Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/August

Getty Images

• Are pictures from Getty Images allowed? What is the copyright status of pictures from Getty Images? (Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

For the most part firmly locked down out under getty copyright. Some of the really old stuff they have is PD but thats best left to those who really know their way around copyright.©Geni 21:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Same for AP Photo (or any news photography organization for that matter)? (Jzxpertguitarist (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

Yes, for the most part, commercial news agencies, or stock photography firms make their living off licensing images. Therefore they generally fail WP:NFCC #2. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright error

I have uploaded one image file which I have created and open for public domain, but still I am receiving message that this uploaded image will get deleted in few days. Even I tried uploading another file to correct copyright error than I am getting error/warning of duplicate file I am still unable to understand where and now to correct this ? Rasikdave (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

On File:Shaktambika mata mantra.jpg you need to add the {{PD-self}} tag. But this looks like you photographed text. Is the original text copyrighted? Or is is old? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No there is no copyright problem, I have prepared in my computer as a image file. Please solve this issue else it may get deleted. Thanking you in anticipationRasikdave (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the PD-self tag for you, but you really should go and do it yourself, because it makes it had, claiming it here instead of on the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Graeme for all the help provided from your side. Rasikdave (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Question on possible fair use claim for an image for the Philadelphia transit strike of 1944 article

I would appreciate the advice of knowledgeable users about appropriateness of a particular image for the Philadelphia transit strike of 1944 article. The image is located here: explorepahistory.com page. The image is directly relevant to the article since it shows the training of one of the eight African-American employees of the Philadelphia Transportation Company as a streetcar operator, on July 31, 1944. The fact that black employees were for the first time allowed to hold jobs as coachmen and motormen was the immediate trigger for the strike by white PTC workers that started on August 1, 1944. The image comes with a caption "Credit: Courtesy of Temple University, Urban Archives, Philadelphia, Pa." I have contacted both the Urban Archives and explorepahistory.com to try to find out the copyright status of the photo but got no reply. It may even be that the photo is in public domain. It was taken in 1944 and if it was published then without a copyright notice, the image would be in public domain now. However, if the image is from one of the newspapers or magazines from 1944, it may still copyrighted, so I am proceeding on that assumption. I have tried to find free images related to the strike but, after quite a bit of google-searching, could not find any. The book of Wolfinger[1] has several photos related to the strike, but they all also come with the same credit, "Courtesy of Temple University, Urban Archives". I am not sure if a fair use claim would be appropriate for the explorepahistory.com image. If I use that image, I would probably add a few sentences regarding it to the article. However, I don't know the original source of the image or who exactly took it back in 1944 and if it was actually published somewhere then. Any advice would be appreciated. Nsk92 (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a good picture. You're right that the source does not say who took the photo or who holds the copyright, and Tineye.com can't find the photo anywhere else on the Internet. The question is, does the use of this photo pass all our non-free content criteria? (See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.) I would say that it does. The only difficult criteria would be #2 and #10. As for #2, there is no evidence that anyone is charging for the use of the photo. And #10 can be satisfied with a clear and detailed non-free use rationale. I believe this is just the sort of case our non-free use policy was designed for. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I am still a bit worried about #10a which asks for "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder". I'll have another go at trying to get an answer from the Urban Archives. If I don't get anything from them in a few days, I'll probably upload the picture with a fair use rationale. Thanks again, Nsk92 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have heard back from the Urban Archives and, unfortunately, the news is not good. They did give me the source information about the photo -it comes from an Aug 1, 1944 article in Philadelphia Evening Bulletin titled "WLB Tells Union to Get Men Back on Job at Once". The copyright to the image was subsequently acquired by the Urban Archives and is current. The really bad news is that they charge regular commercial rates for the reuse of their images - they gave me the forms and the rates. Apparently they have a large image collection and the fees for reuse of these images represent a substantial source of income for the Urban Archives. I asked them if they'd be willing to release this particular image under a free license acceptable by Wikipedia, but they declined. I think that a fair use claim would not be acceptable under these circumstances, since NFCC#2 does not appear to be satisfied in this case. Bummer... Nsk92 (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

permission

Dear Sirs, I need you permission to use the drawing of the Propylaea published in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylaea and the photograph of Brandenburg Gate published in the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_Gate to use them in a scientific paper that will be published in scientific non-commercial journal and I agree on all your terms. Thank you so much in advance,

Dr. Nelly Ramzy P.S. my e-mail address is [redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.15.225 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

We do not own the copyright to those images, and, as such, we cannot give you our permission to use that content. However, nearly all of our content is available for free reuse, if you follow the terms of the licenses specified on the image description page. See WP:REUSE for more information. If need be, you are more than welcome to contact the original copyright holders and ask for their permission if you need a more specific statement outside of the already free licensing (you can find the copyright holder by reading the information on the image description page; often the uploader may be the copyright holder, but not always). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Excel graph

Could I upload a copy of a graph generated in Excel (given that I generated the spreadsheet myself), or would this be considered a screen-shot of copyright software? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cross-posted to Commons:Commons:Village pump#Excel copyright query —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ladies home journal

Hi If you find a paper of the ladies home journal from 1891 how much is it worth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.91.255 (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This forum is for asking media copyright question, like if the 1891 journal was still under copyright protection, or if it has gone into the public domain, and how would you tag an image scanned from that journal. We are not appraisers here and cannot help with your request. You may want to try the WP:REFDESK. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Civilization V cover art

There has been a question at Talk:Civilization V#Cover Art - Resolution:

Is the cover art 'low resolution' and meeting the requirements of the tagged fair-use license? After looking at a random selection of images in the same category I'm not confident that is the case and would suggest it is reduced to one-half or one-third of its current horizontal and vertical dimensions. -Oosh (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone answer the question. Vyeh (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Masem already answered there, and I agree with them that it definitely needs resized to be smaller. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about screenshots

Hi, I'm requesting a comment about a matter regarding screenshots from a video. The article in question that will have this image, if allowed, is Team Kaobon and the image is of an individual who trains with the team, who has a very large tattoo of a rival gym on his back. A few months ago, as a temporary measure, he's scribbled it out with pen as a sign of his new found dislike for that rival gym (before joining Team Kaobon). Keeping up? I hope so!

Anyway, the tattoo was destroyed soon after when the individual had it tattooed over. However, the original act, when photographed, made sure that the new gym (Kaobon) rose to prominence and were strongly covered in the media. Now, a free image of this, I believe, is impossible, as the crossing out of the tattoo only happened in front of media personnel and on a live video broadcast over the internet. As such, only a non-free screenshot is available.

Would this be allowed or would it be removed? Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A screenshot of a video carries the same copyright as the video does, if it's non-free media then it would have to follow the policies to be allowed. — raekyT 17:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just not too experienced in it. Despite reading through various policies, I'm still confused, as I'm sure you can tell from the heading below. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded file on Wikimedia

I've uploaded a file (Public Domain) on Wikimedia so that I can use it in a Wikipedia page. How can I upload the wikimedia file onto the wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycapple123 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that you uploaded an image... did you do it from your account? — raekyT 17:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

thumb|Jeffrion Aubry

The file is on Commons. You can link it in the same way that you link photos on Wikipedia, e.g. [[File:Jeffrion Aubry.JPG|thumb|Jeffrion Aubry]] will display as shown right. However, I see that it is tagged for deletion as you have not specified a source - did you take the photo yourself? If so, just add source = {{own}} to the information template, otherwise state where yu got the photograph from. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He did that, and indicated it wasn't his photograph, so a evidence of permission is needed... — raekyT 18:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter van Sant jpg

File:PeterVanSant.jpg is from:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/03/16/48hours/bios/main39040.shtml

Tell me what I have to do? I consider it to be fair use.PhanuelB (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's still alive then you can't use it, non-free images of living people are not acceptable. — raekyT 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use Question

I'd like to upload this image of the coat of arms of Gaborone, but I'm kind of new to uploading files and especially new to uploading files that I'd have to use fair use rationale. It's like the only online image of the coat of arms I can find. So can anyone who's knowledgeable in this area tell me if I should be able to use this image? Thanks! いただき (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Images of coats of arms (CoA, hereafter) that you might find on the internet are typically copyrighted works. Generally, such works can't be uploaded to Wikipedia without a non-free use rationale. However, heraldic descriptions of CoA are almost always public domain, which means that anyone is free to create their own version of a particular CoA and license it however they like. As a result, you generally can't upload a CoA that you find online to Wikipedia using a non-free use rationale, because one of the factors of such a rationale is that no free version could be created. So, you have two options here: try to find out whether the specific image you linked can be freely used, or create your own version of that CoA and upload it with a Creative Commons or public domain tag. (See this link for more chatter on the curious nature of CoA, including the important difference between representations and descriptions.) -- Hux (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Hux. I'm pretty sure there isn't a description for this coat of arms because it was so hard just to find a picture. I'll probably either ask for a description from the source or for permission to use to image. Thanks again! いただき (talk) 06:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free use

Currently, three of my images are (in my mind incorrectly) tagged for deletion based on incorrect non-free policy. Please see this discussion here regarding the usage/policy etc of each image and the three images can be found directly above on my talk page (Jim Wallhead promo photo, Team Rough House members and KUMMA: Mills vs. Wallhead).

Can someone please help me out with where I'm allegedly going wrong and if so, help me to pass the non-free policy so that they may be kept. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2#1. Living people are almost never acceptable for non-free content. — raekyT 17:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well I don't believe that covers the promotional poster for the event that highlights the individual's rise to the main (KUMMA: Mills vs. Wallhead poster), which I still believe is valid. Team Rough House members pic is an old one due to the changing of some members, so I'm not sure how easy a free replacement would be, if at all possible.

Also, the promo photo isn't just to illustrate the person's looks, it's to illustrate his participation in a certain organisation, which I believe is a valid non-free criteria. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It would also help if you linked the specific photos here, so we don't have to go tracking them down. — raekyT 17:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

[2] which highlights the individual's membership in that organisation.

[3] as above and a free alternative couldn't be produced due to changing of members

[4] a promotional event poster, so a free version couldn't possibly be created. File highlights the individual's rise to the main event, as the individual is the feature individual on it. File is not merely a minor narration, it serves the purpose of highlighting his rise to stardom.

I've also previously linked to a discussion on my talk page that has no longer been added to by the individual who tagged each of the picture as deleteable. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

None of these fulfill our non-free media requirements for that article, they'll all need deleted, sorry. The poster is not necessary for the understanding of the article, a group shot of multiple people is not relevant for a biography of one person, and the closeup shot, again living person, not allowed. — raekyT 17:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not very experienced in these matters, but I'm just a little confused by this. The promo poster of the event is kind of important to the understanding of the article, as it highlights how important he has become in the sport, to the extent where he is a top name and main eventing fight cards.

I understand that the close up image is of a living person, but surely it falls under promotional material, which is one criteria on the upload form that is permitted. That picture is not merely a narration to say "this is what he looks like", it's a legitimate attempt at highlighting his participation in that company.

"In general, non-free content uploaded under the Exemption Doctrine should be used only when the specific image itself is significant to the article (therefore him being part of the organisation in question), not merely what it depicts." is on the upload form under "promotional material" which I believe the image falls under, as a free image is not possible under promo material. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Paralympiakos: By default, non-free images of living persons cannot be uploaded using a non-free use rationale because it's possible to create a free image. Promotional images, even though their copyright owners want them to be widely used, are still non-free as far as Wikipedia is concerned, so the same rule still applies. So that rules out the first two photos you linked. The third one is potentially usable as it documents a one-time event. However, in order to use it, the general convention is that either a) the article needs to discuss the composition of that specific image (as distinct from the event it represents) because words alone are insufficiently descriptive, or b) the subject of the whole article needs to be that specific event. So you're out of luck there too, unfortunately. Sorry. -- Hux (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all the commentors here, and wanted to add that you don't need to see the poster to understand his rise to fame. You can simply say that he was part of a title fight and featured on a poster and our reader will get it. Nothing requires seeing it, unless critical commentary on the visual appearance of the poster was added (and that would need to be sourced to a reliable source, not commentary you personally add). The image in the infobox would be replaceable because he is still living and a public figure and anyone could take a picture at a promotional event, training, signing, fight, or what have you. The group shot is not important in understanding the subject of the article, and individual. If there was an article on that particular group, and the group was disbanded, then the image could probably be used in that article, but no in an article just discussing one individual (and again, words alone could explain that he was in the group and name the other members, we don't need to see the group to understand that). Wikipedia, being the FREE encyclopedia, has a strong bias against non-free content. But not all is lost, you may want to consider contacting the copyright holder of one or more of those images, and see if they wouldn't mind donating an image to the project, per WP:PERMISSION and WP:CONSENT. If the photo is already promotional, they may not mind releasing it under a free license. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

File Source issue

I uploaded both File:Hope Creek only.jpg and File:Salem only.jpg three years ago, long before the current descriptive templates were in use. Now, they're both being flagged for WP:CSD#F4, and I'm not sure how to rectify. I took them both on my trip to the Northeast from my own camera and have no problem releasing them into PD, so how do I make that known? Thanks! EaglesPhilliesFanInTampa 01:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just add Template:Information to the image, and fill out as much as you can, and make sure you mention the author/source is "Self" or your username or what have you. Once you add that template, and it is clear you are the author, I'd say it'd be OK to remove the deletion templates as well. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

William P. Gottlieb

Images by Gottlieb now seem to be PD? They've been licensed fair use before [5] see Commons -- Cherubino (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sports Team Photos from old college yearbooks?

