 regarding the use of File:SCPA Logo.PNG in the infobox of School for Creative and Performing Arts. Other expert opinions would be helpful. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Jose Luis Orozco - Question?

I would like to use the photo of Jose Luis Orozco from the link/page below on the wiki page i created about Jose Luis Orozco.

http://www.blaineschools.org/Userfiles/Schools/Bellevue/News/SVCA%20%20Event.jpg

Would this be considered a free photo? What steps would I need to take to put in on article.

Hhfreund (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see any evidence that it is free, unless you can see a statement about the copyright of the iamge assume that no free license is granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Paintings and "Life of author plus 70 years"

Hello. Does a painting from ~1840 need a source that the painter died before 1940 to be PD? The file in question is File:Philip_Bliss.jpg which is used in an featured list candidate. At the FAC image review one of the reviewers often request a source asserting the authors death, so I wanted to find out if there is a rule of thumb like for paintings before 1870 all are PD or something? Sandman888 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Was it John Bridges (active 1818-1854), painter and draughtsman? Bridges, John (2010), Biography, National Portrait Gallery --Senra (Talk) 19:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the crux of the question really is whether you need hard evidence that the author died there and then or it just have to be likely (hence the unwritten rule of thumb). If I search for images I would like not to go through "possible unfree file" every time they are uploaded. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am at a loss here. What harder evidence do you need when you have a reliable source stating John Bridges (active 1818-1854); that the sum of 1818 plus 122 = 1940 and the highly unlikely event of John Bridges living past 122? Even that is assuming he was active in his very very early years :) --Senra (Talk) 20:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hard evidence is a source saying he died in 1878 (e.g.). What you are doing is speculating that he must have died earlier than 1940. That is fine, but is that an official policy to consider all paintings from before, say 1860 which would put them in a similar situation, PD? Sandman888 (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the 1851 Census of Oxford (John Bridges, Portrait Painter) he was 47 so he was born in 1803/1804. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not my question. My question is: is there an official policy to consider all paintings made before 1860, or some other year, PD? Sandman888 (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright and images obtained from internet

1- I want to use this image (http://www.kyokushinkaikan.org/img/about/director/ph_director_01.jpg) for article Shokei Matsui, does it comply with wikipedia policy and if so, what tags are required for it (ie fair use rationale)? 2- What are the policies for obtaining photos from facebook for use on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacturin (talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since Shokei Matsui is alive, we would need free imagery to depict him. That web site does not have a free license for its content. Rather, all rights are reserved. So, the answer is no. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting question

Have a look at File:Grainger Park.jpg. When the original file was uploaded the summary was This photograph was taken by Mrs. Frances Lipscomb in the late 1930's. At the time of posting it is the only known copy and was sold to me in 2005. Now the license is a {{PD-self}} with the summary of I am the creator of this work. I hereby release it into the public domain for any and all purposes. My first thought is that the photographer (Frances Lipscomb) may have passed away in 2005 and this image was purchased at an estate sale. My second thought is that the photographer, or one of their family members, was having a garage sale in 2005 and it was purchased. The third thought is the image was sitting in store (Antiques shop, sports memorabilia shop) and was purchased for them. At face value none of those would imply the actual copyright had passed onto the purchaser, even if was the only print - not if it was done in 2005 anyway. If the photographer did pass away in 2005 this would not be out of copyright and it would be owned by the heirs. One thing is for sure however, and that is the uploader is not the "creator of this work". Any suggestions for a correct tag and license? Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

NFS images

I found a nice Antarctic Photo Library by the United States Antarctic Program. The library which consists of images credited to National Science Foundation states that No one may reproduce the photos for personal or commercial profit, use the photos on products for sale (i.e., t-shirts, coffee mugs) or use the photos for advertisement without express permission from the photographer. To obtain contact information for a photographer, contact the Photo Librarian. Are photographs credited to NSF in public domain? I'd like to know if we could port the library to the commons or Wikipedia.Smallman12q (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?...Smallman12q (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Only allowing non-commercial useage is a violation of both the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike licence and the GFDL. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What I am looking at says, of the photographs: Some are public domain, some are created by NSF contractors, and some are used by NSF with specific permission granted by the owner. Therefore, with the exception of the NSF logos provided, photos and illustrations found on the NSF web site should not be reused without permission. Since it appears they are all mixed in together you need to find whatever image you might want to use and contact them - it actually says a much on the site: please provide the URL and file name to the webmaster identified as contact for the page on which the photo or illustration appears. If no contact is given, contact the NSF Webmaster (webmaster@nsf.gov). There is also the About Images page which sates the same thing and links back to the reuse page I quoted from above. For example this image says "Credit: NASA" and the ones found here say "Credit: NEEM Project Office". Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

File:WOLFRAM-AICHELE-WOOD-CARVING.jpg - low resolution?

I'm not clear what we mean by low resolution, does this qualify? Thanks Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the resolution however granting use on Wikipedia is an invalid license for use here. We either need a free license like CC-BY-SA-3.0 or a Fair use rationale with valid justification. Wolfram Aichele could grant free use of the photo without granting any permissions on other photos or reproductions of the sculpture. It also looks as if there were problems with File:WOLFRAM-AICHELE-ICON.jpg and File:WOLFRAM-AICHELE-PARIS.jpg. For fair use there will need to be discussion about the photo in the text, so that it enhances understanding of the subject, otherwise use is not fair. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, where do we go from here? I posted to the editor on the 10th asking if he wanted advice on copyright and he didn't reply, and this was uploaded on the 12th. If Aichele grants free use of this photo here, I presume anyone, say, publishing the article in a book can use it so long as they complied with our license? That's my understanding and what I told the editor. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The next step, if no response is forthcoming is to delete the image as invalid license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

use image?

Is this image copyrighted? The label on it says "2005 Kay Chernush for the US State Department". Can I use it if it's owned by the state department?

File:unknown-745757.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.29.219 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any image by this or similar name, so really cannot help you fully. US Federal government work is in the public domain though not all images found on their sites are official works. Sometimes they will attribute images to outside sources which is what the label you quote above seems to say but without an image link and a source we cannot confirm that. Yes you can use the image but only if it's proven to be owned by the state department. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Creating a page for the SOA-manifesto

The SOA Manifesto (www.soa-manifesto.org) is a public domain site. I feel that it should exist in Wikipedia for notability reason. It seems like a logical complement to the SOA page.

I feel it is fair to ask if there could be a conflict of interest since I am one of the translators for the French and Spanish version. However, this is not a commercial product. So it does not sound like there is really a case for conflict of interest. There would be no reference to the individual translators.

