Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Image issue

Hi, guys. We've got an issue with an image template that's going to put a number of images at risk, unless origin can be determined. Specifically, following this PuF, I wrote to our attorney to ask if the OTRS release underpinning it and the template on it (Template:PD-PRGov-IPC) was usable. He indicates it is not, and that we need to determine the origin of each image in order to establish copyright status. There are currently 39 images so tagged; some of them may be PD, some may not. (See Category:Public domain images from the ICP.) The thing is, User:Marine 69-71 (Tony the Marine), who created the template and contacted the agency, is a really stellar Wikipedian and a nice guy who is out at this moment having a triple bypass surgery. Images are not really my area, but I'd hope to be able to secure any of these images that we can under usable PD defense. Are any of you able to help out with this? Let me know if you've been able to confirm the PD status of one, and I will bestow barnstars. Or not, if you don't like 'em. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the similar {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} valid? If so, files flaged with both would be OK. —teb728 t c 22:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, maybe so! It's a different situation. That would be great! :) I'll look into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that's right, I removed {{PD-PRGov-IPC}} from images tagged {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} and replaced it with {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} a few places where the latter seemed appropriate. 28 transclusions of {{PD-PRGov-IPC}} remain. —teb728 t c 23:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. In the case of {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}}, we seem to be dealing with "work for hire", in which case they are able to release the material into public domain. But 11 images off the chopping block is fantastic. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@teb728, could you explain what reasoning you used to decide which images to relicense those images? I ask because they were originally tagged the way they were after a rather rambling discussion (and more than a few assumptions, I'm afraid) at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 24#File:Church Nuestra Senora de la Concepcion y San Fernando of Toa Alta.JPG and I don't see why File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG for example was changed. Am I missing something? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I had a separate question concerning File:Juano Hernandez.jpg, whose status I raised in the discussion. This photo appears to raise the same issues as the Clemente photo. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No image can be used under this rationale, according to our attorney. Unless an image can be verified to be free for other reason or unless a fair use rationale can be asserted, the images will, unfortunately, need to be removed. I don't know if WP:PuF or WP:FfD is the best avenue for listing those which cannot be verified or for which fair use rationales cannot be constructed. I think we need to be very mindful, though, that the people who've uploaded images under this license tag have done so entirely in good faith, believing that the copyright concerns were settled. I'd think any that are so nominated should make clear that circumstances have evolved since the creation of the tag. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've found and uploaded a fairly good PD image of Juano Hernandez and have replaced it in the two three articles where used. I think that Damiens.rf, who raised this issue originally and was attacked for it, should get due credit for bringing this to the community's attention. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you there. I don't know anything about the attacks he may have received (I haven't even closely read the PuF listing, only enough to note that it was an attorney matter), but I understand how it feels. People aren't always happy when I come knocking, either. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and you know, the irony is that the template itself should have been listed for deletion, so the action that was taken referred to just one image and was mild. Wikipedia is the gold standard of determining PD files, and it's unfair to the actual copyright holders if these pictures aren't really free. Funny thing is that, IMHO, the indisputably free image I got of Hernandez is actually better than the studio shot. He certainly photographed well. Fine actor, much neglected, and the article doesn't do him justice. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@VernoWhitney, I added the {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} tag where the files were (like those which had both tags) sourced to pdfs at pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Photos/. I took that as an indication that they were part of the nomination to the National Register and hence developed as part of a HPF Sub grant sponsored by PRSHP, which is the rationale for the PRSHP tag. —teb728 t c 05:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hrmm...The catch with that is that in their communication they didn't say all of their NRHP work was PD, just that "Most of thephotographs were developed as part of a HPF Sub grant" (emphasis added) and so was PD. In particular, File:Acevedo, Rafael, House.JPG that I mentioned earlier states (page 5) that it was prepared by the IPC and revised/edited by the PRSHP. Given that ambiguity I personally think we need to find at least some evidence (even weak evidence, but some) beyond the fact that they were submitted to the NRHP to presume they're PD too. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I interpret that quote differently than you: Basically it says that most of the photos in some unspecified class are PD. I assume that class is PRSHP photos generally. (Perhaps the message to OTRS can clarify.) Under my assumption it means (to paraphrase) Most PRSHP photos are PD; the PD photos include all those developed under the HPF Sub grant and all those nominated to the NRHP by the PRSHP. But I am not attached to my changes; so if you disagree, be Bold. —teb728 t c 22:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Khalid al-Mihdhar 1

What is the Copyright status on the image :File:180px-Khalid_al-Mihdhar_1.jpg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIGHSCHOOLFAILURE (talk • contribs) 07:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean File:-Khalid al-Mihdhar 1.jpg? If so, it is a garbled duplicate of File:KAlmihdhar.JPG. —teb728 t c 09:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about Child Rights Information Network

About two weeks ago I removed some material from Child Rights Information Network as copyvio from [1]. Someone is now claiming on my talk page that they, as the copyright holder, have fully authorized use and have reverted my removal. I don't see any open licensing on the source page, and do not have OTRS access to check for any permissions that may have been provided that way. Can someone check to confirm permission has not been properly granted and take care of the page appropriately. Monty₈₄₅ 16:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I reverted back to the non-copyvio version. Anybody can claim to be the copyright agent for a given work. Doesn't make them so. They can submit their claim to the m:OTRS permissions queue, and the OTRS team can then post to the article's talk page regarding the content. No such OTRS posting exists on the talk page of the article, and until it does the information goes away. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