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries has published online the complete collection of historical yearbooks from 1883 through 2001, here: [6]. I am the primary creator of Nebraska Cornhuskers football team season pages (example: 1955 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team). There is no clear (or even vague) prohibition on the yearbook site from using photos from those yearbooks. I'm interested in creating low-resolution (150px or less) images of the full-roster group photos to include in the heading of each team season page. How much trouble am I likely to run into, doing this? Fjbfour (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

None of us here are able to give you a legal opinion. As for Wikipedia, the ones published 1923 and later may still be under copyright, check the rules for that. I am unsure you will be able to do convincing fair use rationales.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the copyright holder would be, if the photographers are considered employees thus the university owns the copyright, or other. I'd lean more towards the university owning the copyright, and if thats the case then you might be able to get an OTRS letter on file with us for the release of those images. And as Wehwalt, anything published before 1923 is in public domain now, anything after you'll need to check if the university owns the copyright (and get OTRS on file with us) or make very strong fair-use claims for the use of the images here. — raekyT 03:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is very helpful, thanks. Wehwalt, I should have been more careful.... when I used the word "trouble", I was meaning inconvenience, and getting images whacked for violations here on WP, not actual legal trouble. Anyway, I will proceed with installing the images for 1922 and prior, and explore other avenues for the other years. Thanks again, very appreciated. Fjbfour (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Photos tagged for speedy deletion by SoxBot on Nikonos page

Resolved

 – Permissions received and processed by OTRS. – ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why:

• File:Nikonos_II.jpg
• File:Nikonos_case_sekonic_meter.jpg

I have permission to use these where I told the owners that I would license as appropriate, but I am not sure how to relate this. The above pictures are made from three pictures each, hence my name as an author.

I changed the orginal PD license to CC, which I guess was a problem. Also, shouldn't the speedy deletion request appear in Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion?

I figured out where one of them is, anyway, but no place to comment: Category:Wikipedia_files_with_unknown_source_as_of_27_July_2010

When can I remove the tags?--John Bessa (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the pictures had the tag "This file has no source information." I added the author information to the source information line, hopefully resolving this. I also removed the tags both in the picture data files and where they reside.--John Bessa (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are relying on the permission of the copyright owner you must provided evidence of it per the instructions at WP:IOWN. Please note there is a delay in processing these requests. I have re-tagged the images. When you have sent evidence of permission you can tag them with {{OTRS pending}}. – ukexpat (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be time-consuming, but I will go forward at least for the moment.

The full scenario goes thus:

As a camera lover, I use Ebay.com for research. Lately I have been finding excellent photographs of cameras I do not own, especially from different angles, such as this Nikonos series. I email the photos' owners to ask if they would want to allow them to be used on the WP, and they invariably say "yes" with enthusiasm. I tell them this means putting the pictures "out there" with some open license, or in the public domain (which is my preference).

Further, I have them send me the originals and they usually send me more shots than appeared on Ebay. (Technically speaking, I believe that they are not the actual shots on Ebay, as Ebay shots are altered along the way, and hence my assertion that they are solely the property of the owner.) I then take the multiple shots and combine them into one shot about 400 px wide, a process I am still perfecting because I would like to show the cameras over a contextual background, such as a Nikonos on the beach or in the surf with flowing palms (you get the picture).

There is a problem: I just realized that permission was sent to my email address that has my real full name associated with it, as that is the email address I use for Ebay and PayPal. I use a different email address here to prevent being "outed," which is a Wikipedia right. I need an assurance of confidentiality so that the names are not associated where they can be plainly viewed. Added to this problem is the obvious fact that far too many Wikipedia admin accounts have been compromised.

There are many pictures out there that owners would love to share greatly strengthening articles, but this process will block the majority of attempts at sharing as it is a huge waste of everyone's time--there has to be a better way. I am going to relate all this to the talk page associated with WP:IOWN. --John Bessa (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The OTRS process described at WP:IOWN is completely confidential. Due to the nature of the issues that they deal with OTRS rights are granted to only a few of the most trustworthy admins. You will see the requirements at meta:OTRS/volunteering. By the way, I am a camera collector too in a modest fashion. – ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sent in the permissions material, hope it works--here is the gist of the email. "Putting too much burden on the editors will result in less sharing, and putting any burden on the copyright holders will result in no sharing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Bessa (talk • contribs)

One thing, there is currently a backlog at OTRS (see the thread immediately above) so it may take a while for the permission to be reviewed. The images may be deleted in the meantime, but when the review is complete, the OTRS folks will undelete them and tag them appropriately. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I was quickly "taken care of" and WMF will contact the authors. I have been looking at relevant copyright documents and extended below.

Everything is done -- "sharer" has to specify license as well as everything else, apparently.--John Bessa (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent - marking as resolved. – ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just gotten a nibble for a Contax C. Zeiss Jena 135mm lens...(picture, lens went for $163) --John Bessa (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding flag of Cumbria

I'm wondering about the copyright status of File:Flag of cumbria.gif. I don't know much about the flag itself, only that it is used unofficially to represent the English county of Cumbria and that it is based on a CoA dating from 1951 for the now defunct Cumberland County Council.[7][8] Would the flag be regarded as ineligible for copyright, or is copyright likely to apply?

As for the actual gif, it appears to be taken from this website -- is this ok, or does it require permission? PC78 (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright law for UK is probably important here, and I'm not comfortable speaking on that. From a strictly "threshold of originality" point of view, I'd say that it probably IS eligible for copyright protection, so a claim of PD-ineligible probably isn't true, IMO. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Choosing a licence

Hi... I want to uplooad some photos that I have taken. One example is a photo of the concorde on display at the USS Intrepid museum in New York City; others are some of the shrines near Nikko, Japan. I understand that as the creator of the image I can choose which licence to use, but I have tried reading the information pages and can't figure out which one(s) are appropriate / desirable from a WP perspective. Can someone please give me a brief explanation of the differences in the licences in simple terms? Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ICTIC Public Domain means anyone can use it for any reason. CC-BY means people can reuse it if they attribute you (i.e. give you credit). CC-BY-SA is the previous license, plus a requirement to license any derivative work or reuse under the terms of a similarly free license. GFDL doesn't work well with images because it requires linking to or printing the fulltext of the license. I don't know much about the FAL, sorry. ALL of these licenses allow third parties to reuse, modify, and commercially use your images. Just curious, what is a "concorde on display"? If you are taking pictures of a museum exhibition, that may complicate matters, as the works in the exhibition could be under copyright protection. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's a retired Concorde jet sitting on the pier at the U.S.S. Intrepid museum in New York City. It can be seen on the extreme lower right of this image. I rather doubt there'd be any copyright concerns. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. As Hammersoft indicates, the Concorde is an actual aircraft sitting on a barge in the Hudson River (I think... or is it the East River) in NYC. It's one of the parts of the USS Intrepid Museum. The image I am thinking of is similar to this image at Commons except that my image has better composition (no fence in the foreground, no crane and ships in the background). The shrines and temples at Nikko are part of a World Heritage Conservation area. Visitors are free to photograph the outside of the buildings, so I suspect many people have images similar to mine, but the WP article is missing a lot of images
As far as the licence issue goes, would I be correct to summarise my options as:

• {{PD-self}} - I give up any rights, release the image for anyone to do whatever they want with
• {{GFDL-self}} - I allow others to use, but it's difficult for them as a licence statement needs to be reproduced
• {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Attribution details}} or {{cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}} - Basically free use, but with attribution (that I specify); the difference here is whether derivative works need to use the same licence (sa) or not (no sa) - how is this different from {{Attribution}}?
• {{FAL}} - not really relevant as we aren't talking about art work

I didn't realise that PD-self was an option (I've used that for chemical structures in the last few days), so thanks for pointing that out too. EdChem (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

www.Sparcmurals.org

can photos be used from this website (the pictures of the murals)

Thanks Phaeton23 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. We need evidence that the images have been released under a free license. A perusal of the site does not find that. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Search the website for any notice such as "The images on this site are released under the terms of the CC-BY-SA free license". Or "This image is in the public domain". If there is no such explicit notice of free licensing, we cannot use the images here (furthermore, USA does not have freedom of panorama so the works of art would still be copyright protected by their creator, and we'd need a release from the artist). -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

List of vegetarians Superman image copyright/trademark issue

We don't need 3 discussion on the same topic. Central discussion is here

Note to administrator: please mark this topic as "Closed" as the discussion was simultaneously going on at Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Can_.22likeness.22_still_be_copyrighted_in_public_domain_content.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmyers1976 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC) There has been a conflict on the List of vegetarians article talk page Talk:List_of_vegetarians#Superman_pic regarding the use of a Superman image. The list is mostly a list of real vegetarians, but there is a short list at the bottom of fictional vegetarians, and Superman is listed as one. Someone placed an image of Superman (the same image used as the main image in theSuperman article) at the bottom of the page. Since the image was a non-free image, it was replaced after much debate. It was replaced with an image that is claimed to be copyright-lapsed because of the age of the image, and lack or renewal of the copyright. I looked into the issue of the copyright of Superman. It appears that DC Comics and the Siegal family share a copyright on Superman, his likeness, and other elements of the Superman "universe". DC Comics claims Superman as a trademark as well. The issues that seem to be causing some editors confusion are: Copyright: The copyright on the specific image may be lapsed, but the copyright on the likeness of Superman, no matter who drew him or when, is still copyrighted. So, should we treat the image according to fair use rules for non-free images? Trademark: Superman and his likeness are a registered trademark of DC Comics. Wikipedia does not enumerate a policy for handling non-free trademarked materials as explicitly as it does for nonfree copyrighted materials. However, the Lanham act says that trademarks are open to "fair use" and "nominitive use" Should we use non-free trademarked properties, especially images of trademarks, according to similar guidelines that we use copyrighted non-free images? Thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) This same debate is being held at Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Can_.22likeness.22_still_be_copyrighted_in_public_domain_content.3F. It would be good to get more involvement, but probably best if we keep it as a single discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Copyrights aren't applied broadly to any works fitting a particular category. They're applied specifically. The image is taken from a source where copyright has apparently lapsed. There is no generic copyright that would retroactively cover something that already lapsed. As for trademark, trademark doesn't mean non-free. Non-free means (for our purposes) not available under a free license. Trademarks frequently are not copyrighted (though they can be, and many times are). In Wikipedia terms, if something is trademarked but not copyrighted, we can use it anywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC) You have missed the point on copyrights, and so you are incorrect. Fictional characters can be copyrighted, in isolation, outside of any work they are depicted in. Do you think I could go out and write a brand-new, original story with Batman, or Superman, or James Bond as the main character, and turn it into a movie that I release commercially, without going to DC, or Eon and hammering out a licensing agreement? Absolutely not. Because DC and Eon own the rights to those characters, and to any depiction of them.Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) And you've missed the point of what I was saying. They do not hold copyrights to an image from a work that has lapsed out of copyright. No matter how much huff and fluff they make, they can't change that. It's out of copyright. That doesn't mean they don't hold trademarks to it. That doesn't mean they can't throw a legal tizzy if I were to make a new series of books using that image and made a million bucks doing it. You're missing the difference. --Hammersoft No, you are missing the difference between a copyrighted work, and a copyrighted character. Do yourself a favor and read [[9]] Then read postdlf's explanation below: Here is a good piece on copyright and other forms of protection of graphic characters such as Superman. (Nothing in it, however, clarifies why DC wouldn't be more aggressive in attempting to block reproduction and distribution of the Fleischer cartoons by entities thus profiting from the copyrighted Superman character without permission.)—DCGeist (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC) That clearly (and correctly) explains that graphic characters, such as Superman, are protected by copyright. On the public domain issue, I just remembered the most obvious parallel: It's a Wonderful Life. The film lapsed into public domain because of failure to renew, as in this case. It was a derivative of a previously published story still in copyright, however, which means that the copyright holders of the story have rights in the film despite it otherwise being public domain. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Hannah Montana Forever Logo.png

I'm not really sure if this is the right place to ask this but, in June, a higher resolution version of File:Hannah Montana Forever Logo.png was uploaded. I reverted to the lower resolution version but it was later reverted back to the higher res version. Should the higher res versions be deleted to prevent this sort of thing happening and, if so, how does one go about getting this done? Does retention of the higher res version breach copyright? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I've deleted the too large resolution versions. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Candian Food Inspection Agency logo

Can I use this logo for the CFIA entry on wikipedia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Food_Inspection_Agency

It's the standard logo for the Canadian federal agency (I work in agency).

And also, if it's not suitable for use, how do I delete this file File:CFIA-ACIA.jpg? I can not figure that out for the life of me.

Thanks

Your image was missing a copyright tag, so check out my last edit to see what I did, and view the page to see it (look at the very top of this article to read more about tagging images). Non-free logos of organizations are generally allowed if used in a parent article about the organization in the infobox or similar. I see nothing wrong with your use (except for the lack of a copyright tag, which I fixed). Maybe the resolution is a little high, but other than that... looks good. Any more questions, or want me to explain anything in more detail? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! NCL75 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Mjs-northern-lights.jpg

The uploader indicates a source here, however the photo also appears here and has moved from Wisconsin to Denmark. At the popsci site there's indication it was posted to a NASA blog. Can anyone find anything further as I can't the blog. At the very least we seem to have attribution wrong, and there's no way this meets WP:NFCC. The only thing stopping me deleting it straight away is that NASA's own works are going to be okay and I can't be certain where this originates from. Help appreciated! (Also note the article this appears in is currently on the main page). Pedro :  Chat  06:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The image is on NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory page. The filename of the image is Tony-Wilder1.jpg, which seems to support the Journal Sentinel attribution to Tony Wilder, but the accompanying text says "This photo was taken by Jesper Grønne of Denmark". --AussieLegend (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well found AussieLegend - thank you. I'm tempted to delete this as it does not have a fair use claim (and would fail WP:NFCC as an alternative image could bew found) and copyright is ambiguous. Pedro :  Chat  07:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Web page screen shot

Hi, Is it OK to upload a screen shot of a web page? Specifically, the main page (www.something.com). I've seen the website infobox example here where the ebay homepage was given as an example.