The site would basically be a copy-paste of the manifesto, with a few links to other items in the original site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yveschaix (talk • contribs) 03:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a copyright issue, but Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material. If this content is notable, it may be appropriate for Wikisource, but not for this project. If it is added to Wikisource, it can be linked from Service-oriented architecture if appropriate. Of course, it can be linked if appropriate already, simply where it is. That's more a questiono for WP:ELN, though. (I do have to point out, though, that you're mistaken about its being a "public domain" site. It is clearly copright reserved Copyright © 2009, The SOA Manifesto Authors , but it is licensed under CC-By-SA so it is compatible.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

japonese language

Please tell me how to write in Japanese language (cantonnais): patience, persevere, endurance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.195.193 (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is the wrong venue for asking this question. You may want someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan to see if they could help. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Language reference desk also has several regulars who would be able to answer this question. decltype (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Library of Congress Overseas work

This question is about text rather than images, but I couldn't find the right place to ask, and assumed text is covered under "media". There are a bunch of profiles of authors, such as this one (full list), that have been written by the "New Delhi office of the Library of Congress". Is this text public-domain, on account of having been produced by the Library of Congress? (They have a page about Copyright and Permissions, but that deals with the audio recordings, not the brief texts about the authors.) Shreevatsa (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Razer (robot) update

Hello again,

Forgive me starting a new thread so soon after my last one was archived, but no sooner did Miszabot II do its thing than I received an update on the potential free photos for use on the Razer (robot) article. To recap, I have recently helped to rewrite this page from something which was thrice on AfD to, hopefully, a soon-to-be GA candidate. Since I last posted on here, one of the roboteers who constructed Razer has allowed me to upload three great images of his machine to the Commons under WP:CC-BY-SA - they are currently pending for an OTRS ticket, with a written declaration of consent emailed to the OTRS team a couple of days ago.

Since then, a Flickr user who I contacted has agreed to release one of his photos of Razer under CC-BY-SA. As User:Elen of the Roads kindly explained last time, he could not do so as he does not own the copyright of the robot, and his photo would be considered a derivative work of this. Perhaps I could ask a couple of questions:

1. Given that the robot constructor behind Razer has been happy to help, could he in any way allow us to use the photo?
2. Otherwise, could the photo be uploaded to Wikipedia (as opposed to the Commons) under CC-BY-SA, but with a fair use tag explaining that the photo is free but the robot's design is not?

Thank you in advance for your help - again!

Best wishes, CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 11:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You could certainly ask the robot constructor if he's ok with the Flickr image being used. Then you have covered all bases. As to uploading to Wikipedia under a Fair use rationale, the problem is that it would probably fail, since the non-free image is potentially replaceable by a free one (provided by the robot constructor). Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it need 'signing off' via an OTRS declaration or similar? Thanks again for your help, CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 08:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for asking again, but I am worried this might fall off the edge without resolution. Can I double check whether I need the constructor to provide an OTRS permission for a photo someone else took of his robot, or will a quick email suffice? Thanks, CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 09:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is logo published without notice public domain?

Researching a question posed at FAC, I would like to know whether the logo File:SCPA Logo.PNG, which came into use in 1973 without copyright notice and was never registered, could be safely considered public domain. What support would be required to make this license claim? Many thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Upon further research, I am confident that it is public domain so no reply required (although I welcome any comments, of course). --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about media licensing for image.

Greetings. I require a little bit of help figuring out how to license this 1929 photograph of W.K. Kellogg and his horse Antez. The image is hosted by the Cal Poly Pomona University Library website here. They include a description about the use of images here. It says that I have to submit a request to use the image in writing. First, I wouldn't be sure what to ask for. Second, I doubt they'll go the extra length to display a change of license on this image just because I'm telling asking them to.

Also, say I get permission to use the image under a fair share license, but they provide it in writing. How do I prove that to Wikipedia?

Thank you.

-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  01:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A fair share license means nothing here, but a creative commons attribution share alike license is OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Graeme. Also, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

I apologize if I seem slow, but I have the rights to a copyrighted photo that appears on FlickR. I would like to use that photo to upload to a Wikipedia entry. Can you please tell me how I would describe it, since I own the rights to the copyrighted photo?

Thank you! CK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cairokaraoke (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you upload the file to Flickr? If so, log into your Flickr account, and change the licensing information there to one of the Creative Commons licenses that are acceptable on Wikipedia (assuming you agree to those terms). See the top of Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr for a list of the acceptable licenses. In fact, that page tells you how you can upload files from Flickr, if they are already licensed appropriately. We need to have the licensing stuff correct before we upload in order to demonstrate that the owner of the content has agreed to the terms of a free license. If you want, I'd be glad to initiate the upload for you, if you give me a link to the file on flickr. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Relative-depth2.png

I got tagged by ImageTaggingBot for File:Relative-depth2.png. I thought that might happen. I never can seem to choose the right license for images. Help? Please...? Thnx! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a derivative work of a free file we are already hosting, I just copy and pasted the licensing information from the original file. If you are going to make edits of others free work, just follow the terms of the licensing. This file had a "share alike" stipulation, so I figured using the same licensing was appropriate. If you want to get into relicensing derivative works, it can get rather complex, So the easiest solution is just to use the same licensing as the source. Your image did not have any licensing information or tags on it, so I fixed it with my copy and paste. Check the file history to see what I did. Hopefully, this explanation has equipped you with the knowledge to license correctly in the future! (instead of just confusing you more ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thanks for your help, Andrew! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Text copyright

Is this excerpt

• "After the 1970–71 season the Inter Cities Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently." a copyright violation of this:
• "After the 1970-71 season the organisation of the Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. The competition was renamed the UEFA Cup with a new trophy being introduced. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently. These two teams also had the best overall playing record in the competition since it's inception in 1955. "
  • it has been brought up as a copyvio here, on the featured list candidacy of the list in question. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • More pertinently, the concern I have is over (as a minimum) this sentence, which I believe can be easily reworded:
      • The list says "A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently.""
      • The source says "A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently. " The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • • I already copied this above in full, why do you re-insert it? Sandman888 (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Because I wanted to clarify that you had directly copied-and-pasted a complete sentence which can easily be rephrased. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Movie Posters

How can I upload movie posters or company logos that I own and want to share? How do I prove that I have permission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acb3v (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:IOWNIT. But that is only for content that you want to donate to our project, by releasing it under the terms of a free license. We normally allow the "fair use" of a company logo, or a movie poster, and thus you would not be required to donate the content, if it meets our nonfree content guidelines. If you click the upload link on the left, there are options to choose for logos and posters. Just follow the directions there, and choose the options for the type of file you are uploading, and fill out all the forms and drop down menus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the link you want is Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia (WP:IOWN), but ya. §hep^Talk 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks (and sorry for the redlink). -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to Use Images from the Counties page

I am creating a directory with counties in Oklahoma. I would like to use the county images on my own site to show where each county is on this page. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Oklahoma.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalHoma (talk • contribs) 04:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, David Benbennick released them into the public domain, and being .svg files you can scale them to any size you want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

help

i am a newer user and am still working on doing stuff, can you guys add a copyright license for File:SullivanCentralHS.JPG thank you Glman99 (talk) 00:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hello : you should have a word to Eeekster who tagged this for deletion inappropriately as source was given and a fair use does not have to announce what the exact copyright is. I have added {{non-free logo}}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Italian copyright about Bonnie Prince Charlie

Hello,

This is a first time i use wiki as logged-in. My question is about the follow image:

Is it possible to publish this file on my web site which is placed in Italy?