  IMO it has worse problems than the copyvio: Even if it were licensed, it would be inherently promotional and inherently un-verifyable. It seems to me it is a mistake to tell people they can use promotional content from an organization's website if only it is licensed. —teb728 t c 04:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  Just because it CAN be used doesn't mean it will be used. You could certainly use such comments verbatim if they were properly released; you can't without it. Short version: it's a red herring. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Delete all of my uploads

Hi Wikipedia administrators, I am requesting that all of the images I have uploaded as a Wikipedia user be deleted. This is because I do not have all of the copyright tags necessary. This is the file list of all the images I have uploaded:

• File:Seattle_SuperSonics_home_uniforms.gif
• File:Seattle_SuperSonics_road_uniforms.gif
• File:Seattle_SuperSonics_home_uniform.gif
• File:Seattle_SuperSonics_road_uniform.gif
• File:NASCAR_Espn_CLR_POS.jpg
• File:ESPN_MNF_CLR_Pos.jpg
• File:MLB_ESPN_logo.jpg
• File:NBA_ESPN_logo.jpg
• File:Mlb_postseason_2009.png

Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Username:Charlesaaronthompson

• Erm. Most of these had proper license tags on them. Two of them (File:Seattle SuperSonics home uniform.gif and File:Seattle SuperSonics road uniform.gif) were orphaned non-free images, and I've tagged them for deletion as a result. The first two in the list were just missing a copyright license tag, which I've applied. The last 5 are all ok, and in use, and have rationales and licenses. No need to delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

PD-AUS

A question has arisen at FAC here over the PD-AUS template. The images on George Headley, such as File:Headley head and shoulders.jpg are PD-AUS and the date of first publication has been requested as part of the review, as it may affect their copyright status. I do not have this information, but my understanding was that this did not matter for PD in Australia. However, the template on Commons (but not here) requests this information, which led to the query. Any help would be appreciated! On another related matter, Len Hutton has several images which I believe may be dubious as they are PD-Aus, but published after 1946. Am I correct that these won't be PD-US and so need to be removed? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this 1946 from, US recognises PD from Australia, which is photographs taken before 1955. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I know, the legislation behind the free trade agreement with Australia supercedes the Uruguay round rules though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Image from facsimile

Hi, I have a question for you all. I'd like to include an image from a facsimile edition of the Lincoln Thornton Manuscript in the artice--at least one, of one of the scribe's signature remarks. The edition was published in 1977, and consists of photographic reproductions of the medieval manuscript. Can I do this? How much can I use? How many images can I use? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If the facsimile is a faithful reproduction, ie no extra bits added or enhanced you should be able to copy it as though it was the old PD text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So--in a way we are bypassing the effort that went into the photography, the printing, the editing, etc? I'm being picky since I received a heads up from one of the experts. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think what MRG was saying was that the images (if faithful reproductions, which you said they are) are PD. Still, some people are sue happy, so they may just decide to sue anyway, even if it's unfounded. it seems doubtful that they would, since the images aren't likely to be controversial or anything, but you never know. At least I think that's what she was saying.-RHM22 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is important that you don't reproduce any extra text that may have been added, and cropping will not be any kind of creative work. Printing in itself is not adding the the copyright of the original work. So that leaves the photography: if it used creative lighting, enhancements to make it look better or more readable, or combining things together then that could be creative. If you are in the USA you should be able to reproduce. Your example from the Bitish Library has a clear false claim to copyright they do not possess. They should have said that finding out the copyright to the material is your problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you; you've been very helpful. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Outline of simplistic character

I am wanting to know if drawing the outline of a Dragon Quest slime is concindered a "non-creative work". I will note that in Japan, it has entered the culture in that anyone who draws a slime will draw this the outline of the character (and possibly they eyes and mouth).陣内_Jinnai 01:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Just the outline would be too simple, and a line rough drawing of eyes and mouth would hardly be suitable for copyright, unless you reproduced every detail exactly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

PD flag

Resolved

 – thanks to commons' help desk. Swarm ^X 00:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone accurately illustrates a flag and posts it on the internet. The flag is in the public domain. Is the illustration in the public domain? Swarm ^X 19:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Uh no. Something being displayed in public whether physically or over the internet does not mean it's public domain. Simply put, public domain works have no encumbering intellectual property rights. If a holder of rights to thing X places X in a public place where lots of people can see it, the holder doesn't suddenly become bereft of rights to that thing anymore than you parking your car in a public parking lot gives the right to anyone else to drive off with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft, one of us did not correctly understood the question. I believe the facts are:
    1. There's a public domain flag.
    2. Someone made an accurate illustration of this flag.
    3. This same person posted the illustration on the Internet.
  • Is the file posted on the Internet public domain? My guess would be YES. --Damiens.rf 21:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Which is a guess. Would the OP please be more specific? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The illustration by itself will not be in the public domain. It depends on what flag it is, or where it came from, in order to find out for sure if it is PD. If, lets say, you make a flag based off of a public domain law or specification sheet, then the drawings will most likely be PD. If you didn't, I would suggest not to upload it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens interpreted the question correctly. The flag (undoubtedly) is in the public domain. The question is will a accurate digital illustration of the flag also in the public domain? Swarm ^X 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• What do you define as "public domain"? Could you be more specific about the image you're wanting to illustrate? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there not a general rule? In the United States, some state and local governments can/do copyright their works, and some cannot/do not copyright their works. Those that cannot (by state law) or do not copyright their works release them into the public domain, much like the U.S. federal government does. In the cases of flags created by a government whose works are in the public domain, accurate illustrations can be found on the internet. These pictures are not specifically created by the government. The question is: can these images be used on Wikipedia as public domain images, or does the fact that they were not specifically created by the government make them copyrightable? Swarm ^X 05:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Images CCI