How should this image be tagged as regarding to copyright?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytoledano (talk • contribs) 07:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally yes, in an article about the website itself. It should be tagged as a fairuse screenshot of a website and have a fair use rationale. Exxolon (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded files

User talk:Superbrutaka07.The images posted by me had been taken from my camera itself. So I don't think that they should be deleted. I'm sorry I didn't provide any info while uploading it as I didn't know how to do so.Superbrutaka07 _{FCB Rocks!!!}^{Messi Rules!!!} —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC).

The images can easily be fixed. First add Template:Information to the image description page, and fill out all the information you know (making sure to make it clear you took the photo). Then add a copyright licensing tag. Instructions on how to do that are at the very top of this page. You can look at existing images to see how their image description pages are formatted if you need an example, and if you have specific questions, feel free to ask here. It isn't to late to save the images from deletion, just fix them yourself! -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture of building

Picture of building- unattributed - original source unknown- no copywrite- no living being in view.

Available on several websites without attribution or copywrite notice.

This to me is public domain, it has no artistic, original or intellectual content.

Please advise if this can be used in a wikipedia article as it adds context to the events the article records.

Twentytriestofindanunusedloginname (talk) 10:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. Lack of explicit attribution doesn't mean lack of copyright; lack of artistic originality doesn't mean anything either (according to US law, unlike some other countries), and spread on other websites only means that other websites tend to be less careful about copyright than we are. Is it a building that still exists? In that case, no chance; if not, we might start talking about fair use, but it would still be problematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gauguin painting

for piublication in an book about the pacific i like to use the image for free "nave nave fenua" from Paul Gauguin, its a GNU Free Documentation Licence. Is that possible? Thanks, with best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.199.124 (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Gauguin died more than 100 years ago, so any painting created and published during his lifetime is in the public domain. We have a copy of it tagged as such at File:Paul Gauguin 069.jpg. You are free to use it, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You may want to check the legal language at {{PD-Art}}. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded two photos to an article about a guy I went to high school with in the late 60s. The photos are scans from our 1969 high school yearbook, which had no copyright claims. I don't know what I tagged it as before, but it is now Non-free historic image. Is that what I should be using? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulLambert (talk • contribs) 20:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

40 year old yearbook photos

Forgot to sign the prior question:

I've uploaded two picture files which are scans from by 1969 high school yearbook, which contains no copyright claims. I used the tag Non-free historic image. Is this the correct one to use in this case? Thanks

Boomer (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If the yearbook was first published in the United States, and contains no copyright statements whatsoever, the correct tag is {{PD-US-no notice}}. --Carnildo (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem

... with File:Kit body wasl2.png==

Thank you for uploading File:Kit body wasl2.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

---

I've received the above message on my talk page, I've added a copyright to the uploaded file File:Kit body wasl2.png as a Free Art license. Does my work satisfy the requirements of the message ? , if not can you please guide me to the right way of adding a copyright to an uploaded files. Another question, if i have edited a file taken from the wikipedia. how can i copyright it ?

Thank you S3EED (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. It has a license, so I removed the speedy tag.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Need Help

Hi, I just uploaded this photo, File:2000TowerOaksBldgbyRonBlunt MG 6475.jpg which I obtained with permission from the company at the Media Center of this web site.[10] I have indicated this in the photo file. But I received an Admin notice anyway. [11]Can someone help me get this photo properly registered on Wiki? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Permission to use on Wikipedia is completely meaningless to us. The image has to be released under a free license in order to be usable here. The building exists, so free alternatives can readily be made by any Wikipedian with access to the area and a camera. You've tagged the image as being CC-BY-SA 3.0, but the source you noted does not contain any proof that the image has been released under that license. You can't just SAY it is released under that; you have to be able to prove it. No such proof exists so far. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keithbob: if the owners of the photograph are prepared to release it under CC-BY-SA or a similar free license, this can be demonstrated either by them posting a note to that effect on their own site, or by them e-mailing their agreement to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Associated Press photograph from 1961

I would like to include this Photo in a Wikipedia page. The photograph is from 1961.

I have reviewed this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PD) and I see this language: "From 1923 to 1963: only in the public domain if copyright not renewed. This may be hard to determine, and if renewed, the protection runs until 95 years after the initial publication. See the external links below and Circular 22 of the U.S. Copyright Office for information on how to search the registry of the U.S. Copyright Office for copyright registrations and renewals."

Given that this is an AP Wirephoto, does the AP automatically renew its photos and therefore it is copyright-protected for 95 years. How can I confirm whether a specific photo is copyrighted or not from 1961? If I go to the US Copyright Office, will they be able to determine this from the identification number on the photo? Or should I write the Associated Press directly?

thanks

Danielgraham (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that AP is in business, among other things, to get royalties from photographs, and the nature of that photograph insofar as it depicts King, I would be amazed if the copyright were not renewed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Article in public domain

If an article says "This is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the United States of America." at the bottom, does that mean it can be uploaded here? I'm a bit concerned about the "in the US" part. Richard001 (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Works of the US government are in the PD, and are acceptable on Wikipedia. Also, not that it matters, but pretty sure some of our servers are in the US, so no worries there. That said, what are you trying to upload? It may be legal, but it still may not meet our inclusion criteria, as Wikipedia is not a place to host documents, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Without knowing what it is, Wikisource might be a better home for the content. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a PDF called "Plant Interactions with Herbivores" from Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. We already have an article on herbivory which is basically the same topic under a different name, so I don't think direct upload is an option, and the PDF itself is rather ELSy, so just the text would have to be used and edited to be less ELSy. But I'll keep a lookout for documents with the same license there as they may be directly (with editing) usable as articles. I think they're PD because their authors wrote the articles while working for the USDA etc. Richard001 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo of statue

I took a photo of a statue of Jan Karski. What exact steps do I need to take to have the correct license on the photo? When I click on "Upload file" there is no "photo of a work of art" option, just stamps, currency, album covers, screenshots and such...

I know that I'll need a fair use rationale. I'm asking about the license. Dismas|^(talk) 01:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What country is the statue in? There is a chance that the country may have freedom of panorama, and the image could possibly be free. Otherwise, I don't believe an image of a non-free statue of an individual would meet WP:NFCC since there are free images of the individual, and we do not need to see a statue to understand Statues honoring Karski have been placed in New York City at the corner of 37th Street and Madison Avenue (renamed "Jan Karski Corner"[12]) and on the grounds of Georgetown University in Washington, DC. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The statue is the one pointed out in the article. The "Jan Karski Corner" statue. Dismas|^(talk) 02:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need to see the statue to understand the topic "Jan Karski"? the sentence Statues honoring Karski have been placed in New York City at the corner of 37th Street and Madison Avenue conveys the information fine with words alone, IMO. We generally are fairly restrictive when it comes to non-free content, as we are the free encyclopedia. Do you think the image would meet NFCC #8? -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't pass NFCC #8. I'm aware that we're restrictive here. I don't think I've uploaded an image yet that wasn't threatened with deletion. I'm not a lawyer after all. Just an average guy trying to supply some pictures. I've uploaded about 8-10 images in the last few days. I figure that I'll be fixing "issues" with them for the next six months at least. Dismas|^(talk) 22:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Palace_of_Ichalkaranji.jpg

Dear Sir,

I have found this rare Photo Of ‘Palace of Ichalkaranji’ in very old book ‘Glimpses of Ichalkaranji’- by Mr. G H Goheen, one of the administrator of Ichalkaranji during British rule. I have no Idea about any copyright of this old book. I have some other rare photos of His Highness Shrimant Narayanrao Babasaheb Ghorpade who was a king Ichalkaranji. Kindly help me on this subject. I want to place this file on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichalkaranji . Thanks , Sachinvenga —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinvenga (talk • contribs) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• To figure out the copyright status, the first step is probably to determine when the photograph was taken and/or when the book was published. When there is no date given, it is sometimes possible to at least establish a date range based on clues in the photograph or in the text of the book. For example, you mentioned that he was an administrator during British rule; is there any indication that the book was published during British rule? That would mean pre-1947. Is there an indication that it was published before, during, or after Mr. Goheen's administratorship? In the photo, is anything pictured which was removed or otherwise changed before or after certain known dates? All of these would allow you to narrow down the date range. cmadler (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Usage of Wiki media images relating to copyright

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_b-KAtMpc80g/TD6Ql1VmfCI/AAAAAAAAAhU/qHc97MsjfmI/s1600/448px-Anne_of_Cleves,_by_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg

http://www.statemaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Lady_with_an_Ermine.jpg/280px-Lady_with_an_Ermine.jpg

http://thumbs2.modthesims.info/img/2/2/5/4/8/1/MTS2_teru_k_492349_Ephemera_DollEye.jpg

http://www.wga.hu/art/p/pisanell/princess.jpg

http://www.naergilien.info/research/london1/VandA/Cast_Courts/Beatrice_DEstes_Tomb/beatricepainting.jpghttp://www.biographicon.com/images/Pisanello_015.jpg

I would like to know if I can incorporate the above mentioned images into a larger artwork without infringing on any copyright, I will be

a) Possibly altering the images b) using either the whole image or portions of the image as part of a bigger original artwork. c) Once it becomes part of a bigger artwork it could potentially be used for exhibitions etc. with the goal being to sell the work.

I have noticed that for most of these links the copyright has already expired, in the future do I need to do research on each image in the Wiki media public domain (with regards to copyright) or is it safe to assume that I can use these images straight from the site? Lisa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmc1000 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, but I'm quite new to this and don't know how to change it. I am a photographer and would love any help I can get with this entire "Wikipedia" thing. Best Regards,

Michael Davis

• Generally, files at Wikimedia Commons are free from copyright restrictions in the US, though they may be subject to other restrictions (trademark, for example) and use in other countries may be restricted. For files at Wikipedia, you would need to check the file description of each file. cmadler (talk)

Use of Illustration

Dear sir or maam:

 Is it possible to get a hi resolution file of one of your images?

I'm a sign painter working on a project for a church and would like to use the illustration to make a digital print for the sign. The image is located on the following link. It is the illustration of St. Mary in a dark oval in the upper right corner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)

Thanks for your help, Peter Carbone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petnatcar (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The information for the image indicates it came from http://www.bridgemanartondemand.com/art/104827/The_Madonna_in_Sorrow

The version on Wikipedia is 306 by 390 pixels. Perhaps bridgemanartondemand.com can provide a higher resolution picture. Of course neither Wikipedia nor I have any affiliation with that site. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Open Publication License

Whether texts with licence OPL can be copied in Wikipedia?--Lucas Novokuznetsk (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The OPL will certainly let you copy the work into Wikipedia. However it may not quite meet the Wikipedia requirements, as it is not equivalent to a cc-by-sa-3.0 license. For use in Wikipedia the options of A and B must not be specified. (Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder; and Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard (paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtained from the copyright holder) There may be some extra restrictions such as the size and style of the attribution required, that are not the same as the creative commons rules. However someone who published under such a license is likely to be willing to publish under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, so feel free to ask the author too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

question

how to upload our files in the wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshtheindian (talk • contribs) 11:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Upload is the link you need. Make sure they are correctly tagged/licensed. Exxolon (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

However you are not yet autoconfirmed (editted enough times), but you can place a request at WP:Files for upload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheila Murphy in 2010

I have licensed this photograph that I own on Creative Commons. It is titled "Sheila Murphy in 2010." I keep being takne in circles around and around. Cannot get this to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemurph (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to add the text or template to File:Sheila E Murphy.jpg to indicate the license being granted, (You can use {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}), you have to say a bit more about the source. Unless you are Harrison Hurwitz, you will have to explain how come you have the ability to grant a license. One possibility is to use the procedure in WP:PERMIT to prove permissions is granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A Work Of Government?

Hello. I am not sure whether the logo of Santa Clara County Federal Credit Union is a work of the government (free domain) or if it has to be fair use - it is a federal charter, but I suppose it's its own organization. Thanks for your time! シ ☏ 00:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely not a work of the government, it can only be used under a fair use claim. I'm editing the article a bit to make this more clear. cmadler (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 21:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ESA image tag

I uploaded an ESA HRSC image I had modified slightly (I applied a stretch and converted it to a png), but the image was tagged for speedy deletion because I hadn't provided the proper copyright tag. My problem is that I can't find the proper tag to be used with ESA images. Does anyone know what tag to use?Rppeabody (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• If the image comes from ESA, they probably hold a copyright on it. I can't find any indication on their website to the contrary, so I don't think this is a free image that can be used on Wikipedia. cmadler (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the images are usable. The website says:

The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions:

Credit ESA as the source of the images:

Examples: Photo: ESA; Photo: ESA/Cluster; Image: ESA/NASA - SOHO/LASCO.

ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead.

If an image includes an identifiable person, using that image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy, and separate permission should be obtained from the individual.

If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval.