Regards Lucignolo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucignolo (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• This picture is so old that it is out of copyright, and is public domain, and this would include Italy, so you can use this image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

School class photos

The school class photo's were bought many years ago, I have cropped and removed identifying faces so as to show the school uniform. Which license should it be - I thought it would be under free?

File:Prendiville winter.jpg File:Prendiville summer.jpg

Thanks :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wombat0007 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• School photos are not automatically free. cutting off the uniform makes a derivative of the original. You will have to establish if you own the original copyright, or it is so old to be public domain, otherwise yor derivative will not be free either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Paper cutting

/en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Manava_vijayam_copy.jpg sir i had uploded a paper cutting of akathakali programme .it is from the news paper(deshabhimani,daily)' now the uploded item is going to be deleted. how can i overcome this issue?please help me.

                           Mohanantirur (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically you will have to tell us where the picture came from, which newspaper, which country, which date and page, and who is credited as the photographer. The Creative commons license looks wrong unless it was you who took the photo. Either the newspaper is old enough to be public domain, or we probably cannot use the picture. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

sir the the photo which i uploaded was a paper cutting of deshabhimani daily ,published from kerala,(india)iam helpless to say the accurate date, and name o photographer.the photo was taken from at stage perfomnce of a new story of kathakali presented in public in the year about 1986.please guide me to use this file

                           Mohanantirur (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for responding. This means that copyright will still apply to the picture, and there is no one known to contact to grant a license. Therefore the image will have to be deleted from Wikipedia and cannot be used here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Images of Thoroughbred horses, public domain.

If I were interested in adding an image of a Thoroughbred racehorse from web bourne sources, some of which are oil paintings and others of which are photographs, how many years after the death of the animal in question would I have to wait until the photo or image of a painting passed legally into the public domain? I ask about the life of the animal because so many times there is no information about the photographers and they have vanished into obscurity. Thank you.Cobaltcanarycherry (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• When the animal died has no relation to copyrights. Animals can not hold copyrights to any work. I'm sorry, but it's the photographer (usually) in this case that holds rights. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • If the original painting is in the public domain, any photograph of it is also considered to be in the public domain. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I use this image of a (probably) living person?

http://www.nautiljon.com/people/akiyoshi+hongo.html

It's Akiyoshi Hongo, the creator of Digimon. This is the only image I can find of him, because he is a very mysterious figure and may not even be alive by now. I'm not sure of its fair use implications here or how I can use it. Help? Tezero (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

To use this image you would either have to show that it is freely licenced image, which the source page does not prove, or that he is in fact dead. If he is in fact dead you could make a claim under the fair-use doctrine that the image is not replaceable but it would need to fulfill all the non-free/fair-use criteria. Unfortunately the burden of proof is on you, as the uploader, to provide the necessary proof. You have some research to do. ww2censor (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

LMP party logo

Hi,

I got a message that the file File:LMP logo.png has missing info on copyright status. When uploading I put template:logo fur on it with the text that is also used in the description of File:Ide logo.jpg, File:Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom.png and other Hungarian political parties. Why is this template good for the logos of those parties but not good for LMP? Also, a template on the logo's page says the pic should be a smaller one; would it be good if I reverted it to the original image (which was overwritten with the larger one) or should I find an even smaller one? – Alensha ^talk 17:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The file is missing information on its copyright status. The file needs {{Non-free logo}} or something similar added to it. {{logo fur}} is a rationale template, but does not specify the copyright status of an image, {{non-free logo}} specifies copyright status. I would not revert to the previous version as the coloring appears to be incorrect. Resizing the current image to 300 pixels should put you in the safe zone for size. To do this type

[[File:LMP logo.png|300px]]

, hit preview, save the smaller image to your hard drive, and upload that version. Hope this helps, §hep^Talk 18:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that you have an OTRS number in the image's page. Can I ask where that number came from? §hep^Talk 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! You mean the OTRS number on Hungarian Wikipedia? One of our sysops with OTRS access added it, apparently it allows for use on Wikimedia projects. How can I copy that here? – Alensha ^talk 19:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think I see where the OTRS number came from. LMP gave permission to use the image on Wikimedia, but not anywhere else. So it's still non-free. Usually we just use OTRS to prove that permission has been given to use the image freely, since that hasn't been given it doesn't look like it's needed. §hep^Talk 19:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! – Alensha ^talk 19:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Tagging for Possibly Unfree

I want to tag the following file: File:Lindsay Lohan 2010 MugShot.jpg as a possible copyright violation. I tried to follow the instructions at WP:Possibly_unfree_files. However, when I added the puf template and previewed it, I didn't see a tag, but just red text. What am I doing wrong?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• The image is hosted on Commons. If you think it's unfree, you need to take it up with Commons [3]. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I'm unfamiliar with Commons. I don't suppose you know how to do that (and do I need a login for Commons?). It's hard enough following Wikipedia's instructions. :-( --Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Probably a good idea to sign up for an account there. For instructions on what to do once there, see this. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've created a Commons account, followed their instructions, and nominated the image for deletion. Hoopefully, I did it right.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That image is a copyio - image belongs to Los Angeles County Sheriff's department, and T&C on LASD website clearly shows that the County does not release copyright to PD. Uploader will have hooked this off teh interweb somewhere. I haz retagged.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I can see on Commons that the file has been deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

End_of_texts3.jpg copyright

Hello? I have now uploaded a graphic "End_of_texts3.jpg" and sent in the copyright permission from the artist to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, and I beleive I selected the correct copyright statement from the list. I also copied the copyright permission into the information section for the uploaded image. Since I'd like to get this page off my draft and into Wiki but without the automatic "candidate for deletion" message under the image, but I believe that the message has been added erroneously, How do I finall get this fixed? Am I allowed to remove the template on my own so we can get the page published w/out the ominous warning that is incorrect? Thanks! Eboepple (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You can add the {{OTRS pending}} template. The person who read your email may take a while to get around to it. However two different names are given to the same picture, so which one do you want to keep and which one to remove? Add {{db-author}} to the image copy you don't want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Great! So, Now I deleted the duplicate, but I don't know where to put {{OTRS pending}} and the remaining graphic now says it's a duplicate when I click on it and speedy deletion on the page on which I want to use it. Could you please be more specific about what to click and where to put the template? How do I get rid of the dulicate template that didn't show up until after I deleted?

I added in the template for you at the top of File:End of texts3.jpg. User:Stepshep removed the duplicate notice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ʊndianapolis Colts

File:Indianapolis Colts logo.svg is a stylized letter Ʊ. Wouldn't that be a text logo? Or what specific about it meets the threshold of originality? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(blinks) Surely it's a stylized horseshoe?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-shape}}? Connormah (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• If pd-shape applies, then pray tell what simple geometric shape is this? Triangle? Trapezoid? Rectangle? Also, just because it could be construed as a U doesn't mean it's part of a typeface. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't figure out correct way to add information to copyright photo.