Hi. There is a CCI concerning images, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822, that was opened in August and just has a handful of images yet to be reviewed. Can someone else who has experience with copyright help? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize this was posted about before, but there are still some images left. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Can I use this map (http://lacity.org/stellent/groups/lacity/@lacity/documents/contributor_web_content/lacity_005525.pdf) in an article on Los Angeles City Council District 10? It would be almost impossible to recite the boundaries in text, and drawing one from scratch would be out of the question. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why "out of the question"? A new map could easily be done. Take an piece of freely licensed www.openstreetmap.org material as a basis to work from, and then redraw the boundaries over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your flip answer, though I do appreciate the new information you gave me. I suggest you might be a bit more friendly in your approach to people whom you don't even know. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• And you could exhibit a bit more good faith. There's nothing in what Fut.Perf. wrote that is objectionable. He also happens to be right. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute Future Perfect at Sunrise's good faith, nor his accuracy. I remarked upon an attitude — that is, "Oh, you silly boy, Why are you asking such a dumb question?" Thanks for your interest, Hammersoft, but if one person (me) finds any given remark objectionable, then I suppose somebody (me) has objected to it and it is therefore objectionable. I take this opportunity to laud Future Perfect at Sunrise's work on behalf of Wikipedia, which I have examined through his home page. By the way, I went to http://www.openstreetmap.org and found it impenetrable.(So much for "can easily be done.") I am still awaiting word whether http://lacity.org/stellent/groups/lacity/@lacity/documents/contributor_web_content/lacity_005525.pdf can be used or not. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Judging from the copyright notice in the lower left corner of the lacity.org map, it appears the map is not in the public domain nor under a free license. So per WP:NFCC#1 it couldn’t be used on Wikipedia, for a free equivalent could be created as outlined by Fut.Perf: Center the openstreetmap.org map on Los Angeles, and zoom in, keeping it centered on Los Angeles until the 10th district fills the map. Print the result, and draw the district boundaries on it.

I frankly don’t understand what you found flip or belittling about Fut.Perf’s reply. I don’t see anything that could reasonably give offense. Please reconsider whether you may have misunderstood him. —teb728 t c 02:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• @GeorgeLouis: You will note, of course, that Fut.Perf. did NOT say "Oh, you silly boy", etc. What he did do was offer you sound advice. I fail to understand what you find offensive in his words. Further, simply because one person...you...found his words offensive doesn't make them so. I could just as well claim your postings are the most offensive Wikipedia's ever seen, and since I'm one person that finds that statement to be accurate, it must be true. Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, TEB728. You get a Barnstar, your third if I am not mistaken. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Any guidelines on mass deletion requests?

About 21 non-free and PD images I uploaded were tagged by an editor, all within a few minutes of each other. The images came from different and unrelated articles, had appropriate rationales, and the FfD requests were noticeably short, some just cut & pasted within seconds of each other. Obviously, finding and adding images to articles takes time and adds significantly to many articles. Is it acceptable for any editor to simply create mass deletion requests in this way? It took the requester only a few minutes of tagging, but it will take much longer to respond, especially when the rationales are questionable, at best. Are there some guidelines about using FfD tags in this way? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. So as a matter of policy non-free content may be used only if its use would significantly increase reader understanding of the article, and it may not be used if a free equivalent (including text) exists or could be created. I looked at the top four FfDs, and all of them merely decorate mentions in the text that are perfectly understandable without the images. —teb728 t c 19:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, but that does not answer the question.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think there is any guideline on that subject. But it makes sense to do it that way. Indeed it makes it easier for everyone (including you) to consider together images that have a similar problem. All your non-free use rationales (with the exception of the Cazalet and Pissarro photos) are clearly invalid: (Just because a non-free image shows something related to text in the article, that reason is not sufficient for using the image. WP:NFCC#8 allows use of non-free content only if it significantly increases reader understanding.) I would preferred, however if he had not mixed the disputed PD claims with the disputed non-free use rationales. (BTW, the typical length of his nominations is comparable with that of the other nominations on the page; several of his nominations are the longest on the page.) —teb728 t c 06:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think there should be a revolutionary new guideline for this kind of blitz-tagging, maybe something like WP:CommonCourtesy. Feel free to use some of the so-called rationales from the list of 21 for things not to do: Avoid sarcasm, ie. "Non-free image of an ancient British politician." or "There are free images of this guy," for a world famous artist. But apparently no one sees a problem with tagging 21 images over a few minute time span, which inhibits an editor's work in trying to improve articles and make them more readable. Not to mention the irritation, annoyance or distress in trying to respond and/or fix the problems, ie. deletion of File:Lumet-Award.jpg after just 24 hours. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Lumet-Award.jpg was deleted by me as an immediate speedy deletion case. It was a commercial news agency picture. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything inappropriate with these "blitz taggings". If an editor finds problems with some images of an uploader, it is not at all uncommon to check many, and sometimes all, of the uploads of the editor. That's why we have the contributions history for each editor. Look at it from the view of the person conducting the analysis; would you have them limit their reviews to X per day until they're all the way through your uploads? That could take weeks, even months. We tag problems as we find them, and move on. There's nothing inappropriate being done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for at least being the first person to comment. Although merely a peasant editor, I'll be somewhat redundant and disagree in part:

• "Blitz-tagging" IMO is inappropriate on its face, as it overwhelms an editor's ability to respond in a timely and thoughtful manner. "Blitz-taggers," of course know this, and by supporting that kind of activity (disruptive?), it invites potential abuse and more of the same. There are less disruptive ways to remove images by using proper ettiquette, and accepting an obvious violation of the Golden Rule is not among those;
• Failing to provide the required notice on the image, where used within the article, is related to the above, as it requires someone else do it. According to the tag templates used, such a notice to others is required (I assume.);
• Your assumption that the tagger used some "analysis" when tagging is disputed by the fact that the 21 images tagged were done within 60 seconds of each other. There was obviously no adequate time to review the article and how the image supports and is necessary to the commentary, part of the rationale used for most. That's also why the FfD rationales were so brief if not outright incorrect.
• The fact that no one, including you, has observed the tagger's potential targeting of an editor's images in a clearly disproportionate way does not set a good example for anything, is odd.