Wikipedia fits all of these guidelines. Science images are designed to be available to the public; this is a clear example of the intended use.Rppeabody (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the last statement, which restricts commercial uses, means that the images are considered "unfree" for Wikipedia purposes, just like the Creative Commons noncommercial licenses. cmadler (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In order to be considered "free" they need to be usable for commercial purposes as well as allowing for derivations, neither of which the ESA allows. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper Article and photograph

I have an old newspaper article from approximately 1930 that talks about a band and a performance. It also includes a photograph of the women in the band. I do not know the name of the newspaper, however it may be The Buffalo News. Am I allowed to post this newspaper article to a Wikipedia article? Thanks, Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by ESchultzDC (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Since it's after 1923, you should probably assume that it's still under copyright unless you find evidence suggesting otherwise. Which means that unless the Wikipedia article is about the newspaper article itself (I'm guessing not) you probably won't be able to make a fair use claim for the whole article. But it's possible that you might be able to make a fair-use claim on a photograph of the band if your article is about the band; see WP:NFC for criteria to consider. cmadler (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• If the name of the newspaper can be firmly established, then you can look for copyright renewals, but without that you pretty much have to consider it non-free and follow the guidelines cmadler pointed to. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pharmaceuticals

Images like File:Propecia (finasteride).jpg show trademarked logos and packaging, and are solely focused on it. Are these considered derivative works? — raekyT 05:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Usually when we talk about an image being "free" here, we're referring to copyright restrictions, not trademark. I have marked it as an image containing the trademark, with the appropriate restrictions. See also Wikipedia:General_disclaimer#Trademarks. cmadler (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the concern was an admin went and purged a TON of similar images off of Commons claiming they was commons:COM:DW. — raekyT 14:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can only suggest taking that up at Commons; Wikipedia and Commons have different rules, though I'm fairly certain that files containing trademarked but not copyrighted images are acceptable there also. In fact, the Commons guideline you linked to specifically refers only to copyrighted works ("[A]ll transfers of a creative, copyrightable work into a new medium count as derivative works."). cmadler (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Badges

Would these be derivative works? File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2003.png, File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2004.png, File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2005.jpg, File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2006.jpg, and File:Scouting in Portugal Acanet 2007.gif? — raekyT 05:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They're all listed on Commons as public domain works, but I'm dubious. I think each of those is a derivative work of a copyrighted work, which would therefore be subject to the copyright restrictions of the original. I'll raise that issue at Commons. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there was already a deletion discussion underway at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Insignias-acanet-2005.jpg cmadler (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Brook Lopez and Robin Lopez

I've decided to upload a picture of both of the brothers Lopez for the 2008 NBA Draft because I feel that they're both notable rookies from 2008 that ended up being starters for their respective teams. However, I don't have any idea what type of copyright the image holds. I mean, I found it on Google and the picture I found it was on this website, but I don't know the copyright of this image, so yeah. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• In the vast, vast majority of cases an image you find somewhere on the web is not going to be acceptable here. The image source is from here, which does not contain a specific release of the image under a free license. Given that this image does not display anything of particular historical note, its use here as a non-free image is highly suspect. I've marked it as replaceable fair use; these two are still alive, and we already have free license imagery of them. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides the source webpage clearly attributes the image to "Mark J. Rebilas/US Presswire" which is enough to indicate it as being copyright to a press agency, so we cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting that I upload a different picture of the Lopez brothers together? I'm asking because I still think it'd be beneficial for Wikipedia for the brothers to be listed together if the guys between picks 10 and 15 won't be listed as notable rookies. Before anyone would ask why Robin Lopez is a notable rookie, I'd say that being a candidate for the U.S. team for the 2010 Fifa competition in Turkey should be enough to make him notable. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What we are suggesting is that if it is important to have an image of these two people, together or separately, then you have to find a freely licenced image because the one you uploaded is not free and therefore not acceptable to Wikipedia. ww2censor (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial in order to help you find a free image of them. — Martin tamb (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File:MiamiHeatThrice136.jpg

I'm not exactly sure who this image belongs to, but theres ample amount of evidence to suggest this isn't his. This User:Fredler Brave has a history of uploading copyrighted images from this very event and claiming it as his own.. and I've reported him on three separate occasions 1 2 3, yet he persists on violating others copyright. I'm honestly tired of his shenanigans and think he should lose his uploading privileges altogether.. he just doesn't learn from his mistakes and warnings/bans. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is the second one I have deleted, and delete it I have. If he keeps it up, drop me a note on my talk page, and I'll consider a block because it dangerous to the wiki to have someone uploading copyvios.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 17:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo of medal in exhibition

I am using File:1976 Innsbruck Olympic Winter Games medal.jpg in 1976 Winter Olympics medal table, currently a FLC. This, in turn, is a cropped version (thus derivative work) of File:Olympic medal Innsbruck 1976.jpg, a photo of an Olympic medal displayed at an exhibition. This photo was supposedly uploaded to Commons by its creator/photographer, under a GFDL/CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. I was asked if my version's license was OK, but then I began to wonder if the original image might not have copyright, being a photo of an Olympic medal, with a design that bears copyrighted elements (Olympic rings and Games emblem). I'm plain ignorant at these media copyright things, so I'd appreciate anyone's help. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Because they are common geometric forms, the Olympic rings are almost certainly not copyrightable in the US, and I suspect that the same is true of rest of the design on that medal, because it consists entirely of simple geometric forms (not copyrightable in the US) and text (fonts are not copyrightable in the US). The rings are probably trademarked and these images should be marked as such with {{trademark}} or equivalent, but for Wikipedia (and Commons) purposes, it's probably safe to consider them "free". cmadler (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Alright. Thank you! Parutakupiu (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo of trophies in football

Hiya, is this file File:The_six_Barça_cups_.jpg considered a derivative work and therefore it falls under copyright? It is essentially the same question as above. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 21:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anson Mills Building, El Paso, TX

I have a post card of the Anson Mills Building in El Paso that is probably from the early 1900's. The card has C.T. Photochrom but no other ID. Can I post it with the new picture of the Anson Mills building?

Vikki Treadway vikkitreadway@verizon.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.164.90 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe. But, that's not enough to determine its copyright status. What are you wanting to use the image for? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Curious, has the postcard has been used? If so, the date of the postmark can show the latest possible date for the image; if it was used in 1922 or earlier, you can tag it as {{PD-US}}. Since you know that it's early 1900s, check for a copyright notice; if no such notice appears, you can tag it with {{PD-US-no notice}}. Nyttend (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use where the copyright holder is unknown

Is it permissible to make a fair use claim where a file could reasonably be thought to still be under copyright, but the copyright holder is unknown. I'm specifically asking with regard to File:KaestnerErich.jpg, a photograph of Erich Kästner's face, signed by Mr. Kästner. It is currently indicated as non-free, containing a non-free rationale for use in the article about Mr. Kästner, which is the only place it is used. An editor recently tagged it with {{di-no source}}, which seems inappropriate to me. Either the image is no longer under copyright in which case we can use it freely, or it remains under copyright in which case we can only use it under a fair-use claim. Since the latter is the conservative position, isn't it reasonable to use it that way? What about the copyright status needs to be "verified by others"? Either it is non-free, in which case it is used appropriately, or it is free, in which case there are fewer restrictions and the current use is still appropriate. cmadler (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You've done everything correctly. The person who tagged it is saying that the URL where you got it isn't the real source of the image. There's no way that such a contention holds water: we don't delete images just because their sources rot, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying that a website is the source of an image that didn't originate in a digital format. Nyttend (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera - photo

Hi, I found this photo, the same as this File:Christina Aguilera MTV Movie Awards 2010.jpg. I'm not sure if it falls under copyright? Thx for help. --Jirka62 (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The identical source clearly attributes the photo to "PacificCoastNews.com" and I have nominated it for the deletion on the commons as a copyright violation. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jamila M'Barek photograph

I plan to create an article about the Countess of Shaftesbury. The article about her husband, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury, contains two photographs of her. If I understand the rationale correctly, File:Jamila M'Barek on trial in 2007.jpg can be used only in the Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury article. Can anything be done to make the photograph available for the future article about the actual subject of the photograph? Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually there appears to be much over-use of non-free images in Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury including the image in question which really adds little to the topic and many of those images likely fail WP:NFCC#8, but that is another issue. However you might be able to write a reasonable fair-use rationale for its use in an article about her though as she is still alive it may be difficult to justify. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

New version / derivative work copyright

What's the copyright of (GDFL-licensed) commons:File:Nes_controller.svg, as the latest version is technically a derivative work created by me based on the previous revision created by a different author? --STUART (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a commons images but the same solution applies, so as a derivative work the image retains the same copyright as the original because there is no creative input that would give you any right to a new copyright. Just apply the same tags are are on the original. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering what people thought about this pic here and if this is actually the persons own work. The quality seems just a bit too good. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

i see it has just been deleted due to copyright violation. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Crests for defunct Royal Air Force Stations and Squadrons

Hi,

I'm looking for advice on the correct way to tag the following images :-

File:RAF Finningley crest.JPG File:616 Squadron Royal Auxillary Air Force S Yorks.JPG

Firstly both of these entities no longer exist and are defunct. The purpose of adding this information to Wikipedia is for historical reference as the content of the images (i.e. what is contained in the crest) and their composition has historical and geographical importance particularly when applied to the relevant pages.

These images are my property. I took them myself with my own camera, clearly they depict a design that is not mine however I took these pictures in a public location.

I need advice on how to mark these images. The designs were created over 70 years ago in each case, the photos are new. Are these images United Kingdom Crown Copyright? Do I need to add my own copyright and the owner of the design? As these entities no longer exist is any of this still relevant.

Hope someone can help.

fy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fy (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes crown copyright will apply in these cases. And if they are over 70 years old, then it is expired and now in public domain. It would be best to load these onto commons and not to add your own copyright, but you should explain why it is now public domain. Use the template {{PD-UKGov}} on commons for UK government material over 50 years old. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, be careful about when the crests actually designed - while 616 Squadron formed in 1938, was its badge designed then or later - in some cases (especially earlier Squadrons, the badge wasn't awarded until later.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

French pete map.gif

File:French pete map.gif - is this licence OK? It does say anyone can use it, as long as credit is given, so is it OK to assign it as cc? Should it be moved to Commons? Please inform Jsayre64 (talk · contribs) who uploaded it, and asked us to check in Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 August 7. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Image is currently tagged as PD as a work of the US federal government. Are there any other issues, or has this been resolved? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think resolved, thanks; at the time of posting I just wanted to double-check because I thought it depended on the conditions specified and was concerned they might not meet the stringent requirements - but if we're happy that it is pd-gov, that seems fine to me.  Chzz  ►  02:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How do I determine the copyright status of this?

I've been given notice that File:Culverhouse-83.jpg will be deleted if I don't provide copyright status, but I don't know how to determine it. I obtained it from a website, from which I have written permission to use it. It's from 1983, and to my understanding, photographs enter the public domain 10 years after their initial publication. Am I wrong about that? If it's in the public domain, then is there a "copyright status" anymore? Dementia13 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Copyright in a photo lasts as long as copyright in anything else. In the USA, this means until seventy years after the photographer's death (or 95 years after publication if made as work-for-hire). You need to find out who holds the copyright (the website might know; it will generally be the photographer, or the company employing the photographer, or whoever either of them has assigned it to) and convince them to release the photo under a free license (permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough). Algebraist 16:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Because he's been dead for nearly 20 years, it's possible that we might be able to use the photo under a fair-use claim, see WP:NFC for details on that. cmadler (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's intriguing, but all I see is that photos of living people are unacceptable; I don't see anything that specifies that photos of dead people are automatically acceptable. This is why I don't usually bother with images: they're more trouble than they're worth. But I can't put up such a detailed biography page as this without including a photo, and since there are no photo sources for this subject outside of newspaper articles, I don't see how to obtain one without going to Getty Images and purchasing it. Dementia13 (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Photos of dead people are not automatically acceptable (that's why I qualified my statement), but it opens the door for the possibility. It still must meet all the non-free content criteria. cmadler (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If I could find a photo of him serving as a U.S. Ambassador, does that qualify as public domain? Dementia13 (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A photo of him as ambassador is not necessarily PD, but US federal government works are. (See Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works.) cmadler (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've spent a lot of time searching, and I can't find anything. This is time that would be better spent researching and writing. I took the photo out, because I don't want any disputes over it while the article's in the GAN process. Dementia13 (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Tsathoggua drawing

Hello, anyone

I'd love contributing in a meaningful manner to Wikipedia, but your interface is INFURIATING beyond words. I have rarely traversed a more ivory tower, incomprehensibe 'made to keep people outside' system. It is a total mess.

In more specific:

I have contributed an image I MYSELF DREW of Tsathoggua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tsathoggua.jpg#filehistory

I contributed it as fair use. If Wikipedia wants to use it, FINE, go ahead and use it. I uploaded it and I drew it. So whats the problem? I don't have a clue but clearly there is some kind of totally incomprehensible problem. If Wiki ants me to keep contributing, for peace sake tell me what I need to do to have this image used, but without the boundless arrogance and hostility, please.

Please email me at dagonweb@gmail.com. I dont look at Wiki replies very often.