Hi,

I am having difficulty in understanding the correct way to copyright the photo used. I was given permission to use this personal photo of him. Dr. R. Lewis.jpg Any assistance in the correct wording/coding would be appreciated. I have attempted to use wikipedia to add the correct information as well as tutorials from other sites, to no avail.

Thank you very much for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pommommie (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

When you are using someone else's work, with permission, you should check out WP:PERMISSION. I cannot tell you how to add the correct copyright information. Only the copyright holder can do that. They must explicitly release the work under the terms of a free license which is compatible with Wikipedia. And then they must e-mail us a permission declaration that states that license, per WP:CONSENT. What sort of "permission" were you given? If the copyright holder didn't mention licensing, you need to contact them again. Also, keep in mind, unless it is a work for hire, the photographer, not the subject of the photo, is the one who owns the copyright to the image. I'd be glad to help you add the proper copyright tags to the image, once you know what license the copyright holder has chosen. We can also add the {{OTRS pending}} template to the image to show that an e-mail has been sent in, and that our OTRS agents will process and approve it within the next week or two (assuming you can get an e-mail sent in). Yeah, it is a bit complex, but we have strong copyright/licensing policies, and need to have evidence on file that all our content is licensed freely (alternatively, in lieu of sending an e-mail, the copyright holder could place a notice on their official webpage, stating the free licensing, assuming the photo is available online in the first place). -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PD-Old for Soviet photos

According to the Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States 1 January 2010, [4], the works published abroad without a copyright notice in their source country as of 1 January 1996 are in public domain in the USA. Does it mean that old historical non-US photographs, which have no copyright notice) are in public domain in the USA regardless of the current status of these photos in their source countries?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• No. It's considerably more complex than that, both with regard to copyright and with regard to how Wikipedia handles such images. Also, I've frequently seen images where the original was cropped which did contain copyright information to then declare the resulting derivative is clear of copyright. All of this makes the situation very murky. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Tess Broussard

Hello. the deletion date for the photo File:Tess_Broussard_2010.jpg is tomorrow. i have resubmitted the copyright and license information but i have not heard back from anyone.

Could someone take a look at this matter and let me know how things stand?

thank you. David Kantar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dk4wiki (talk • contribs) 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about the deletion date being soon. The OTRS volunteers deal with submitted copyright permissions and even if the deleting date comes by and the image was deleted it will be restored when an OTRS ticket is generated for the image. I see there is an OTRS pending notice on the image page and in that case any deleting admin will likely not delete the image straight away and may even check the OTRS permission if he is also an OTRS volunteer. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Movie Posters Redux

How do I upload movie posters that I have permission to use. How do I prove I have permission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acb3v (talk • contribs) 20:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless to us. Either they are released under a free license, or they are not. There's no inbetween. What movies are you referring to? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• I also see that people responded to you in the thread you started on 17 September. Are you not understanding something? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with getting a suitable copyright tag

Hi,

I have recently created the following page (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mawqef_Micro) and uploaded two photos: File:Mawqef_Micro_Poster.jpg and File:MICRO13_01334.jpg after I got approval from the author of these images; however, I received a notice saying that the files will be deleted after 7 days if no appropriate copyright tagging has been added to their license information. I have read and understood how to go about getting a free license approval from the creator, so I have contacted him and sent him a clarification email with the consent letter template to request his approval for including these files and some others I obtained from him under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike version 3 license; however, after reading the license agreement he did not accept it as it allows "commercial use" of his intellectual property, he was fine with everything else stated but since he has projects of commercial nature related to his creation he backed off and explained to me that if I can find another similar license without the clause that forces him to accept "commercial use" of his creation he would be more than happy to approve the consent letter. Can you please advise me which other free license has the same terms except for the term that forces the author to accept "commercial use" of the images so that I can get his approval bearing in mind that the the copyrights of the author are Non-US?

Any urgent help in this regard is much appreciated.

Kind regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaminobatto (talk • contribs) 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Limited permissions are not sufficient. If the copyright owner will not release copyright for all purposes then we cannot accept the image on Wikipedia, unless a suitable non-free use rationale can be applied. – ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per the above, I've tagged both of these images as non-free, and missing a rationale as required by WP:NFCC #10. Directions for supply a rationale are available at WP:FURG. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this fair use, and can I place this photo in the public domain?

File:Miserylab early discography.jpg Hello. Does anyone have any opinions as to whether this photo is fair use, please? It is a photograph taken by myself (Dave H) for the specific purpose of showing the miserylab discography on Wikipedia. As the album cover images are of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification I believe it's worthwhile including, and as the designs themselves are lower resolution than the originals (and hence of no use for counterfeiting, etc.) I believe the inclusion of the photo is fair use. I additionally believe that I am within my rights to place the photo in the public domain. Am I correct in my thinking? Many thanks. Hexene (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• While your photo may be placed into the Public Domain what is contained within the photo may not be. It is the same concept that would allow a person to take images such as File:US Navy 100903-N-0933M-043 Chief Musician Devona Schiller, assigned to the U.S. Naval Academy Band appears on the Jumbotron as she sings the national anthem.jpg and File:Recordable CDs.jpg and freely release them. What is contained in the image may be under copyright, so, for example, you couldn't crop ("remix") the first image to show only the Toyota logo and claim is at a free image. EDIT: I see what has caused the problem. You did not claim a pd-self on the image when you uploaded it, you uploaded it as fair use, which implies that someone else took the image - thusly why the image was tagged. The tag is correct because a free image could be found, so what I would do it change the license to {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, add the {{trademark}} tag under it and link to this discussion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Er, no and no. s103(b) of the US copyright code The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. So you cannot give this material a PD licence, because you do not hold exclusive copyright to it. You can pd the photo, but.... And to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy it must meet all ten criteria, and I think it fails (1) (could use text) and (3) (minimum usage). Also, it must be considered fair use under the US code, and I do not believe the creation of a derivative work constitutes fair use. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not fully - although as it was an edit conflict you may not have read my response first. An image taken of a CD cover only - than not at all. And image taken taken of several CD Covers, yes - but as I said, the photo is one thing the content is another. That is why images such as File:T-shirts.jpg, File:T-shirt shop in Paris.jpg, File:Beatles Drums No BG.jpg, File:Sun Records 45s.jpg and File:Anarkangel-CDs.jpg can be licensed under PD or CCL. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. He has the creative element to be able to license his own work, but the lawyers would have to sort it out if he wanted to exploit his photo. I don't believe using copyright works to create compilations meets the US definition of fair use, but I'm not so familiar with all US caselaw. However, what I hadn't realised was that the query arose because he tagged the image wrongly, so you've answered that for him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Image IS NOT public domain: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Photo24_SCarrithers_trout.jpg

To Whom it May Concern:

The image on the following page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Photo24_SCarrithers_trout.jpg is NOT public domain and has been removed from the USGS website. Please correct this information on the page as soon as possible.