In case anyone else agrees that "blitz-tagging" should be prevented, the solution is simple: create a guideline against it and demand that the tagger remove all such inappropriate tags. The guideline against WP:Blitz-tagging could start with a dictionary definition from Webster's: "a sudden overwhelming bombardment." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• You're presuming that blitz taggers "know this" and are therefore using the system against uploaders. Facts not in evidence. That he tagged all of them within 60 seconds of each other doesn't mean he didn't consider them. I frequently perform edits in this manner. I once voted "delete" on 25 images in a single post [2]. Does that mean I didn't consider all of the deletions? No. Looking at Damiens.rf's work on the day in question, I see significant gaps between groups of taggings. I don't find anything inappropriate going on here. I find nothing at all about his 'targeting' of your uploads. It is precisely why we have contribution histories publicly available, so that other editors can review a contributor's work. Maybe some of the images you have uploaded will be deleted. But, that doesn't stop you from uploading them again if you do so by addressing the concerns raised in the FfD request. I'd also like to note that looking at some random selections here; File:Sagan in Time mag 10-20-80.jpg, File:Sagan in skeptic magazine.jpg; Damiens happens to be right. Rather than complain about his tagging of your images, I recommend you review our policies on non-free content and be more careful with your uploads. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I am presuming some know this, especially when it's already been brought to their attention on ANI. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, I voted delete on 21 of these images. Damiens happens to be right. The only image that gave me any pause to not vote delete was File:Cazalet - Grabski.jpg. You can see my comments on that deletion request for why. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The first four indicate you actually found no supporting commentary in three articles. All within 60 seconds! Can you recommend a good speed-reading course?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• And there you've highlighted part of the problem in your analysis. In this diff, I voted to delete on one thing. The next diff is 17 minutes later. I voted to delete on 5 things. The next diff is 13 minutes later, 6 things. After that, 12 minutes and 9 things (the problematic nature of the uploads became patternistic]). So, 42 minutes for 20 things; a little over 2 minutes per item. I'm confident you're capable of reading that "fast". --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I frequently work in tabs, so that I have a dozen Wikipedia pages open at any given time. As a result, it isn't unusual for me to click 'save page' on several related pages at the same time. For example, I might make changes to an article in one tab while typing a long explanation on the talk page in another tab. If you only look at the timestamps, you might believe that I can type 500 words per minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'd also like to add on that canvassing attempts such as these: [3][4][5], are a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All 3 fixed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. But since you've spent so much time reviewing numerous articles and writing rationales for image deletions, maybe you can take a few extra seconds to speculate on why the earlier ANI discussion about this entire subject, AKA "machine gun" tagging, appears to be irrelevant? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I reviewed that sub-thread. Is it relevant? Yes. The problem here is multiple fold. First, WP:AN doesn't set policy. Whatever decisions that are made there are not policy. So, even if they came down in unanimity that a given editor X was wrong for doing something, if another editor Y came along a year later and did the same thing, Y isn't in the wrong by default. Please note that despite that thread there's been no modification of the instructions at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Of course, we're talking about the same editor here...which leads to the next point. Damiens is not under any editing restrictions, nor was he so three weeks after the discussion you referenced ended (see 2 February 2010 version). Damiens is also not under any active arbitration sanctions, nor can I see that he was ever under any ArbCom restrictions or brought to ArbCom over any behaviors (see index). What I do see is that on 8 January 2010 he was blocked for similar behavior to that which you are concerned about, and less than a day later he was unblocked by a different administrator with the reasoning of "lack of consensus for block and concerns over blocking rationale". He has not subsequently been blocked for this sort of behavior. So yes, the thread is relevant, but it just further shows that finding fault with Damiens for his actions is not something the community agrees with. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My initial post on this topic made no reference to Damiens, but only on the subject of "guidelines" about mass taggings. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Your initial post in this thread contained a link to a deletion request made by Damiens.rf. Further, your link to the January 2010 WP:AN thread is a reference to Damiens.rf's behavior at that time as well. Regardless, even without the association of Damiens.rf to this, the answer is the same. That earlier thread, plus the lack of any changes to the instructions at WP:FFD just goes to show there's no standing in policy to sanction anyone for conducting work in this manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sursand

I've removed OCR'd-and-pasted book text from Sursand, but I've just realised the book was published in 1907. Does the age of the book make a difference in this case? -- John of Reading (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the contents of a book published in 1907 would be PD in the US, under {{PD-US-1923}}. However, it's probably still a good idea to give such material some closer scrutiny, for encyclopedicness, latent POV, outdated scholarship and similar potential issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- John of Reading (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that if such material is used, while not a copyright problem, it does need to be properly attributed (e.g. via {{PD-old-text}}) per WP:PLAGIARISM. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

photos of modern areas of my city not yet showned in the article

i would like to post some photos of modern areas of my city not yet showned in the article. how can i do that? i took them and i would like to know if i can post them is lisbon, portugal, and i would like to show them to you first... thank you. Miguel <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.101.16 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have not created an account, you will not be able to upload images. If you create an account and go to commons:commons:upload you can put them there. Otherwise you can use the WP:FFU page to make a request, but you will have to put the images somewhere on the internet like flickr with a CC-BY-SA license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can follow the steps at Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission and email it directly to us. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of a 1979 newspaper article