What buttons do I need to push to have the image approved. And please do not send me on a 40 page FAQ wild choose chase, because I just don't have time for all that kafkaesque idiocy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagonweb (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Tsathoggua.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yah well whatever. I looked at those links above and all I got was endless endless FAQs. Where is a utton or link I can push where I can do what it is whatever the hell I am supposed to do? I drew that pic of Tsathoggua like ages ago. It's my pic, I knowingly uploaded it. What is it I need to do to avoid having the lawyers throw a hissy fit? PLEASE email me on dagonweb@gmail.com wth a clear link where I can edit the image as needed. I simply cannot traverse the maze-like mess that wikipedia has become. Dagonweb (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagonweb (talk • contribs)

I try to avoid email to keep what I do on wiki in the open. The problem, I'm gathering, is that Tsathoggua is a copyrighted character, thus your drawing is not an original creation and in theory is a violation of the copyright holder's, er, copyright. It doesn't matter that you drew it, it was based on something copyrighted and so that's a problem here on wiki!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tsathoggua was originaly invented by Clark Ashton Smith I believe, but his frogliness also appears in the Call of Cthulhu games and related products. His written description first appeared in print in 1931 or so, so on the 95 year rule, he's got a while to go before he's in the public domain (and then we're in trouble!!), but I believe the problem may be that the uploader's piece of fan art breaches Chaosium's copyright for the image.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Photographs of a game board

A number of editors express concerns about these images. I believe I have generated a new copyright because there are not trademarks in the images and I have created a new instance of "creativity" with the images with the ways I took the images. Can someone check to make sure my reasoning is correct? d'oh! _talk 05:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey I have that game =]

I think you have generated a new copyright, which means that reusers of the image would need permission from you and also from Mattel, or whoever published Atmosfear. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the board, games pieces, etc. would be under copyright by the creater(s) and/or company. Therefore, your images are derivative works which can not be considered "free". cmadler (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• See also commons:Commons:Image_casebook#Board_games which clearly states that such images are not acceptable. cmadler (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• One has already been deleted from Commons, and the other three are nominated for speedy deletion as copyvios. cmadler (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, clearly on that page it does state those images are not acceptable. I was actually about to mark them for deletion after reading that page, but looks like you beat me to it. :) Thanks for the link. d'oh! _talk 14:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If I can re-upload one image under fair-use, what template should be used? d'oh! _talk 08:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that you can only upload the fair-use file to Wikipedia and not to Commons, and assuming that you it meets the non-free content guideline, there is a list of copyright tags at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free. Remember that you will also need to provide a "non-free use rationale" for each use in an article; see WP:RAT for details and templates for that. cmadler (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I know all that. But I can't find a copyright tag for it even at your link. The only two that come close is {{Non-free promotional}} and {{Non-free board game cover}}, but the image is not promotional because I took the photo, and it not a cover either. d'oh! _talk 12:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you want {{Non-free fair use in}} cmadler (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. d'oh! _talk 01:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

clarifying copyright status

{{resolved|Image was PD. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I have uploaded an image - File:Adm.logo.jpg‎ - with the correct copyright tag, yet the file has still been flagged for deletion. How can this be avoided?

Aptw (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#File:Adm.logo.jpg. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Aptw, the problem seems to be that you have uploaded the file as if you are the copyright holder. Are you the company represented by the logo? If so, you need to follow the steps at WP:IOWN. If you are not, then you need to amend that piece of information to say that copyright, if it exists, is held by the company. It is likely that if the company is US based, the logo is not copyrightable, as it just contains text, see WP:LOGO for more information and appropriate templates to use for tagging. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have changed the tag, and have added information to show that it is a logo from WP:LOGO. The company is UK based, does this affect the information required? I have copied the example provided at WP:LOGO as those criteria do apply to this specific image, is this ok? Also, can the "possibly unfree file" tag now be removed? Aptw (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's a UK logo, it's probably copyright, so you should follow the instructions for a non-free logo. You can post in the discussion linked to above to say that you have done this, and that should solve the problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No. We don't apply UK copyright on questions of creativity, we apply US copyright law. (Compare the fuss over the National Portrait Gallery's images versus Bridgeman v Corel.

Per U.S. law, this clearly doesn't meet the threshold of originality required, so should be tagged Copyright ineligible. Jheald (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fairly clearly public domain. I've tagged it as such. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be an ongoing misunderstanding. en.wikipedia applies copyright law as it stands in the US (since the servers are in the US) but this does not mean that works which would be pd in the US, but which are actually copyright under the laws of another country, are pd in the US. I believe this once was the case, but I refer you to the invaluable resource from Cornel - Works published outside the United States after 1 January 1978 : Published either with or without copyright notice, and not in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996, 70 years after death of author, or if work of corporate authorship,95 years from publication Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding 'images of images'

Given its appearance and the initial context within which this image was added to Wikipedia, plus its title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rollingstonepictur.jpg; I strongly suspect it is in fact simply an image from an early 1970's issue of Rolling Stone Magazine captured on someone's own camera. In circumstances like this in general, regarding "pictures of pictures" with potentially 'strong copyright' claims being added to Wiki, what's the "standard practise" for looking into it? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Zh.wikibooks pics

b:zh:File:3.3.3.gif, b:zh:File:Fsockopen.gif, b:zh:Gethostbynamel.gif. (I think there are more but I won't bother finding all of them. :P) What are these screenshots licensed under? (I'm trying to tidy up zh.wikibooks.) Kayau Voting IS evil 13:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Another badge question

File:3_diamenty.jpg on Wikimedia Commons is an image of the Diamond Badge awarded throughout the world to glider pilots which have completed flights of specified distances and another involving a large gain in height. The author says it is his own work but there is a question about the copyright of the logo on the badge. The gull logo that is used by most national gliding associations was devised in the 1920s by a German called Fritz Stamer. It never appears with a copyright, registered or trademark symbol and there is no evidence that it ever was copyrighted, though proving a negative is always difficult. For example it appears in the Soaring Society of America web site on http://www.ssa.org/members/badgesandrecords/usbadges.asp on the German gliding organisation's web site http://www.segelflug.de/einfuehrung.html and on the Australian site http://2009.gfa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=401&Itemid=187. The International Gliding Commission of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale has its own logo and it does not issue the physical badges. As far as I can see no-one owns the copyright. The issue arose in a featured article review Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gliding/archive1. My questions are: do I need to do anything to the current licence tag in Commons? would it be better to add a fair use tag, if so which one, or is it public domain? JMcC (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Barto and Mann.jpg

With so many options, I have no idea what to do. I am the copyright holder of the image, but didn't take the photograph. How should I tag this photograph?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradford Smith (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you own the copyright, you are welcome to license it however you want. Here are some choices WP:ICTIC. However, normally the photographer is the copyright holder. What makes you the copyright holder despite not being the photographer? This image looks like it is promotional or been published before, so you are going to have to have the copyright holder e-mail us a consent form: WP:CONSENT, per WP:PERMISSION. Otherwise, a user is likely to tag the image for deletion (i.e. template:npd).-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Headshots of actors / celebrities

This is a 2 part question:

• If I'm the parent of an American actor and I hired a photographer to take a couple of headshots of him, am I allowed to upload them in Wikipedia?
• If I upload the image and dual licence it under GFDL and CC-by-SA, is the image of him protected against use for unauthorised endorsements of products?

Pavithran (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

First question: if the photo is taken in the USA, the rights to the photo belong to the photographer unless you make a written agreement with the photographer that the photos will be works for hire, and the rights are assigned to the appropriate person (you, your child, or you as trustee for your child).

Second question: there are two issues:

• the rights to use the photos (allowed, with attribution and with similar free licenses for further use)
• the rights of the model, that is your son, to control use of his image for promotional purposes. I don't know how that would turn out. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it have to be a written agreement? I've always thought that the "work for hire" was implied in that I engage a professional photographer and pay them for their services in taking a photograph. Pavithran (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on how the work for hire (used here in the general sense) was executed. If they were a full employee, like as a newspaper staff photographer, then the employer would have the copyright. In any other case, there would have to be a written legal document of some sort in order to actually transfer the copyright. Simply contracting work from someone does not automatically make it a "work for hire" (used here in the legal sense) which would transfer copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer your other question, the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license normally used on Wikipedia and Commons authorises any use including commercial, as does the GFDL license, so if your son wishes to control the use of his image, you would not be able to upload under that license. More info at WP:DCM.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Yes, we would require that the image was released under a copyright free license, but personality rights are still retained. Just because an image is free for commercial use doesn't mean someone can use it to imply the subject endorses something. So, in answer to the second question, his likeness is still legally protected against unauthorised use to imply endorsement under US law. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I shall file that info away. The enquirer may wish to note that the same level of protection does not apply in all countries, see Personality rights (which I should have looked at) as a starting point for taking legal advice if this might be an issue (as Wikipedia is definitely not qualified to give out legal advice). Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

← I am just going to jump in and offer my 2 cents. Re the "Work for hire" issue. When you hired the photographer was there any form of contract or receipt? Look at those if so because they most likely would have information. If not than it may be a bit harder to establish - for example, who has the negatives? In many case any "work for hire" will turn over the negatives whoever hired them as part of the agreement. If the photographer has all the originals and only turned over the "approved" shot than it is pretty clear the photographer retained copyright. Now the other issue is the protected against use for unauthorised endorsements of products question and the answer is yes. A lot of people don't bother to read the "fine print" but, despite what some other editors here may feel, the right of false endorsements is given in the "free" licenses. If an image were uploaded and said something such as "use for unauthorized endorsements is not granted" it would be deleted, however the same form of wording is included, for example, is the Wikipedia accepted Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 that contains, on the "cover page" under "With the understanding that: Other Rights" the following line: The author's moral rights. When you take the time to read the full license you will see Section 4, "Restrictions" which contains, in subsection "a.", the line You may not sublicense the Work. and, in subsection "b.": You may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply any connection with, sponsorship or endorsement by the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties, as appropriate, of You or Your use of the Work, without the separate, express prior written permission of the Original Author, Licensor and/or Attribution Parties.. Lastly, in subsection "c.": Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise. So, once you determine if you really had a "work for hire" agreement which included the copyrights to all the images, you can use the accepted Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license here and still protect use for any endorsements. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Upload Image of Logo on Article Page

How do I include an image of a company logo on an article that I have created? I don't believe that Creative Commons is going to be a good place for me to go through in order to do this as the licensing is somewhat of an issue. I've heard something about a Fair Use Rationale (FUR), can I do this? I'm fairly new to the Wikipedia community, but have been inserting new articles for the past two months. Can someone walk me through step-by-step instructions on how to upload a logo (low or hi-res) and how to effectively word the the licensing for fair use? My article can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Rack

Thanks! Joe Jmlnarik01 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LOGO. You can upload a copyright logo to Wikipedia under an appropriate non-free use rationale. For logos, you must tag the image with the {{logo fur}} template and complete all the compulsory fields. Alternatively if you provide a link to the logo, someone will volunteer to upload it for you. – ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: I see that Rhino Rack has been deleted and that you have been asked for it to be undeleted to your userspace. Please do not upload the logo until the article is in mainspace. Copyright images cannot be used under a non-free use rationale while the relevant article is a draft in userspace. As an aside, as well as taking a look at WP:SPAM, please also look at WP:CORP and WP:RS for guidance as to the notability of companies and reliable sources. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Duguid map op. p.48.jpeg

When I uploaded this map I thought it was within the 25 years Australian copyright but it won't be eligible for publication until 2056. Could you please delete this image? Thank you.--RoslynSKP (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To request such a deletion, tag the image with {{db-author}}, I have done it for you. – ukexpat (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What is correct licensing for this historical photo of Daniel Fignole?

What is correct licensing for this historical photo of Daniel Fignole? I'm referring to the photo that is second from the top of the page.

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/leaders/fignole.htm

There is no copyright notice on the page and the website's author thanks the Fignole family for sharing the photos. Mediahacker (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• It should be presumed copyrighted unless you can determine that it is not. I would suggest perhaps {{Non-free historic image}}. cmadler (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Cmadler. That's what I had tagged it as. An admin has asked for an explanation for it being non-free historic image, why it's legitimate to use under fair use. Any tips on how to address that? I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia. Here's the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#What_is_correct_licensing_for_this_historical_photo_of_Daniel_Fignole.3F Mediahacker (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Yes, in addition to using {{Non-free historic image}}, which covers the copyright status, you also need to give a non-free use rationale -- see WP:RAT for more information and for templates to help with that. cmadler (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Military picture

This picture here from 1938, belongs to the italian military archive, which I believe is located here. What is the copyright status of the image? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 10:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this the URL of the page the image is displayed on http://www.barcelonabombardejada.cat/?q=ca/imatges? Based on the Commons licencing page, Italian copyright generally extends for 70 years after the author's death, so you would need to find out who the author is. If he died in 1940, then this would be in the public domain, but otherwise it is likely still under copyright. ww2censor (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, turns out it's PD. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 15:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Update

I have now uploaded the file, File:Barcelona bombing.jpg, under the template:PD-Italy. Is this plausible? The main point of contention being whether a photograph by the Italian air-force can be considered an Italian work. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 18:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Have I tagged this right?

I don't believe that the uploader has permission to upload File:Top-50-govenrment-enginerring-colleges-india-2009-tm.jpg, have I tagged it right? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you could also add {{di-no source}}, or replace both with the double-whammy {{Di-no source no license}}. – ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Use of a recording image

Hi,

I have permission from the owner of a recording label to use any album cover graphics from his web site for Wikipedia articles. How may I obtain ongoing clearance to upload such images?

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Ken Shaw kenwaditty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenwaditty (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The copyright owner must release the images appropriately as per the instructions at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Guardians of Ga'Hoole logo

File:Guardians of gahoole logo.jpg consists of three words and a simple background, so I've replaced the non-free tag with a PD-textlogo tag. Should I assume that it's trademarked and thus place {{Trademark}} on it, or do we only use that tag if we know for sure that it's trademarked? Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assumption so tagging with {{Trademark}} can't do any harm. – ukexpat (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum

I've just come across File:Auster A 2 45 VL523.jpg and File:Heston JC6 A2 45 VL529.jpg- it's claimed that they are public domain because they were under crown copyright, but I'm not really seeing why it is believed they were. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as though they are basing the claim of crown copyright on the Imperial War Museum as the source, which is wrong because I don't think the IWM is part of govenment, and possibly doubly wrong because the IWM website indicates that they are not necessarily (ever?) the copyright owner of images. Without knowing more details about those specific images, it's impossible to say more, but I don't think the claim of crown copyright is supported by the information provided by the uploader. cmadler (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Imperial War Museum is certainly not part of the government - although it is funded by the taxpayer. I doubt IWM took the pictures. It is more likely that they were given them - this could have been by the RAF, in which case Crown Copyright would apply, but as you say, without more details.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For the first one, this photo is of the same aircraft and looks like its taken at the same time and is credited as "Official photograph" by a "British official photographer", which would make it pd.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The other photo - the Heston JC6 looks very similar to this which is credited to Flight - if this is the same photo then it wouldn't be PD.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to see my childhood yearbook picture

My family never had the money to purchase any school pictures. I would enjoy seeing my sibblings young photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.211.162 (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

How do you think we can help you find such images any better than you can find them yourself, even if they exist? ww2censor (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

pictures in articles; in grids

I would like to upload pictures from Wiki Commons and USG sources...