Suzanna Carrithers, Information & Education Specialist/PIO USGS-BRD-NOROCK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarrithers (talk • contribs) 16:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

[5] Still appears to be there. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Odd request. There is a "Suzanna Carrithers" at USGS. I wonder how this image is not public domain. Works of the U.S. federal government are public domain (in almost all cases). The image is labeled as "Photo courtesy of USGS" on its source page. So, how is this image not public domain? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It would only be not pd if Suzanna had taken the photy privately and loaned or licensed it to the USG for use on website. Some USG websites and publications do feature non-pd photos that the USG has paid for or come to some other arrangement for. However, evidence so far seems to be against this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• I looked into it - the image was taken by Suzanna and was taken from the DOI website. The image on the USGS website is not public domain, but "used with permission", and does appear to have been removed. The DOI Copyright notice states that images "contributed or licensed by third parties that may be protected by copyright, or other proprietary rights." In this case Suzanna is the copyright holder. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• • I know this is more a commons issue but we should probably update the USGS license to note that not every file by the USGS is PD. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that people assume if its on a USG website, its PD. Maybe update to advise that it is images created by USG that are PD, not necessarily images published by USG, which may be under licence of copyright holder. Uploader must check that the agency is USG (not eg LA County Sheriff's Dept or some such) and image was created by USG, not just published by same.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. When I read the full; USGS copyright notice even that states Note that some non USGS photographs, images, and/or graphics are used by the USGS with permission from the copyright holder. To use these copyrighted materials, you must obtain permission from the copyright holder under the copyright law. The Wikimedia Commons {{PD-USGov-USGS}} tag does not indicate that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sounddivisions1, do you have a link to where it is on the DOI site? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Photo24 SCarrithers trout.jpg. Ironically the image name actually has "SCarrithers" (Suzanna Carrithers) as part of its name. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I wasn't clear :) How about a link to the page where this image is located/hosted on their site? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is Scott Horvath from the Office of Communications at the USGS. We have been in contact with Suzanna, and were sent the following email from the original author of that photo. Although the photo has "SCarrithers" in the file name, it's not owned by USGS. Unfortunately, the image was posted back in 2008 without the understanding that it was NOT public domain and that there were specifics attached to the image before it could be posted. For reference, here is the original email from the author.

Good evening,

I am emailing in reference to a bull trout photo located on your North Central Science Climate Center webpage. I am the person that took the photo and it has been posted on Wikipedia (from your web page) as public domain courtesy of the USGS. I did not give consent for my photo to be used in this manner, on top of which no where on the North Science Climate Center webpage, nor Wikipedia, nor the USGS site is the correct photo credit listed. While I willingly share these photos for conservation and education purposes, I do insist that they be properly credited. I also did not consent to the photo being posted on Wikipedia. I would appreciate your assistance with this situation.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ernest Keeley
http://sol.zoology.ubc.ca/~keeley/bull.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.11.46.30 (talk • contribs)

We won't be able to deal with this here. The best way to resolve this is for Mr Horvath to e-mail permissions at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from a USGS e-mail address enclosing the above request from Dr Keeley. The OTRS volunteers will take care of it from there. – ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And note that when he says "e-mail permissions", it does not mean that you are giving any sort of consent. OTRS are our people who deal with requests that need to be recorded, while the request itself is confidential.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that necessary? Image is already tagged for speedy deletion on commons.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case probably not. I have added a note to the Commons file info page linking to this discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I uploaded this picture and was wondering if it is possible to past it. I described and sourced the picture. Thanks again.

Antoinefcb (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• What is your question? I don't understand. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor is asking if his use of the image in an article, currently in his sandbox, is an acceptable use, assuming he moves the sandboxed article to mainspace, i.e., to EA FIFA Superstars. I assume "past" is a typo for "post." TJRC (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Lester James Peries

Could you please assist me to solve File:Lester James Peries.jpg image copy wright problem ? thanka--Wipeouting (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• There's nothing to fix. It's a duplicate of File:Lester James Peries Sri Lanka.jpg, and needs to be deleted. I've tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD F1. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons 2.0 License

Creative Commons 2.0 Generic-attribution-free cultural approved for works

Are we able to use images with this license on WP?

We hope (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wikimedia Commons licensing page, Creative Commons licenses are appropriate for Commons, so please upload there. – ukexpat (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be a bit more precise, the CC Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC-BY) being asked about in this question is appropriate for commons; but not all Creative Commons licenses are. CC-NC (noncommercial) and CC-ND (no derivative works) and their permutations are not. TJRC (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To make this clearer, YES that license is fine on wikipedia. It's {{cc-by-2.0}}. It would be even better, however, for you to up load it at the commons.wikimedia.org, but that is optional. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dowload Airlines Logo

Hello,

Would it be possible to dowload in one time all Airlines logo form the following page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Airline_logos an all others next pages ?

I would like to have all small Airlines logo from those pages link ?

Thank you in advance for your help,

Best Regards,

194.98.34.59 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Christophe

• No. Sorry. I know there's 814 files, but there's no way to batch it all together as one download. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Ansar_logo.JPG

I have provided sufficient information for the image.. What information is missing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafiwiki (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Each non-free image must have a rationale for each use of the image, per terms of WP:NFCC #10c. For direction, see WP:FURG. These links were all in the warning message on the image. What are you unclear about? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Halo: Reach Image

File:Reach 2599339 Full.jpg was recently added to the Halo: Reach article. It was tagged today for deletion on October 1, 2010, unless copyright status can be verified by then. Shouldn't the Halo article NOT use the image during this period?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I posted the message above, a bot tagged the image on Halo. That probably "answers" my question, but I'll leave my question intact in case anyone wants to shed any additional light on this kind of situation. My feeling was that because the copyright status wasn't verified, it would be proper to remove the image from the article. If the status were later verified acceptably, the image could be reinserted. But I wasn't sure of my ground.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion but if the image is an obvious copyright violation then it should be removed, but normally it is tagged as speedy deletion then the system will remove it for you. If it is just a question of provenance as in your example then I would just tag the image as a candidate for deletion, users who or not the uploader may have an interest or information on the image and otherwise they would not know a problem exists until the image is deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of permission

I recently tagged two images due to no evidence of permission File:Fehlandt Lentini leadoff.jpg and File:Fehlandt Lentini press shot.jpeg. Each image has the text source/author Sonoma State University Athletics Department and permission Given by Tyler Lobe, Sports Information Director of the Sonoma State University Athletics Department The uploader refers to assume good faith and has subsequently removed the permission tags. I presumed that the copyright permission evidence should either be on the source website or entered into the OTRS system. Should we assume good faith and take the uploaders statement, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to delete them at the moment. I will contact the office of Tyler Lobe again to get a sufficient agreement on the use of the image. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

John Goldschmidt

I am intending to use the uploaded head and shoulder photograph of film director/producer 'John Goldschmidt' on the Wikipedia page I have prepared about him. The uploaded photo document has the name 'File:Goldschmidt.jpg'

Please refer to email from John Goldschmidt to Permissions at Wikipedia From: johnvivafilms.co.uk Subject: Use of my photo Date: 24 September 2010 10:11:11 BST To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org This is to confirm that I am happy for my picture (my copyright) to be used on Wikipedia by Heather Gaston. I attach the photo as a reference. Thanks John Goldschmidt (Home address provided).