Hi--I have a photograph of a 1979 article from the NJ Summit Herald that was sent to me by the person who saved the article and then photographed it. I'm allowed to use it, anywhere on the internet. I uploaded it, file was called "Summit Herald 12-13-79", but got deleted by MrKIA11 who wrote:"The reason it was deleted is because images that are said to be 'for Wikipedia use only' or 'used with permission' are in fact not allowed. They are only allowed when 'used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag'. I'm not very proficient in image fair use and copy-write permission, so I suggest going to this page and asking if and how it would be allowed. If you're lucky, I'm wrong, and there is some tag that you can place that would allow its inclusion." Any guidance you can provide would be appreciated. I'm hoping to include it in this page I'm writing. Thanks, Vzafrin (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Newspapers of the modern era (after 1922) are almost always going to be copyright. We cannot use it as a free use image. Generally, parts of newspapers are unlikely to be eligible for fair use. Exceptions might be where that newspaper edition has become famous, as in "DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN" or "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD". I just can't see how anything that happened in exurban New Jersey in 1979 would be likely to achieve that kind of fame.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, almost no kind of fame. I was hoping to use the image to substantiate a claim. Can I do the latter by providing a full reference to the article, even if it's not verifiable on the internet—but is, if you find the newspaper? Vzafrin (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that would be an offline reference. A lot of people think that only online sources can be included (as I did when I first started), but in fact, any reliable source can be used. Even DVDs can be referenced sometimes for articles about movies and whatnot. If you need help referencing the offline source, just let me know on my talk page or post here, and either me or someone will be glad to help, I'm sure.-RHM22 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, what RHM22 says is true. We are a compendium of all knowledge, not just that on the Internet!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible to transfer it to the Commons?

Hi, I wonder if it is possible to transfer this image to the Commons. I am not into the copyright in the US, so I hope someone can tell me. I even do not know if it is allowed to have it here at en-Wikipedia, because the image was certainly not taken before 1923 as you can recognize the The Pierre (which opend 1930) and the Sherry Netherland Hotel (which was completed in 1927) in the background. --Pilettes (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not possible right now because the copyright status of the image is not clear. The image appears from the source to have been published in 1930 per what appears to be a copyright notice (see bottom right of source image) but we need to know if that copyright was renewed or not, so we can determine if a public domain claim is true. Until then it cannot be moved to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• It is not possible to transfer it to Commons at this time. The image is not eligible for {{pd-us}}, as you rightly indicate the image is post-1923. Even the source of the image notes it is from "about 1930". I think the image's use here under WP:NFCC policy would fail. The intent would most likely be to show sheep in the sheep meadow. That's not possible now, as sheep are not grazing there now. However, there are older photos of sheep in the sheep meadow available. Consider this example. The image here shows a rather bereft skyline, and a very old style carriage, a personal use one at that not one for hire. Also note the woman on the far right is wearing a bustle, which would tend to date the image to the late 1800s. I think it's reasonable to conclude it dates from before 1923, though there's no image credit so we can't be absolutely certain. I've removed the license tag from this image, as it's obviously invalid, and tagged it with a missing license tag. I've notified the uploader. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the very detailed answers. I think I will get an older image with sheeps to upload at Commons. Best regards, --Pilettes (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the above assessment. The photo is labeled from its source as circa 1930, so it definitely misses the pre-1923 criteria, but I see NO evidence whatsoever that its copyright was renewed. As was common with photos of that era, copyrights often lapsed. I see no reason to delete the photo, but I agree we shouldn't transfer it to Commons without clearer guidance. If the photo is later proven to be still under copyright, it should be removed immediately. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the source, this photo was part of a collection Herbert Mitchell donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2007. Was it published before then? —teb728 t c 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

According to law, being "published" back in the 30s was little more than the photo being seen in public. Again, I'm not contesting that the photo isn't copyrighted at some point, but we are playing a guessing game here on a lot of facts. I'm inclined to include it on WP for now since, even if it turns out it IS copyrighted, a fair use rationale would be apropos. It is certainly a unique, irreplaceable photo which candidly shows farm animals IN New York. Since it is notable to have an article on this specific subject, I'm inclined to say it is important enough to be illustrated with said subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, it is me again :):

• I found this page with an image of a postcard from Thaddeus Wilkerson showing grazing sheeps in Central Park. The problem was the very low resoultion of the image. I found no higher resolution image, but this video on Youtube showing the postcard at 5:55. According to the page, the picture was made between 1909 and 1916, so I could upload it (the screenshot I made from the Youtube video) on the Commons under PD-US 1923, right?
• I also found this page, which shows the sheperd with his dog. Could also be uploaded under PD-US 1923 licence, right?
• And here is also an image of the Tavern on the Green. Here they say 1899 or older, and here you can see "The Sheephold and Barn. Now erecting on The Central Park", which I think means, that this drawing was made before it was constructed. According to this it could also be uploaded under PD-US 1923 too?
  