(1) The grid showing state flags in the Wikipedia article, 'Confederate States of America' are not complete, including the omission of Virginia's State Flag!

The Wiki Commons source is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Virginia.svg It is said to be in the public domain because it was submitted to the US Government before 1927. Several other flags show representations of the flags, and if you click on the flag, it goes to a Wiki Commons source.

In the sandbox(es) I have been able to create a hot link of the copied url, and a image box like that above with the link, but without the image itself. In the various tutorials and online helps, I have tried varying formats as pictured above, [[{example}|{thumb}]], adding a space after each element, using 'File:', 'Image:', trying to upload using the wikipedia wizard, directly from my desk top 'documents,pictures'...

How can I add Virginia's flag to the grid?

Now done - basically you wikilink the file on en:Wikipedia or Commons -i.e. [[File:Flag of Virginia.svg|border|48px]] with appropriate tags for image size, captions and alt text as needed.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(2) Is Wikipedia not for commercial profit in the meaning of the US Government, so that USG and educational (Smithsonial Institute postalmuseum.edu) sources can be uploaded like their stamps ...I know that sounds ambitions since I cant yet use wiki commons images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No - images etc generally need to be free to reuse (including commercial use).Nigel Ish (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Proper Tag for Copyright image in which owner provides express on line permission to copy

I could use some help for the proper tag for the following image of Michigan State Senator John Pappageorge:

I obtained the image on the Michigan Senate Republicans "Photo Wire" web page at http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/senators/photowire.asp?District=13

The web page is copyrighted. However, the page explicitly states, "Photos on the Senate PhotoWire are intended for media use and may be freely reproduced." Since the Michigan Senate Republicans, the owners of the image, have given explicit permission for free reproduction, it should be usable in Wikipedia. None of the tags seemed to apply.

I appreciate the help from those more wiki-savvy than I am.

Aurelius89 (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Aurelius89

Press and media use does not mean an image if freely licenced within Wikipedia terms so that we can use them. This use normally refers to fair-use for media and promotional purposes but we require images that may also be used commercially by anyone for anything. Unless the image is licenced with a copyright tag such as PD, Attribution or one of the Creative Commons tags we allow, then you are out of luck. On the other hand our fair-use policy does not, in the majority of circumstances, extend to living persons. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

old portrait-type pictures

i have two pictures that were taken in 1924. they are personal pictures but have a historic interest. i found them in a online histori magazine. can i use them in some way?Prometeu (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

here is were i found it, a romanian military history magazine - http://www.defense.ro/Site%20SIA%2007-2010/Revista%203(49)_2010.pdf , page 86 and 89.Prometeu (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

could the pictures be in "fair use"? the history magazine most likely got it from romanian archives. who has the copyrights in this case?Prometeu (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

File source/copyright

How do I specify the file source/copyright of the photo please? The photo is my own work and it is for public use. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breezer84 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Under the "Licensing" section on the image description page, use this template. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use Images on Lists

I like to work with list (since I'm not much of an English guy). One suggestion on improving lists I have seen is for lists to include images. However, I think I have confused myself. I have come to realize that a Fair-use rule that was applying to keeping the images off the lists I have been working on actually applied to Fair-use image was in a gallery setting, not lists. So I was restricting the image use to PD only. However, after looking at a lot of other list I find Fair-use image use all the time. So I want to WP:NFLISTS and only got more confused. I get parts, like one group shot is better then several individual images, and that the image need a "Fair-use Rational" for the list. I also think I get the sprit of the rule, the number of Fair-use Image needs to be restricted to the smallest number possible, however on two list I have been working on, there are gaps were images would be really nice, but because the person died only a few years ago, they are only available under fair-use.

Anyway, I thought I would as for a "Layman’s" explanation. Are Fair-use images allowed on lists? If they are what are the major things I need to watch out for?--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Normally, a fair use image is intended to describe the topic of an article, not an aspect of that topic. So in "list.." articles, a group shot describes the topic much better than an individual image. Furthermore, if an item on a list has it's own article, the user can click through and see the non-free image there. On list articles, almost all circumstances, images are not being used to further understanding of the topic, but instead to decorate the article. And decoration is fine and useful, but we should strive to only use free content for such purposes. I think it would be a noble goal to aim for no more than a single non-free image (group shot, at the top) in list articles, with a preference for all free content. If you think there is a situation that requires more than one non-free image, then make sure you have a detailed fair use rationale, and that the image meets all 10 WP:NFCC. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Illustrating David Wojnarowicz — how does fair use apply here?

I'd like to work on illustrating David Wojnarowicz's article, including a couple photographs of his, like this striking example. I'm pretty sure everything of his is fully copyrighted, so my question is twofold: Is it generally appropriate to include an artist's own works in his article under fair use? And to what extent can this be done? I understand the basics of fair use (low-res, provide a rationale for every use, etc.). Thanks! — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 05:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If the work in question gets critical commentary in the article, (perhaps one paragraph or more) then you could make fair use of one image. More than one could be counted as excessive though.

Uploading images from websites

Hi, Is it allowed to upload images into the articles in wikipedia, which I have copied from websites (With no rights reserved). If so how do I. Please detail me, is it possible to upload images in Wikimedia Commons and use them in Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi jrf (talk • contribs) 07:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• That depends on our ability to independently verify the free license nature of the work. Taking an image from a web site is usually frowned upon, unless there is a specific release statement by the web site owner and/or content owner under a specific license. The lack of a copyright statement does not mean release under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Irish Filmography image

Wikipedia's volumes of rules and scads of related tags are not clear or obvious. I used one image sent to me the owner at my request, and suddenly I have five warning messages. Based on the Summary and Licensing with other books on Wikipedia, as well as permission from the copyright owner, I have supplied what I hope will be acceptable to Wikipedia. If there is some technical conflict with what is acceptable, please correct it for me so I will know what to do in the future.

The_Irish_Filmography.jpg is too large. You can delete it.
The Irish Filmography 300px wide.jpg That's the one to keep.Aardvarkzz (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the first. The second looks fine. It has a proper copyright tag, and fair use rationale, and is only used in the one article. If tagged correctly, a single non-free book cover image is almost always OK in an article about that book. Yours looks fine. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

why wont this publish

why cant this be used on Wikipedia File:Forest-city fire department.jpg it is old and the person who did it is now dead i dont get it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Line85 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Several reasons. First, the image is not free. Wikipedia far prefers free licensed images over non-free. Second, the image is of a building that is probably still in existence. So, a wikipedia editor could take an image of it now and upload it. This makes it replaceable; see WP:NFCC #1. Third, the image is lacking a rationale for its use. See WP:NFCC #10c. Fourth, the image is being used in the infobox of the article about the town, with no reference at all in the article to the image or any importance it has in history (verified by secondary sources, not just someone writing about it here). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Indiana University logo

To my surprise, File:Indiana U logotype.png is tagged as nonfree. This image consists solely of the words "Indiana University" and the university logo, which is composed solely of the letters "I" and "U" overlapping on each other. Do we consider the logo too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}? Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say textlogo would work for that image.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:NGC 2359.jpg

Is copyright tag for this file good? -- Bojan  Talk  03:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess the copyright tag is OK, but it clearly says Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. There are no fair use rationales for any of the uses. Looks like some FURs need to be added, and/or the image removed from some pages. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred Tompkins article

He's going to authorize a picture, so please be patient.Paradise coyote (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So, is there a question about an image? ww2censor (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if deleted the OTRS volunteer can reinstate or restore an image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

fair-use window border of windows?

Can fair-use software screenshots include the default window border of windows? Yukiseaside (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to say yes as this border would be PD-ineligible because it is too simple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Image created by someone else for which I own the copyright

What copyright tag do I provide for an image created by someone else (my father who is no longer living) for which I own the copyright?

Barto_and_Mann.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradford Smith (talk • contribs) 22:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If you upload to commons you can use {{PD-heirs}} or {{GFDL-heirs}}, and I suppose for creative commons you may have to create the template, or just write out the explanation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Scott Baio and other images from Dyker Heights, Brooklyn

The image File:Scott Baio, 1977, 80th street 10th ave, SE corner.jpg is listed by User:Cjz208 as having Source:"I cjz208 created this work entirely by myself" and Author:Unknown. This user previously used the same statement on at least one other image that was found to be copyrighted by others (File:Joe Rollino 01.jpg, since deleted). He also has claimed to own copyright of numerous images from "the collections of the Dyker Heights Historical Society" (see his talk page for a list). I would question whether he understands who the copyright of a photograph belongs to. As a disclaimer, I have previously had discussions with this individual over Wikipedia policy (Talk:Dyker Heights, Brooklyn) CitiCat ^♫ 05:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"created this work entirely by myself" and "author: unknown" are contradictory. I'd say a speedy delete tag (such as NPD) would be fine, if not take it to PUI. Are you asking for someone to try to communicate image policy with this user? -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had no success in that regard so far, but it couldn't hurt for someone else to give it a try CitiCat ^♫ 02:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Logo of a video game from fr.wiki

Hello !

I have worked on the logo of Super Mario World on fr.wiki . Here is the file http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Logosmw.svg.

I would like to put the image on my userpage gallery. I think I am not allow to move it to Commons, as a copy of something extracted from the game. Thus, is there a way to put it (preferably, just link it) also on en.wiki ? I think the fair use condition applies here.

Thanks ! Arnaud Ramey (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Template:PD-textlogo would apply, and thus the image would be OK for the commons. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The files are here File:Super_Mario_World_game_logo.svg and File:Super_Mario_World_box_logo.svg, hope it fits the frame of PD-textlogo. Arnaud Ramey (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Because these are commercial logos and have a TM symbol, but even if there were no TM mark in the image out of courtesy, one should add the {{trademark}} template which I have done for you to the commons images. ww2censor (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it my imagination (my French really is not good at all) or does the fr.wiki page feature a notice to say that the image should not be moved to Commons because it is copyright in some countries. It's a bit of a stuck record of mine - just because something would not be copyrightable if it originated in the US, does not mean it is in the public domain throughout the world.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

File:MBLAQY2010.ogg claimed to be released without copyright

It seems to me very unlikely that the band actually released the copyright to this recording. Can someone check this and the other files (images and recordings) uploaded by this user to see if they share my suspicions about the questionable use/licensing of the copyright materials? Thank you . Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 04:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged them NPD, and contacted the uploader. It appears all the other images have or will have speedy tags on them as well. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

original works by the writer

I am an artist using different sketches and paintings created by me and may be used on Wikipedia. They are BASED upon copyright photos etc.. What is the copyright position? Any help you can give would be gratefully received Alan Rawlinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja5hg9tn (talk • contribs) 08:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• If they are derivative works of the photos, then copyright from the original photos sustains. Also, your granting of use on Wikipedia for your work is insufficient. Even if the works are not derivative, you still need to release your work under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Do these logos qualify for PD-Textlogo???

• File:GenesisLogo.png
• File:Megadrive logo.png
• File:JP MegaDrive Logo.gif

The above are all currently listed as non-free content. Other editors have brought up the idea of them qualifying for PD-Textlogo. I asked Anomie and some other wikipedians, and most agreed (including Anomie,) but at least one did have doubt.