Thanks! Heathergaston (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Unfortunately use on Wikipedia alone is insufficient for us. We need freely licenced images, which means that anyone can use it for anything including commercial use such as printing on a t-shirt, so please have the copyright holder follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSIONS. If that is what he wrote to permissions-en@wikimedia.org he will be told it is not free enough. ww2censor (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I never read the intro to WP:PERMISSIONS. A little self-promotional, no? "Wikimedia itself is a non-profit organization, and any money it raised from the re-use of Wikimedia content would go to furthering our aims—buying new servers to keep the websites running efficiently, producing print runs, making Wikipedia available on CD/DVD for schools and developing countries. However, not all of those who re-use our content are so high-minded." If I were braver, I'd remove it from the guidelines - not only is it smug, but it's also largely irrelevant. Then again, so is my comment to this topic. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Historic Photo

Can this photo be uploaded for use wikipedia?--Orygun (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Probably, since it is tagged as "no known copyright restrictions" and is dated to 1916, so PD-1923 would apply (I think???).--GrapedApe (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The given Flickr license does indeed mean PD. I think Template:PD-1923 would work. Or, to be more specific, you could use Template:PD-because, which simply states "public domain" and in the first parameter you can specify the reason for it being PD (that it was published in 1916). Jsayre64 (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought--thanks!--Orygun (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Logos uploaded as PD, but they really ought to be fair use

So, how should one deal with a situation where a nonfree logo is uploaded as PD, but it really ought to have a fair use rationale and nonfree copyright tag? Here's an example: File:IUPseal.jpg. (That seal is from 1999, so its not PD). Should I get that image deleted and the re-upload it as a new file with the proper fair use tags? Or should I just add the correct fair use tags? If I just change it, I'm worried that the original uploader will just revert me. Also, for copyright reasons, should we just delete the original file, to clean out the copyvio entirely?--GrapedApe (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You can just add the correct tags. {{Logo fur}} and {{Non-free logo}} and should do the trick. Shep^Talk 21:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

1927 Advertisement

Hi. How can we confirm whether this image is copyright-free? It is described in more detail at The history of a picture's worth, which itself is used as a ref in our A picture is worth a thousand words. Primarily, we'd like to use the 1927 image in a screencast, but adding it to the article would also be good. Thanks for any assistance :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not very easily. Published in 1927, it would have had an initial 28-year term that ended in 1955. At that point it would have gone public domain unless its copyright were renewed. The only way of checking whether there was a 1955 renewal is checking the microfilm records at the U.S. Copyright Office; the online records begin in 1978, I think.

I am assuming the periodical in which this was published had a copyright notice, which would, under the 1909 Act then in place, have covered the advertisements in it. TJRC (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The image "appeared in the advertising trade journal then called Printers' Ink (now known as Marketing/Communications)." according to the site. If that helps?

Is this something WP:REX would be able to research? Any pointers would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the copyright notice on a pre-1978 U.S. magazine did not cover the advertisements in most cases. See Commons:Commons:Image_casebook#Advertisements and the Copyright Office's Circular 3. This particular case seems a bit tricky, though, given that it was in an advertising trade journal - was it technically an ad, independent of the regular magazine content, or was it possibly considered a short article about advertising (a puff piece for Street Railways Advertising Co.)? --dave pape (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's post-1978 publications. That comes from § 404(a) of the 1976 Copyright Act ("...not including advertisements..."), which took effect January 1, 1978. In 1927, Copyright was covered by the 1909 Copyright Act; the equivalent provision in the 1909 Act, section 19, does not have that exception. It was new in the 1976 Act. TJRC (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The earlier renewal records are digitised and available online through Google, see searchable online, or Project Gutenberg, downloadable and searchable offline. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete my file

Plz help me to del this file http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Miley_Cyrus_-_2010_Much_Music_Video_Awards_Press_Room.jpg . I had a mistake to upload it and wanna del it. Thank you :) Phantastic95 10:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Bob Minor, Synthesised Bell Sounds.ogg

Unresolved

During a peer-review of St James' Church, Stretham, I have been asked to confirm the copyright status of Bob Minor, Synthesised Bell Sounds.ogg. Not being an expert in this field, I need help please. The file is someone else's declared own work under a GNU Free Documentation Licence version 1.2 which appears to me to be a suitable licence. However, is the tune "Bob Minor" itself copyrighted in some way? --Senra (Talk) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert on change ringing though having looked at that article, as Bob Minor is just a mathematical series and not a melody, is it really copyrightable? If that is the case, what copyright tag should be used on this audio file? --Senra (Talk) 12:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Church of England.png

Logo of the Church of England is used in ten articles. In a still ongoing peer-review of St James' Church, Stretham, the reviewer Jappalang (talk · contribs) rightly queried my use of a non-free image. As this is a low-resolution copy of the logo, are you able to suggest an appropriate licence that can be used in this instance? If there is such a licence, I will recommend it to the uploader of this logo --Senra (Talk) 21:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of the threshold of originality (and I might be wrong) is that the image would fall under {{PD-textlogo}}. Shep^Talk 21:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would say that the graphic design here is over the threshold of originality (the symbol rather than the text). - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a vertical line crossed into the "e" of England, which should be ineligible in the US if one compares with commons:Threshold of originality#United States. I do not know what the courts of England would say. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how adding a line to a letter makes it original. Shep^Talk 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice answers. Thank you. How do I go about getting the licence for this image changed to {{PD-textlogo}} under threshold of originality as suggested above? --Senra (Talk) 15:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You can just replace the current template with the PD and replace the FUR with {{Information}}. Shep^Talk 19:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

...And again. May I refer you to [6]. The logo is perfectly copyrightable in UK law, and IS COPYRIGHT. US law recognises the copyrights of other countries (it didn't always use to, but all these modern treaties you know). US law (which is what Wikipedia follows) would therefore regard this as copyright (ie if a US citizen tried to pass it off, US courts would uphold the CofE's legal action), even though if the image originated in the US the creator may not be able to copyright it. You can therefore only upload this to Wikipedia under a claim of fair use, which US law will quite happily accommodate, but it will also need to meet all the wikipedia non-free content usage criteria. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If I understand your link correctly is says the church holds copyright on the text of the site and photographs on the site. It mentions that everything else is probably trademarked, but makes no mention of the logo being under copyright. I could always be reading that page incorrectly, but I'm not sure what I'm missing. Shep^Talk 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the modifications. That should be sufficient. Shep^Talk 20:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See above. I have removed pd-textlogo as it is not the issue here. See notes above. You will need to put the FUR back. Sorry. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a correction. US Courts will apply US law to determine whether an image can be copyright in the US. This is spelt out in the revised decision in Bridgeman vs. Corel, where after representations had been made, the judge accepted the arguments that had been put to him.