Corrections and/or suggestions? Otherwise I will upload this stuff at the Commons. --Pilettes (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely! Glad to hear an alternate was found...I now support deletion since this file HAS a free replacement. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done it. File:Thaddeus_Wilkerson_Postcard_Sheep_Fold_Central_Park_NY.jpg, File:Detail_Thaddeus_Wilkerson_Postcard_Sheep_Fold_Central_Park_NY.jpg, File:James_Conway_Shepherd_Sheep_Meadow_Central_Park_NY.jpg, File:Sheepfold_Tavern_on_the_Green_Central_Park_NY.jpg. Thanks for good advive --Pilettes (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Photographs of the University of Johannesburg

Hi. Images of the University of Johannesburg (UJ) are lacking from all articles. The Gauteng Tourism Authority has published photographs here: http://www.gauteng.net/attractions/entry/university_of_johannesburg/ The Agency describes itself as "an agency of the Gauteng Provincial Government" (http://www.gauteng.net/contact_us/about_the_gauteng_tourism_authority/) My question is: may we use these images in our articles? Thanks. Fintor (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence on that website that any of its material is freely licenced so that we could use it. Unless you can persuade them to release the images you want and give us their WP:CONSENT, it will probably be easier to get one of our South African editors, or more specifically Category:Wikipedians in Johannesburg, to go out and take some photos. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

filp camera

I Have A filp camera got in 2009 file disappear can u help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.74.203 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't sound like a media copyright problem. —teb728 t c 01:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a Wikipedia-related question, but we do have places you can go for help on technological difficulties. You might try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, where there are individuals with specialized knowledge in this field.-RHM22 (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Film in Internet Archive

I'd like to take some images off the Internet Archive download of Lying Lips, a 1932 film that is claimed to be in the public domain. Can this be done and what tag should I use? The IA page[6] isn't helpful. It would be great if this is usable, as it contains a photo of Juano Hernandez, a pioneering black actor. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the reason that the film is PD? I'm not an expert on copyright, but I believe that there are two possible explanations. Either there was no copyright notice on the film (unlikely), or the copyright was not renewed. If the latter is true, the tag would be {{PD-Pre1964}}. Don't take my word for it, though. I'm sure someone with more expertise will come by and answer for sure.-RHM22 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no explanation on the IA page. I'm assuming it's because the copyright was not renewed. I sure wish IA was more informative. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be useful! I believe that the government keeps a list of all the copyrighted films before the 1970s. I'll see if I can find a link to that.-RHM22 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See wikipedia's Film Superlist entry. It looks like if you can consult volume 1 (1894-1939) and Lying Lips is NOT listed that it wasn't registered for copyright. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the website doesn't cover things that old.-RHM22 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not terribly more helpful, but this random website says, "“Lying Lips,” as with all of Micheaux’s surviving films, is a public domain title" so it's more than one source which thinks it's PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

These films would be a treasure trove of images for articles. Do you think it would be safe to use images from them and, if so, to use a "copyright not renewed" tag? ScottyBerg (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another source, Desert Island Films, Inc., goes beyond just stating it is in the public domain. They are a commercial website which sells versions of Public Domain films. Their faq states, for their PD films, one of which is Lying Lips, "The films copyright registration was not renewed after its initial 28 years of copyright protection. Or, the film was never registered at all." Since their clients include Time-Life, Viacom, NBC, etc. I would say the claim that this film is PD is valid and you should be able to proceed. --Quartermaster (talk)

Thanks. That's a great resource. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. I just viewed the beginning and end of this film at the Internet Archive, and there is no copyright notice whatsoever. Under copyright law, prior to 1989, omitted, incorrect, or incorrectly placed copyright notices meant this would be in the public domain. This film was likely never even originally registered. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. But how does this jibe with the Films Superlist not containing this film? This is all quite important, you know, as Loose Lips was among the films created by a pioneering producer of race films, and it's entirely possible that the same issue is present for all the films. If we can safely use the images from the films, it would be quite a treasure trove. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Has someone actually gotten their hands on Film Superlist? To me it just sounded like that's another source to check to add to the evidence and figure whether it was {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be in libraries. Far too expensive to purchase. By the way, it just occurred to me that I may want to check with Commons on this, as that is where I am likely to upload any images I'd get from these movies. I checked on Lying Lips specifically and all I found was a poster with reference to the IA page. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion there, to see if we can get perhaps more input.[7] ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

<------------- Summary: If film is NOT in Film Superlist then NO U.S. copyright registration and it is PD in the U.S.; if film does not have valid U.S. copyright statement, then film is in PD in the U.S.. Those are two pieces of independent information which could be included in a template on the Commons; and anyone extracting images could use it to posit PD status. Nearest Superlist to me is about 200 miles away. You might want to use this WorldCat link, then put in your zipcode in the "Enter Your Location" box and you can see if there's a copy near you (call the library to make sure they have the volume that covers 1939 in this case). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I misunderstood your earlier point about the Superlist. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Postscript: The discussion in Commons didn't get much of a response, but there doesn't seem to be any objection there to accepting images from that film. So I'm going to be going through that film and uploading to Commons. Thanks to all who participated here. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Image of signatures

Are signatures on land survey documents in the Public Domain if original document was signed in the early 19th century--for example, those shown on this web-site. Am specifically interested on a signature dated Dec 13, 1827.--Orygun (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Signatures usually aren't copyrightable in the United States, being only written letters. There are exceptions, of course, wherein a unique or distinctive signature is copyrighted (Walt Disney for example). Still, since this document is so old, the signature would be public domain even if it was unique, since the author would have died more than 70 years ago. For the correct tag, you can check here.-RHM22 (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

diagram of dropping mercury electrode

please, anyone with the diagram of a dropping mercury electrode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.121.210 (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• This is a page regarding media copyright questions. I think you'd be better served to raise your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you need the image to illustrate an article, see Wikipedia:Requested pictures for more information on how to request it.-RHM22 (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is the camera man