So I bring them here to quad confirm they qualify for PD-Textlogo.--SexyKick 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I err on the side of caution. I don't see these as qualifying as simple text. There's significant decorative aspects at work here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • For all three though? Cause I figured the first would be pretty obviously a text logo. Since, File:Best Western logo.svg which the US copyright office officially ruled three times as insufficiently original, and the D in the MD logo is much less complicated than the W in the BW Logo.--SexyKick 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There isn't an absolute line in the sand on which we can make a decision. Skirting with the legal status of an image is I think dangerous unless it's clear cut. Thus, as I said, I err on the side of caution. I see too much here to clearly say any of these are just simple text. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say the MD logo is pd-text, but the two sega logos are not because of the framing. Decorative text is still not protected, but even really generic framing can be. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, well that's at least good progress : ) Thanks for your help and time. Ideally was hoping for the Genesis one too though.--SexyKick 21:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't see any of them as PD-Logo myself. The Best Western logo doesn't morph the text to fit or match the shape, it just draws a pretty plain shape around the text. These have way more complex construction. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Eggenberg coat of arms

uploaded File:Eggenberg-Wappen.png from but still doesn't appear on the linked page. I'm new to this so why not? - smf77 —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

• Some bug in the system. It's displaying now. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Attribution Manner

In the article on Antonin Scalia, the picture was recently replaced with File:Antonin Scalia 2010.jpg. The new picture's license says: "Under the following conditions: * attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." What does "the manner specified by the author" mean? I don't see anywhere the manner is specified. If I want to license a work under certain conditions, they have to be spelled out. Nonetheles, this seems to be a fairly common wording on Wikimedia Commons images. I asked this question on the Scalia Talk page, but one one was able to answer it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If the author doesn't specify a manner of attribution, in my opinion no attribution is required. – ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't say there is an attribution condition.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess no one wants to answer my question, sigh. One possible inference is no one knows. Another is everyone just accepts the weird conditional language maybe because it's been that way for a long time and no one every challenged it before. There are no doubt other possible inferences, but I'm too tired to think of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the default would be the name of the author, and on Wikipedia it could be the user name. Don't assume that because no manner was put in that no attribution is required, as the basic attribution is the name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for pushing so hard, but how is one supposed to glean from the license that what's needed - or all that's needed - is the name? It doesn't say that anywhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The attribution is right there on the Flickr page and says: "Photo/Stephen Masker". If there were no name to attibute to I would just put the uploader's Flickr name like this: "Flickr user stephenmasker" or what ever the user name is in any similar situation. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(undaunted) So, what you're saying is the phrase "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" is code for use the author's name. Why wouldn't the license say "You must attirbute the work by specifying the author's name" instead?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Different things require different credit (attribution) and a lot of images (And other files) don't require any credit because they are not requested. The reason a CCL doesn't specify attribution wording is because the CCLs' are generic - they are used for music, books, images, films and so on. So the generic You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor is used. For example some images may require wording such as "Photo by" while others may require "Image courtesy of". A song might require "Composed by" or "Performed by" or even "Written by /Performed by". A film may have a list such as "Directed by / screenplay by / Released by / Produced by" and so on. The core idea is that if the copyright holder wants attribution they can specify it, and even specify the location of it. Image outside of a CCL usually require some sort of attribution, you could look at images (free) at U.S DOD images and see that the attribution required is not just the photographers name - one I just looked at says DoD photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Omar A. Dominquez, U.S. Navy. FEMA is the same - a typical photo requires something like Photo by [PHOTOGRAPHERS NAME] / FEMA photo. I hope that helps somewhat. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that different kinds of works may require different kinds of attribution. I understand that CCLs are generic to avoid this problem. What I still fail to see when I look at the license is where the copyright holder specifies the manner of attribution. It appears that everyone is just assuming that as long as we mention the copyright holder's name, we're done, but, for example, if I were the copyright holder of a photograph, I could say that I want my name to appear on the photograph with letters that are 1" high. If the photograph was used without complying with that term, even if it attributes the authorship to me, the user of the photograph could be liable for infringement. Returning to the Wikipedia license, if it is silent as to "manner," the license becomes difficult, if not impossible, to interpret. Courts can make assumptions in filling in unspecified terms of a contract or a license, but only in limited circumstances. It is far better for the terms to be spelled out clearly. I have a feeling I'm fighting a losing battle here, though, because Wikipedia's practice has probably been in place for too long and is simply accepted as reasonable. Hopefully, Wikipedia's lawyers have vetted the practice, and certainly legal minds may differ on any legal issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You said It appears that everyone is just assuming that as long as we mention the copyright holder's name, we're done... but I don't see where anyone here is saying that. I know I am not. For one thing Creative Commons is not Wikipedia, so if it is the wording their licenses' that bothers you it would be better to go to them with concerns. However if your main concern is that some editors at Wikipedia do not follow a CCL's requirements than you can go to that editor, and the article, and point that out. I know you provided a link to Antonin Scalia and pointed out that an image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, File:Antonin Scalia 2010.jpg, is used in the article. However this image does not contain an attribution direction. In looking at the source of the image there is no direct request for attribution either, but the images caption does say (Photo/Stephen Masker). That being the case, it is the best anyone can do - that is to do what is already on File:Antonin Scalia 2010.jpg, where it says "Author" and lists "Stephen Masker". Now, by comparison look at File:WW2_Iwo_Jima_flag_raising.jpg which is NOT under a CCL but used with permission and carries the notice (in addition to the "author") saying that any use of this image must be accompanied by credit in the following manner: Joe Rosenthal / The Associated Press. File:Paragon03.jpg is using a CCL and states Attribution and a photo credit for this photo must be provided to Hugh Pickens and a link to Hugh Pickens however the photo credit was removed from the image citing Wikipedia:CAP. Now here is, perhaps, what you are getting at - The Credits section states that It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. On the other hand this section was placed into the guideline June 13, 2008, so it is not up to date with Wikipedias' (and Commons) move to use CCL as the main License last year. Wikimedia Commons has a section on attribution in fairly easy to understand terms. If you want to read all the legal code you can: CCL 3.0 Legalcode. I often cite it when editors bring up attribution issues - especially Section 4, Restrictions - subsection c, which states, in part, that the end user must keep intact all copyright notices and also provide (This is the credit/attribution part) (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied. Again there is a lot more to it than that but the idea is that if somebody says, using your example, I want my name to appear on the photograph with letters that are 1" high and that is discarded at Wikipedia because a guideline implies this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses than it is a valid breach of the licensing terms and the copyright holder could revoke Wikipedias' right to use it. (Again - from the full legal code - 7. Termination - subsection a - This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License.) However there is common sense that should go alone with that - I have yet to find a photographer who demands a photo credit that could be bigger than the image and if they did require that I would hope somebody would contact the person to verify that is what they meant. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Before I address some of your comments, I want to thank you for going to so much trouble. I'd like to stick to just the Scalia image. That page says the file may be used pursuant to a license that is described below. In the permission section, it spells out the things (copy, etc.) you can do and the conditions under which you can do them. There is only the one condition, the attribution condition. Nothing you've said gets at my point, which is the condition isn't clear. For example, you could replace the unclear condition with the following clear condition: "You must attribute the work by specifying the author's or licensor's name (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)." Then, the fact that the name is listed above would probably satisfy the license.

Unfortunately, what you think I'm "getting at" is not correct. My argument was simple when originally stated and is still simple now. I've elaborated more on it in subsequent posts -- including the 1" example, which was intentionally exaggerated just to make a point not to be realistic -- to try to illuminate my argument. Hasn't worked. I also don't think the "legal code" you cite to changes anything. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know that text exists, though, because I don't see anything on the Scalia file page that incorporates it. Perhaps part of the problem is the Scalia page isn't intended to be the complete license. Indeed, with respect to the Mansker/Scalia photo, I don't even know if the license is written or oral.

As to whether I'm challenging Wikipedians or the license itself, frankly, the two are intertwined for me. If I can't determine what the terms of the license are, then I also can't determine whether Wikipedia is breaching the license. Perhaps I should start at Creative Commons, but it took me quite a while to figure out how to raise these kinds of issues on Wikipedia. I'm not sure I have the strength to figure it out on Creative Commons. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Let me try a different approach. Only dealing with the Antonin Scalia article and the associated image.

You asked a question in your first post - that questions was What does "the manner specified by the author" mean? I think that has been answered however to play is safe - it means that when an "author" of a work specifies attribution (credit) it must be done in the manner they specify. Using you later example, if an author states they want a credit of their name to appear on the photograph with letters that are 1" high that is "the manner specified by the author".

The next part is a comment where you state: I don't see anywhere the manner is "specified". That would be a true statement for anyone viewing the image on it's Wikimedia Commons page (File:Antonin Scalia 2010.jpg) because when you look at the image page there is no listed requirement. What you are looking at to get the wording you mention is the generic {{cc-by-2.0}} tag that says you must use attribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor. (And when reading the full legal code the term "if supplied" is part of the wording. more about that further down)

Because of that, in your first post, you appear to conclude that if there are specific requirements they have to be spelled out. - which, again, is correct. That is why it reads the credit must be in the manner specified by the author or licensor. That is meant to re-enforce whatever the "author or licensor" has requested. ("If supplied" - see the "full legal code" portion further down)

You also point out that the wording seems to be a fairly common wording on Wikimedia Commons images. Again - this is a correct feeling because it is true, not only at Wikimedia Commons, but anywhere that contains material licensed under the same CCL.

Now to jump down to your last post above. You ask how a person is supposed to be able to find the full legal code of the license. On the web there are hyperlinks that normally show up in the color blue. So, looking at the image page, where it says "Permission" the first line of text in the box says This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. If a person clicks on the "Creative Commons" text that is in blue they are taken to the Wkipedia article on Creative Commons. If a person clicks on the "Attribution 2.0 Generic" text that is in blue they are taken directly to the Attribution 2.0 Generic "cover" page hosted at Creative Commons. At the bottom of that page (and all CCL versions) there is a note that states This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license). (However the linked text is in yellow on that page, not blue). This is version 2.0 of this license - but the attribution section more or less remains the same in the newest version. You would look at section "4 - Restrictions"; subsection "b". It says, in part: You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied (Note the words if supplied - this ties in to the first comments/questions you had asked.)

Now to touch on some of the other issues you raised in your above post. You suggested new text for the license used - that is to change the "human-readable summary" portion from You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor to You must attribute the work by specifying the author's or licensor's name. Before I say what I say I just want to point out again that Creative Commons is not Wikipedia so a discussion about it here really doesn't do much. Having said that, the wording of this is the key - the manner specified by the author or licensor is *not* the same as specifying the author's or licensor's name. Your wording is already included in the existing wording - even if it is not spelled out. And I think that is a key point you have overlooked with the Scalia image - there is no specific requirement on that image. Outside of Wikipedia, in the media for example, photo credit would be given by default that would read Photo: Stephen Masker or Photo by Stephen Masker. And using only this image as the example, and the license it uses, upon reading the the full license, it is clear that whenever, and however, this image is used on it's own the user must not only give the Original Author credit but also must keep intact all copyright notices, the title of the Work and use the internet/web address (URI) that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work. Based on that this image, as hosted on Wikimedia Commons, does meet these requirements. There is a credit for the author (Stephen Masker), there is the copyright/License notice (The {{cc-by-2.0}} tag) there is the title of the work ("Antonin Scalia in 2010") and there is a link to the original source (Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia). The final thing I want to address is your comment that you don't even know if the license is written or oral. I agree with that being a valid concern, but, as I deal with image issues all the time, if it were "oral" it would have never made it's way onto Commons. The way to check however is because the image page contains a link to the original source, and if you look at the page, down towards the bottom, on the right side you will see a section called "License" and there is a little icon with text that says Some rights reserved. If you click on that it takes you to the Attribution 2.0 Generic "human readable" license page at Creative Commons. I think I covered everyhting. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another editor in another forum has finally connected all the dots for me. It's similar to what you said, Soundvisions, but I can see all the linkages now. In the context of the Scalia picture, I had clicked on the Attribution 2.0 Generic link. However, I had NOT noticed at the bottom of that page that it says this is a summary of the full license, which is found here. It's similar to the "legal code" Soundvisions pointed out, but (1) it's not exactly the same and (2) it's connected to the Scalia picture license (summary) itself, albeit not easy to find.

So, now I have one more question, which I also posed to the other editor (no answer yet): why isn't it "reasonably practicable" (quoting the full license) to display the author's name on the Scalia article itself (underneath, for example) rather than requiring that the reader click on the picture (which he may not know to do) to see the author's name?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was busy connecting the dots for you and you posted as I was doing that - so my answer above may not matter. :) But to address your "new" question directly (Although I am fairly sure it was already answered). The newer CCL's are worded a bit different but the idea is still the exact same - You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. As I pointed out in one of my reply's above, in the past some Wikipedia editors have used the wording of the old CCL as a reason to *not* give proper attribution in articles. And if one reads the Credits guideline you will read It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. But as I also pointed out this section was placed into the guideline June 13, 2008, so it is not up to date with the move to use CCL as the main License last year. The bottom line is if the author of the work (Be it an image, a film, a painting, a book - anything) specifies credit to appear with all uses of the image than we must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. If a user (be it admin or otherwise) does not follow the attribution request when using an image licensed under on of these CCL's than it could be seen as a breach of the licensing terms and the copyright holder could revoke Wikipedias' right to use it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your connecting if the dots matches the other editor's. I think I'm now good on what the license is for the Scalia image. Thanks again for all of your work in explaining it. Continuing with my last question, I understand the guidelines for Wikipedians (they don't have to put the attribution in the article). So, let's move on to your last point. What I think you're saying -- and I'm sure you'll correct me if my understanding is wrong -- is that the license agreed to by Mansker for his Scalia image is silent on whether attribution must be given in the Scalia article or by clicking on the image. Therefore, if Mansker believes the display of his image violates the license, he would then revoke it. Is that right? If it is, isn't another alternative for Mansker -- and I recognize it's an unlikely alternative as his Flickr page indicates that he's thrilled we're using his picture -- a lawsuit for breach of license? And I know that anyone can sue for anything, but wouldn't that be a legally viable option for him?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You have the right idea. In regards to images it has really only been an issue here with those who are used to getting it and found/find that a bulk of editors at Wikipedia tend to ignore what is a common practice in the real world. But not every editor who works on images is a photographer, has been an editor and understands "attribution" or "by-lines", or simply does not not equate "attribution" being a photo credit. Even in the uploads I see a lot of "Source: USER:DoHlLy" and "Author: Me" (Or vice versa) with no thought to future use anywhere. And even when there is more information, such as on the Scalia image, many don't get that, for example, an article on the album The Fame actually contains a lot of attribution (right in the info box) - far more than simply putting a "photo by:" credit. And album infobox typically attributes the performer, the location/s it was recorded, the label/s that distribute/d it, and the producer/s. (On the other hand, in line with the discussion we are having, it does not give attribution to the photographer or the album's graphic designer).