However, I think Elen is right, to the extent that the combined cross-and-letter-E symbol does pass the US threshold of originality. It is not an routine arrangement of letters to make text, nor routine decoration such as putting the text in a box, and so I think does contain the required element of creativity. Note also that copyright need not be explicitly claimed, for copyright to nevertheless exist. Jheald (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to drive this into the ground, but I work with logos often at the graphics lab and I want to make sure I don't stray outside of guidelines. I don't see how the "e with a line" is any more creative than File:USC text logo.svg or File:UT&T text logo.svg (chosen at random). Unless you feel that those should be marked non-free as well? Shep^Talk 20:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The CofE logo I think is one step beyond those because in its case what is being composited together is not just letters. That to my mind lifts it the crucial notch away from routine. Jheald (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaceability

Hi. I uploaded File:Bielat-sean_shaking-hands.jpg as a non-free image (promotional material) because after an semi-extensive search of public domain files, I was unable to find one. Further, I believe the file qualifies under fair use because it is a low resolution version of promotional material. However, I got templated because another editor thought the photo failed the "no free equivalent" test at WP:NFCC. My question is this, does the "or could be created" part of this section imply that because I could travel to Massachusetts, find the candidate and take a picture of him, this non-free content is inadmissible? After reading the section a few times throughout my time editing, I've understood that to be more applicable to generic photographs of things like flowers, etc. Any guidance would be helpful, and sorry if I misunderstood the policy. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 13:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-free images of living people are almost never acceptable, and I don't see this case differing. You list the purpose of the image as "To illustrate the subject of the article". Since this is a public figure, still active, it is entirely plausible that someone could create a free image. When you say "or could be created" part of this section imply that because I could travel to Massachusetts, find the candidate and take a picture of him, this non-free content is inadmissible? this is entirely correct. See WP:NFC#UUI. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You may want to contact the individual or their campaign staff and ask them to release a photo, per Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, as often public figures like this don't mind releasing a single photo for free use. Or you could contact someone ins MA on this list, Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers and see if they can't try to take a photo at the next public appearance. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There are also several photographers on flickr with photos of him.[7] You could contact one or more of the flickr photographers to see if they would release an image under a free license. I have a sample message here. I would say this has a more than 50% success rate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help guys! I went ahead and emailed the campaign, and I'll get started on asking the flickr photographers later today. I really appreciate it. (I'll also go ahead and remove the photo from the infobox so it can be deleted ASAP). Sorry again for misinterpreting the policy. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I was beaten to it! Anyway, go ahead, delete away -- and thanks again. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 15:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, I searched on flickr and didn't see anything promising. Almost all of the images are by Paul Keleher, and say they are licensed through Getty, a commercial stock photography company that doesn't release free content. The only other image on Flickr I could find was by richard12111951, and it seems unlikely, based on other uploads, that he is the actual copyright holder. But just because there aren't any images currently on Flickr, doesn't mean all hope is lost. Contacting the campaign is a good first step, and I wish you luck!-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

African Union flag

Is it copyrighted/copyrightable? It's current copyrighted status is preventing the creation of a template for the african union. Mandingoesque 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandingoesque (talk •

First of all, I want to make it clear that the copyright status of this image has no bearing on the creation of a template. You can easily create a template with no images, or with an alternative free image or what have you. That said, why would you believe the image is not copyrightable? Do you have any reason to question the way it is currently tagged? -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

tried to create one but apparently there were many before me i refer you here for the full story http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Country_data_African_Union&action=edit&redlink=1

Mandingoesque 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandingoesque (talk • contribs)

It was established that one can not use a non free image in a flag template, so in short you can not. Sorry about that. Also, please change your signature to link to User:Mandingoesque, instead of Mandingoesque NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How many example sentences are consistent with fair use?

I want to contribute a series of example sentences in the Tahitian language to the Wikipedia article on Tahitian, each sentence first in Tahitian, then English gloss (word for word literal translation), then natural English translation. I have notes I once took specifying the copyrighted book that is the source, but I don't have specific page numbers. How many example sentences can I contribute without violating fair use limits? Three? Ten? Twenty? How about if I were able to track down the page numbers? 75.183.96.242 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unless you are talking about that particular book it sounds unfair to quote huge pieces from it. But if the sentences are simple, then they may be free of copyright. However using a large number is no good either, stick to less than 4.

Public Domain

This is to certify that I own the following files:

• EK Biki Waterworld.png
• Walter Mart Santa Rosa.jpg
• Robinsons Place Santa Rosa.jpg

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vien18 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bio Image

i have been referencing and cleaning up this biographical article. i was wondering if a picture of the subject posted on his current companies website here would be acceptable for use under the fair use rationale. WookieInHeat (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No because it would fail WP:NFCC criterion #1, No free equivalent. Most copyrighted images of living people fail this one. – ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

how to enter copyright info for my own work

I've uploaded 3 photos for use in the Land Speed Racing wiki entry. They are all my own work and are not copied from, owned by or otherwise copyrighted by anyone but myself. I use the name Ray the Rat for my photographic work. A simple google search will show this. The files in question are:

File:Burlkand_411_Streamliner_2008.jpg
File:Speed_Demon_2010.jpg
File:Treit_and_Davenport_2012.jpg

I thought I'd made it clear when uploading the files that they are my own, but apparently, I overlooked something in the description and I'm not sure where to correct it. I've uploaded photos in the past (although it was some time ago) and not run into this problem. If someone can show me the error of my ways and let me know how to go about correcting it, I'd be very grateful. I'm a photographer and not a wiki expert although I was a software developer until health forced me to retire from that job. Nonetheless, I spend much more time behind a camera than editing wikipedia pages...as a result...well, I could use some help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrunoSchwartz (talk • contribs) 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• You have to say under what license the picture is released. {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} is a valid tag you can add to each picture's page, if that is the license you want. Under copyright law a license must be granted in writing, so this step must be done. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• As they are your images, please consider uploading them to Wikimedia Commons so that they are available for use on all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

uploading pictures

how do you upload a picture to a Wikipedia article from your computer's desktop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrondace (talk • contribs) 06:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you look for "upload file" link you can click on that, after selecting the kind of license, there will be a box where you select the file name to upload. see help:upload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And after you have uploaded the image, you must add the appropriate code to an article (see WP:IMAGES) in order for the image to be displayed in the article. – ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Center for Cosmological Physics - public domain ?