Its basu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbdgkn (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Uconnwomenslogo.png

File:Uconnwomenslogo.png is a logo used by the Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team as a secondary logo to File:Connecticut Huskies.svg. I originally uploaded this image under the license {{PD-textlogo}}, as in my opinion the image, which consists of an blue italic letter "C" over a red circle with white lines resembling a basketball, did not meet the threshold of originality needed to be copyright-protected. A couple of other editors have questioned this license; if people could take a look and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. –Grondemar 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's perhaps borderline. I could see arguments either way. It might be useful to contact UConn regarding their stance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the basketball makes the image an original creation. If it were just the "C", it would be fine, but I think the basketball pushes it over the edge.-RHM22 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with RHM22 as the baseball image add a threshold of originality; it is not just composed of plain text and simple graphics. ww2censor (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

<cough>Basketball</cough> I'm leaning towards PD on this one when comparing it to some of the examples at commons:Threshold of originality#United States. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RHM22. Keep in mind real life people! If that was really PD, anyone could use it, in combination with the word "Connecticut" which is the name of a state. And sell merch. And yet we know that isn't going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the selling of merchandise would be restricted more by trademark protection than copyright. There is no dispute that this logo is trademarked. –Grondemar 01:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's my understanding that something can be PD but also trademarked. The Coca-Cola logo, for instance.-RHM22 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I stated it carelessly. I still tend to think the basketball gets it by the threshold.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is past the threshold of originality, but, then again, I'm the rabble-rouser that started this at FLC ;) The basketball is more than a basic circle, which makes it more than s simple geometric figure, which would be pd-ineligible. Courcelles 10:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Can not remove old image to update with a new image

The restaurant I work for has asked me to update the logo on the wiki page, but I can't figure out how. I have already uploaded into my commons, but can't find it or figure out how to change/remove the out of date logo. Please help. Foodie4life (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The name on wikipedia was File:F2ologo-1-.png. and your commons name one was File:Logo - Signage.jpg. The basic thing is to change the article to use that new name. There is a couple of problems with File:Logo - Signage.jpg, there is too much white space around it, so a crop would be a good idea. And 2, the name is not descriptive of what it is. Third is the format, .jpg has been used with lossy compression, so that there are jpeg artifacts around the edges of the letters. If the company would like the logo to look the best, it would be better to choose a less compressed image, probably with more bytes in it. Next is the copyright permission. This may well fall under PD-text-logo apart from the texture under the slogan. Since you added the OTRS, hopefully an email will follow up following the procedure at WP:PERMIT to prove the license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

When you have fixed the problem that Graeme identified, edit the infobox of Fresh to Order to point to the new image. Don't edit the article before you have fixed at least the white space problem, or the logo will be really tiny. —teb728 t c 22:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Flickr images

Are the images on flickr licensed under terms that are compatible with use on Wikipedia? Is a use of these images possible on Wikipedia? I remember to have seen images on Wikipedia that states something like "Image from flickr", but can't remember correctly. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The image has to be licensed under a Creative Commons license or other usable license. Often, an editor seeking to use a Flickr image will email the oploader asking for a change in licensing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You can also check Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr for more information.-RHM22 (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

want to upload our logo

I'm the Administrative Assistant for the California Arts Council and we are trying to update our page. I read the image guidelines and can't make sense of them. Must I "license" our logo before I can upload it? I see other pages for state agencies with pretty boxes containing logo & links, etc. - can't figure out how to do it. Don't know who set up our page to begin with, but the first chunk of text is "Image with unknown copyright status removed" - so apparently it contained our logo at some point and it was removed. Would like to avoid having that happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGol (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends largely on who created the logo, when it was created, and what it looks like. Works of the United States federal government are automatically released into the public domain, but since your agency appears to be affiliated with the state of California, the logo was probably not automatically public domain. Another way the image could be PD is if your logo was published before 1923 and has remained unchanged since then, because the copyright would have expired. Further, if the logo consists of just simple text, then it's also PD because a group of simple letters cannot be copyrighted. If the logo does not fall into any of the three categories, there's a good chance that the image cannot be used on Wikipedia without permission of the copyright holder. One exception is fair use, a process wherein a copyrighted image, sound or video is shown for the purpose of illustrating the subject or for critical discussion. Logos of companies are often uploaded with fair use rationales if no free use (public domain) equivalent is available.-RHM22 (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You do not need to license the logo. Rather you can use it under fair use. Tag it with {{non-free logo}} and provide a non-free use rationale with {{logo fur}}. You can create an infobox with {{infobox organization}} or maybe {{infobox government agency}}. —teb728 t c 01:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this information. (Diane, the original poster of the question) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGol (talk • contribs) 16:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure your logo doesn't fall under the category of images that can be copyrighted since it consists of letters & simple geometric shapes. However, you have a SOLID claim to trademark on the image currently in use. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Image Tagging

What should an image be tagged as if I have captured an image of a subject using a camera and I own (or dont) the subject e.g. my own laptop, computer hardware, book frontcover, screenshots of software..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenperch (talk • contribs) 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the subject of the photo. If it is a photo of a creative work then use the tag corresponding to the licensing on the work. If it is of a person or building, you can license it under a free license and use the tag corresponding to that license. —teb728 t c 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

For an image which is not licensed under a free license, it is more difficult. For one thinng you need a non-free use rationale in addition to the tag. For example: For a book cover used to identify the subject of an article on that book use {{non-free book cover}} and provide a rationale with {{book cover fur}}. For a screenshot of non-free software where the screenshot is essential to understanding the article, use {{non-free software screenshot}} and use {{non-free use rationale}} for the rationale. —teb728 t c 00:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Generic Public Domain rationale

A number of public domain images have been disputed by User:Hammersoft with the comment:

"contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright." (italics in original)

Since I was bombarded with 30 image dispute tags, I obviously can't deal with each one without cut & paste responses. However, I responded to one image's opposition [:File:Taylor_Dean,_James.jpg ], with the brief explanation:

"Such "direct evidence" for publicity images is almost never possible. As the image rationale indicates, such images are assumed not to have a copyright, and without evidence that they do have one, it's reasonable to consider them PD on a legal basis. For typical vintage movie photos, Copyright is what requires "proof" not PD."