Overall though it *is* an issue and now with the adaption of CCL 3.0 I think some are seeing it as more serious. As for the Scalia image there is not any clear request on the source page that the image requires attribution on each page where the image appears. However I suspect, due to the fact the photographers other images are copyright "all rights reserved" and available via Getty Images a photo credit is expected - because that is the norm in the real world. However I am not that photographer so I can not be exact in what they had in their mind in regards to attribution via the CC 2.0 license they used. Here is a case, IMO, where attribution is implied, but not specified, which, of course, makes it hard and everyone ends up seeing threads such as this. Given that the hosting of the file on Wikimedia Commons follows the license, it's use here is, unfortunately, left up to Editor to decide in regards to a photo credit - one is not explicitly "required" anywhere. As an example of images that are more specific: images found at Geograph that are all available via CCL and their general USE section states While our volunteer photographers keep copyright on their photos, they also grant the use of their photographs in return for attribution. And when you look at an image, such as their current Photo of the Day, they specify Under the Creative Commons Licence, the image must be credited as specified by the contributor, an example of good wording is shown above. In the "photo of the Day" image the example contains the image, a description and the credit: © Copyright Ian Taylor and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence. What I like about this page is there is included code - so further down there is an example of for use on a web-page (such as Wikipedia) and even further down there is a section of code for use if the image is transferred to Wikipedia Commons. As you can see it is much easier to attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor with this image because there is a "manner specified by the author or licensor". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers to other articles and other ways of handling this issue. I'm glad some Wikipedians are concerned. Hopefully, better guidelines will be issued so there is more uniformity in the implementations. I initially started this discussion because the government image of Scalia was replaced by the current image. The nice thing about a government image is that no license is involved because the U.S. can't own copyrights in its own works. Therefore, I questioned whether the licensed image should be used (and I still do). Other editors liked the new picture (I don't) and wanted to keep it, so I then questioned the licensing issues that brought me here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Terrible Towel

Is this straight-on photograph of the trademarked "Terrible Towel" (File:Original-terrible-towel.jpg) in potential violation of copyright, or is it allowable since the "logo" is just words made out of stencil font in the same fashion that the Google logo cannot be subject to copyright? --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• The image is on Commons, so any decision we make here is irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

While Hammersoft is right, I will note that just because something is trademarked does not mean they hold a copyright on the image. Which I don't think a corporation would be able to do in this case. §hep^Talk 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly - copyright and trademark registration serve two different purposes. Copyright protects the creative content of an image etc whereas trademark registration gives the owner the exclusive right to use the trademark on the classes of goods for which it is registered. For another example, see File:DuPont.svg - ineligible for copyright protection, but a registered trademark nevertheless. – ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mersin harbor 60

I didn't see anything wrong with File:Mersin harbor 60.jpg. (The phote is older than 50 years and it is from personal album.) But I editted some. Is it OK now ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the model portion of the picture is intended to convey. It's not referenced in the article. I don't see it being useful other than as decorative. Is there something significant about the model vs. the current layout as reported by secondary sources? If not, it's not really relevant. Modern images of the harbor would do just fine, and since the harbor exists those can be obtained as free licensed images, making this replaceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Free software or not screenshot?

PabloDraw is licensed under GPL and there for it is free software. The image File:PabloDrawScreenshot.PNG however, is marked as if PabloDraw were not. Or does this notice refer to the Operating System it is running on (clearly Windows XP, which is non-free). 90.230.163.58 (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Avion silhouette 2.png

Could somebody please delelte File:Avion silhouette 2.png?

I attempted to flip File:Avion silhouette.png but lack proper software to do so.

I subsequently found a suitable image, File:Airplane silhouette 45degree angle.svg. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In the future, you can just add {{db-self}} to the top of the image description page, and that will add the image to a speedy deletion category that an admin or bot will then handle and delete. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't edit the information on my own image

Please help.

I uploaded Wineon64bit.png today and I forgot to add the summary and copyright information. Now I can't do anything about it. What can I do now?? I don't understand why it's so complicated to rectify a simple mistake.

The image is being used on the Wine_(software) page. TurboForce (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What happens if you click on the edit tab? – ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can edit what's there, but I don't know how to make the image a copyleft and provide a description. These Wikipedia abbreviations in curly brackets are too confusing. I'm sure a bit of simple editing on my picture could put things right. Please help me make this image a non-copyright and give it a description. I created the image myself. TurboForce (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best and I've solved it. :) I can't edit the the "Comment" section of the table though. In future, I will be very careful when uploading images to ensure it's done right first time round, as mistakes can be very difficult to put right - if you are not familiar with the tags in curly brackets. How do you change the "Comment" part of the table? TurboForce (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the {{FAL}} template is correct. This is a software screenshot, so {{ScreenshotU}} is the appropriate one. See the template documentation at Template:ScreenshotU. – ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me. :) I've been spending ages working this out. If that image page is now correct, I just need to work out how to edit the "Comment" in the table below this image. This is a totally new area of Wikipedia to me, as it's the first time I've botched-up uploading an image. xD TurboForce (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

question about public figures

why do u keep on deleting pictures of public figures ?
what is the proper way of uploading pictures of people known everywhere ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadi.kabajah (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 August 2010

The proper way is to take the photo yourself. Just because someone is known everywhere does not mean we are allowed to steal the photographic work of others. And yes, it is considered "theft" in a sense. Work must be licensed freely, and the easiest way to do that is to take a photo yourself (there are other ways, such as searching for already existing free content, or contacting photographers and asking for a release per WP:PERMISSION). We delete these photos because there is no evidence they are free, and are copyright violations. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Flanker-B (talk · contribs)

I'm inclined to believe that all the photos uploaded by this user:

• File:Almirante padilla class frigate.jpg
• File:S28pijao.jpg
• File:Sx506.jpg
• File:Gloria1.jpg
• File:Colombian kfir c7.JPG
• File:Kfir col 8.JPG
• File:Iai arava colombia.jpg

are copyright violations. For all photos, the uploader claimed that "It is a picture of my own property, i am an officer of the Colombian navy, ensign rank, im not aware if this image is or is not already on the internet, but it is not copyrighted." Having a photo in one's possession does not make one the author or copyright holder, and if they're not, saying that it's not copyrighted doesn't make it so. The photos are taken in a range of different styles with various cameras ranging from a $500 Canon PowerShot A20 point-and-shoot to a $2000 Nikon D100 DSLR. File:Nimrod ATGM fired.jpg and File:CH-53 firing a nimrod.jpg have already been deleted as blatant copyright violations. commons:File:EMB 314 2.jpg was deleted from Commons for missing proper source information after having been transferred there, and commons:File:Agm-142.jpg have nap.jpg was deleted following commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Agm-142 have nap.jpg after having been transferred. I have just opened commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Photos uploaded by Flanker-B on English Wikipedia for the remaining photos that have been transferred. Please delete the uploads here to prevent further transfers. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hate to be bureaucratic here, but I don't see a question above. I think you may be interested in WP:PUI instead. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 28#File:Barcelona bombing.jpg

Tricky case where the outcome is important, as this is currently a featured picture candidate. Can we please have some experienced eyes? J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you someone speak to an editor please

Hi, can someone please take a look at this person's contributions here. Highlights include uploading a file under the name of this which is IDENTICAL to the picture currently used on the relevant page, but claiming it is his/her copyright (it isn't), as well as changing other pictures. Can someone please delete the linked picture and have a word please. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have everything under control. The image is at PUI now, and you have left comments on the user's talk page, and there appears to be no more copyvio uploads since.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I left the message at the person's talk page just minutes after they had uploaded the images. I left this message here as I expected more uploads to follow and I wanted a secondary force for the matter. After noticing the uploads stopped, I forgot to remove this from here. Just waiting on the images being deleted now. Cheers. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

VIVA Logo

I have a new VIVA logo and I do not belong in which category the proof.Xxvid (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind rephrasing the question, I don't think I understand what you are asking. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

CFHQS J2329-0301.jpg

I can't find an appropriate tag for the image here CFHQS J2329-0301.jpg. Although I gave credit to the author. So what can I do? The image is for a famous quasar which is described as most distant ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Osama AlNagdy (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Either the image is copyrighted, or it is explicitly released under the terms of a free license. Many space organizations do release their content under free licenses, so you should check that out.... but since until there is evidence of the latter, we have to assume the former. On Wikipedia, we can only use copyrighted content under a claim of "fair use" which is guided by our strict non-free content guidelines and policy criteria (WP:NFC). I'm not sure this image meets WP:NFCC. If you think it does, you need to add a copyright tag (Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free) and a fair use rationale (WP:FURG). Otherwise, the image will be deleted. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If the image is copyrighted, here's a tip for your fair use rationale. The way I've found that a fair use rationale can become valid is when you do not use the image to in any way misrepresent or endanger its author and you do not use the image for commercial purposes. If you do that, and you include all of that in your fair use rationale, chances are that the image will be under a valid fair use claim. Best of luck. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Tournament bracket picture

Hi, I'm currently looking to an image of a tournament bracket to The Ultimate Fighter. Presently, articles such as The Ultimate Fighter: Team Liddell vs. Team Ortiz have brackets that I created at User:Paralympiakos/Sandbox 2. I'm just wondering, what sort of licensing, if any, needs to be used for a screenshot of my created bracket?

I was thinking it would be the regular "entirely my own work" criteria, but then again, I did release that as text on the original page. What do I do? Cheers. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want a screenshot of the brackets? Something like that seems superior and more accessible in text/html format. Users with disabilities will be able to have screen readers read the markup, the size and color of the text can be adjusted in browser, etc. That said, content that you release, and you solely own, you are free to relicense as you wish, as you retain the copyright. Text that you publish on Wikipedia is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, but you still retain the copyright and could publish it in a copyrighted book for commercial use if you wanted. Though, I don't know how much originality goes into such a tournament bracket. It may be ineligible for copyright in the first place.... I'm not sure about that. Anyway, if you are going to make a screenshot of content you created, I'm pretty sure you can tag it how you want, but if you plan on using the screenshot in an article, I'd argue that you should instead use the full markup version.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm intending on using a screenshot as an image in the The Ultimate Fighter article as illustration of the tournament nature of the TV show. As part of the description of the format of the show, I just wanted to add it. As for not using the proper text, that would be huge; I only want a reduced size image as a side-illustration.

As for copyright, I don't even wish to hold any, but I wanted to make sure that if I added a screenshot of my own work that's currently in another wiki page, that it wouldn't be deleted. I take it that the entire principle is not a good idea then? Paralympiakos (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. No, I wouldn't say it's not a good idea. I guess to be on the safeside, you can tag the image as being CC-BY-SA 3.0, as that is what it is currently licensed. I'm not sure if the design and layout in the theme qualified for copyright protection by Wikipedia, and that is an element you did not create yourself. But we have Template:Wikipedia-screenshot, which is probably what you are looking for. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Is that just a simple {{Template:Wikipedia-screenshot}} addition to the image section? Paralympiakos (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Via this form? Paralympiakos (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, if you are using that form, the license is available from the drop down menu for licensing. Wikipedia web page screenshot or something like that. If you choose that option from the drop down, you don't need to add any extra template to the description box.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The file - I'm also certain this passes criteria and won't be deleted, but I just want to leave it here for the final check. Cheers again for the help. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Should be good to go. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitchens Grand Rapids photos

[12][13]

Hi there. Regarding the above two files, it seems as though I have neglected to add a copyright tag of some kind. Could you please let me know specifically how to go about this? I'm confident that everything is in order -- I have written permission from the newspaper responsible for the photos. Best wishes, Jprw (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've just fixed the problem myself—if someone would confirm I'd be grateful. Jprw (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that those images do have a copyright tag on them, but did the written permission you received say something like "I release these images under the terms of the GFDL"? Furthermore, for such third party permission, we need to confirm the permission via e-mail and then add an OTRS ticket to the image, per WP:PERMISSION. Follow the instructions here Wikipedia:PERMISSION#When_permission_is_confirmed. I'm tagging these images as lacking permission for the time being. Once you forward any permission to our e-mail address, we can change the deletion tag to OTRS-pending... -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

CHOCOLAT

HOW DO I ADD A POSTER? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladesfan96 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you are a new user, you need to wait 4 days before you can upload. Please see WP:IFU for help uploading content in the meantime. Once you are a confirmed user (i.e. in 4 days) you can click the "upload file" link in the left hand column's toolbox, and follow the onscreen instructions. Keep in mind, you must own the copyright of the image you intend to upload, or you need evidence that the image has been licensed under the terms of a specific free license which is compatible with our mission, or the image must meet our strict non-free content guideliens WP:NFC. Wikipedia:Image use policy has more specific information that wouldn't hurt if you read up on. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: File:Normans-kill-br-01.jpg

I failed to release this into the public domain when I uploaded it; now it is scheduled for deletion. Can anyone tell me how I can go back and do that?

Thanks,

Rick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehrenberg (talk • contribs) 04:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just hit the "edit" button for the image and add the appropriate copyright tag template, such as {{PD-self}} assuming it is a photo you took yourself and also please fill in the description which is missing. If you do that, you can remove the "no licence" template from the image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help getting my photo posted, please

I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. All I want to do is post a couple of normal everyday jpg's on the Wikipedia page for John Burroughs School in St. Louis Missouri. It refused the jpg's that I had copied from the school's web site, so I went and took a photo of the school's main building myself. Why can't my photo be posted? I don't understand the legalese. Please use regular words to explain. Thank you very much. File:JohnBurroughsSchool photo.jpg Pcbd (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the templates on the image info page and deleted the copyright notice. – ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And added it to the ibox at John Burroughs School. – ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Copying content to a specifically GFDL website

I've found a GFDL-based wiki that I'm considering contributing to. It's rather new, and Wikipedia articles sometimes have greater depth than its pages do, so I'd like to copy over bits or entire articles with edit summaries of "copied from [URL of Wikipedia article here]". Since all pre-relicensing text and post-relicensing text here at Wikipedia is GFDL-released, is there any reason that I couldn't do exactly this? And if not, what must I do? Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:REUSE#Re-use of text under the GNU Free Documentation License help? – ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends. Since the relicensing we've allowed importing content that is licensed only under CC-BY-SA or a compatible license, so you should make sure the text you're copying can actually be reused under the GFDL. Original content is available under both licenses, it's just the imported stuff that might be incompatible. Reach Out to the Truth 18:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)