Fire Vortex (talk · contribs) has made a cut-and-paste copy of the image and associated text from this page at the University of Chicago's Center for Cosmological Physics into the dark flow article. An IP user (who is probably the same person) has made an identical addition to the Lambda-CDM model article. In a discussion on my talk page Fire Vortex claims that their edits are not a breach of WP:COPYVIO because the material on that page is in the public domain. Are they correct ? Gandalf61 (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• The material is not public domain, but Andrey Kravtsov has given permission to copy with attribution. However permission is not given to modify, so it is not free enough for Wikipedia. However Andrey Kravtsov may be willing to grant a less restrictive license if requested. [8]. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So Fire Vortex's edits are in breach of WP:COPYVIO unless they can show specific permission from Andrey Kravtsov to distribute the material under a GFDL-compatible license - yes ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WEll putting it on Wikipedia is not a copyvio, but it is making a false license claim. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Check to see if correct copyright tag/everything was applied

Hi, I e-mailed the author of a picture on Flickr, which had the (c) all rights reserved as to whether picture could be used on article, checking to see if correct tags and everything were applied.

Here is the e-mail response

Name: Nicholas Tan Comments: Hi,

We are looking for a photo for the Wikipedia article on Tom Cheek, and have noticed that you have taken a very nice photo of his plaque in Dunedin here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cc97/2325274063/

Would it be possible that you a) Give us permission to use it in that article and b) if so, please state the restrictions/rights you want me to associate with it. Thanks,

Nicholas Tan

Response:

From: chris**********@gmail.com To: nicholas*********@hotmail.com

Hi Nicholas,

I would be happy to contribute this photo for Tom Cheek's Wikipedia article - I also have a photo I took of Mr. Cheek in 2001, not readily available but I can send it to you in the next week if you like.

Not sure of my restriction options -- I don't want the photo to be used for commercial purposes and I'd like for credit and a link to be given -- credit could be given to "Chris Creamer, http://www.bluejays.cc".

Thanks Chris

The file name is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Tomcheek.JPG

Cheers, Seniortrend (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The restriction to non-commercial use is inappropriate for Wikipedia - it has to be a release for all purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Problematic YouTube link

An editor recently added this external link to Theater drapes and stage curtains. My impression is that the link is problematic because the video, which appears at Rose Brands' corporate web site (in their "blog" section), is covered by the all-encompassing statement at the bottom of their home page: "All content ©2010 Rose Brand. All Rights Reserved." As an aside, this also seems to conflict with WP:LINKSPAM because the linked video has text (at both beginning and end) that would lead readers to their commercial site. I am inclined to delete the link for these reasons, but I'm not 100% sure of my analysis. Also, the posting editor is new and I don't want to discourage anyone, especially for the wrong reasons. Second opinion, anyone? Lambtron (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the link per WP:YOUTUBE. – ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:YOUTUBE applies. The video is not a copyvio as the company that made the video uploaded it to YouTube. Also, because only a logo is shown for 3 seconds and the beginning and end I don't think WP:LINKSPAM applies either. I don't think the purpose was to advertise the company. I think the purpose was to demonstrate the appearance and operation of a tab curtain. The part of the video with the directional arrows enforces the idea that the video was made for demonstration purposes and not advertising.--Rockfang (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If the video is copyrighted, does it matter who uploaded it to YouTube and, if so, how does that affect WP copyvio? Also, it seems to be a clear violation of WP:LINKSPAM because it has about four seconds of text, at both the beginning and end of the clip, that would lead readers to their commercial site. Whether that's the intent or not, it's an obvious result. Lambtron (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it does matter who uploads videos to YouTube. For example, if I upload an episode of Star Trek: Voyager to YouTube it would most likely get deleted quite quickly as a copyright violation. Linking to this video would be a violation of WP:ELNEVER. If CBS Television Studios (the company that owns the rights to the show) uploads the episode, it would not fall under WP:ELNEVER. They can upload videos they own the rights to wherever they want, and it would not be a copyright violation. Regarding the potential WP:LINKSPAM issue, maybe we can just agree to disagree. :) Rockfang (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rosebrand is running an aggressive marketing campaign at YouTube, so it's reasonable to think that they uploaded this video. In the general case, though, how can one be certain that a YouTube video has been uploaded by the copyright owner? Lambtron (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to be 100% certain that the uploader is the copyright holder, but I think there are indications that can increase or decrease the likelihood of this being the case. For example, looking at the uploader's other uploaded videos. If they upload a speedrun of Super Mario Bros. 3 and have also uploaded a Metallica video, I think the odds of them owning the rights to both are pretty slim. On the other hand, if NBC were to provide a link on their site to an episode of Outsourced on YouTube, the odds of them being the one that uploaded it increases in my opinion. I hope this answers your question.--Rockfang (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright questions

Sir, This is an image uploaded by me. (File:Chamarajanagar.JPG). It is completely my work i.e., the image was captured by me. How can i provide a license for this image when i have captured it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijethnbharadwaj (talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You must add a copyright tag to every image you upload indicating under what licence you are releasing the image. You can add a copyright tag to an image by clicking on the "Edit" button. Editors who upload their own work usually add one of the following tags to the image: {{PD-self}}, {{cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}} or {{attribution|User:Someuser|My full name}} though you may also want to refer to the copyright section for image creators for additional details. ww2censor (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding a Company Logo to the page

I wanted to edit the Zions Bank page to add the company's logo in the info box (on the right side of the page). Can anyone tell me how to do this? Thanks! RushmoreGold (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two steps: First, the logo must be uploaded to Wikipedia. It is probably a copyrighted image so it will have to be tagged with an appropriate non-free content rationale, in this case {{logo fur}} and with the {{non-free logo}} template. Second, when it has been uploaded, it is added to the infobox in the article with the appropriate code, in this case the code is [[File:logoname.png|150px]] (the display size can be adjusted if 150 is too small). Hope this helps – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Grand Tetons featured picture: no rights justification given

Regarding File:Barns_grand_tetons.jpg...
This is marked as a featured image, but the "Permissions" link is a dead link. There is no copyright notice or other justification of rights to publish. Shouldn't there be something more, especially for an image that is 'featured'? Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.63.133 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you go to [9] you can see that the original image is public domain, just like the information template says. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Image:Linus Pauling Quartet in 2008.jpg

I appear to have messed up the formatting for this in trying to put in all the necessary information and tags to demonstrate fair usage. Can you please help me format this properly so it shows as it should? I'm terribly confused as to why all that tagging information is showing up when it should be hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayler1973 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the template format but, being a non-free image, it is not used in any mainspace articles, so I tagged it for deletion. You cannot use it unless it is in an article but besides that problem, the band still exists so a freely licenced image can be created, therefore it will likely fail the non-free content criteria anyway. You may want to try to get the image released under a free licence or take a photo. ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing licensing designation

I was given a photo free and clear by the photographer and uploaded it, tagging it as "public domain". I'm now thinking I'd like to maybe switch that to Creative Commons Attribution so at least the photo will be properly sourced if it's reused in the future, but I can't see how to do that. Is that possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayler1973 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to File:Linus Pauling Quartet in Seattle 2000.jpg even though you asked about a different image of the same subject two posts above this one. Are you sure the photographer owns the copyright and not the group, who are the subject of that photo? Either way, because you are not the copyright holder, author or source, you need to get the copyright holder to send us their permission directly by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION when an OTRS ticket will be added to the image with the copyright licence they agree to. Their email to you is not enough to confirm their permission. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)