In addition, the image, like the others, have a detailed and well sourced rationale to support it. This image is a different type of obvious publicity still, also tagged and justified for deletion for the same reason. But the "deleting" editor simply repeats the above stating "You do not know for a fact the image is free of copyright." Hence, the discussion goes nowhere. This is obviously an important legal issue for numerous images, and the reasons stated in voting to delete them are in effect overruling U.S. copyright law and its interpretation by many experts. Review would be appreciated. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that you need proof to prove copyright and not the other way around. That may be true when using the images in real life (newspapers, books etc), but in Wikipedia, I think the burden of proof should be on the uploader. Caution is paramount when dealing with potentially copyrighted material.-RHM22 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Guess what? Wikipedia is "real life". The legal interpretations DO have merit in WP. If an image is PD in the real world, it is PD here; no matter of regulation on WP will ever change that. It doesn't magically change from one format to another (the concept of "fair use" is another issue altogether. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood. My meaning was that you could probably use it if you wanted to self publish a book or something, and it's likely that no one would complain. Still, when uploading to Wikipedia or Commons, extra care needs to be taken. We can't just take your word that the images are PD without any evidence. Of course, we assume good faith, but if you don't have any evidence, then there's no good faith to assume, if you take my meaning.-RHM22 (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to get off the original topic, but your conclusion about "self publishing books" is actually the reverse. Only a non-profit use like WP, which is also a research site, is allowed to use non-free (Fair Use) images quite easily. Before the new 1978 law revision every copyrighted item had to have a notice of copyright posted up front; before 1963 they were required to file an official copyright registration, like a patent or trademark, for a fee, which only then gave the image legal protection for 28 years (after which they could renew for only another 28.) Unless those rules were followed, an image or text automatically and permanently fell into the public domain. So unless an image is PD, self-publishing for profit is not allowed under fair use.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean fair use. What I meant is that you might get away with using an image that is probably free in your own published book, but you have to be very careful to prove copyright (or lack thereof) on a high-traffic website like Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

All copyrights and renewals since 1978 are available online. Luckily, I have a copyright depository nearby for the earlier years.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• If you want to address the abstract issue of this copyright question, fine. But, dragging this debate from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16 to here is forum shopping. To the abstract issue; If we have 1,000,000 photographs that, as a group, have been declared in the public domain via a given vehicle, there's no contesting they're in the public domain. If we then come across another 100 photographs that are of the same type, but not specifically covered under the other declaration, we would then have to act on presumption that since they are similar, they are therefore PD too. Imagine a photo opportunity, where there is a subject and two photographers. One photographer produces their work and that work is subsequently released by the copyright statements you refer to. The other photographer takes a very similar image, but they choose to retain copyright on the image. Your stance is that the second photographer's rights are void because the first photographer's rights have been released. In fact, you've done this by asserting that since this image is supposedly free (very debatable, but I'll let it stand for the sake of argument) that this image is therefore free too. That's guessing. You don't actually know. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Asking for more input is, by definition, not forum shopping. Please understand, I am not stating whether this person's statements are correct or incorrect. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

new york times

Hello, I have an article from the New York Times from 1980 that I want to upload. I bought a copy to use it. What catogary do I use to upload it ? Debbiereynolds (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You would like to upload images of the newspaper? If so, that would probably not be allowed except under fair use, as the the New York Times newspaper is copyrighted. You can reference certain sections of the newspaper if you'd like.-RHM22 (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See {{cite news}}. – ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you, that doesn't really help. I have bought an article from the New York Times, a review of a band, that I want to upload to Wiki image commons, then cite it, to verify that a band played a certain venue in a certain year. So all I want to do is upload a pdf. of that article from the newspaper. Can I do that? Debbiereynolds (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not what you do. To cite an article, you link to the article on the Web and cite it in a footnote. Don't link to any image. Put details on my Talk page and I will help you out. Or see WP:Cite, Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

All we need is the link. In the NY Times's case, it is best not to link to the article page itself, but to the summary page before it. That is because most people don't have Times subscriptions (I do, btw).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Luke Mcmaster image - apparent copyright issues

Recently, I uploaded an image of Luke Mcmaster to a development version of his Wikipedia page (User:Petermeg) - The image is owned by Luke and was downloaded from his Facebook page - There is a message that the image will be deleted on April 22nd for lack of copyright info - PLEASE show/tell me where or how to find access to a page where I am able to update the required info - Like many people form whom i have sought help, I'm finding Wikipedia to be extremely difficult to navigate - Thank You

Peter Glen (<e-mail redacted>) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermeg (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you're not going to like the answer. The image is from his Facebook page, but there's no statement there to indicate the image is free licensed or free of copyright. Under international treaty, anything created today by private entities that is copyrightable is automatically copyrighted. Therefore, this image must be presumed to be copyrighted. Wikipedia has a very strict policy against the use of non-free images on the project for depicting living people. There might be other qualifying reasons to use a non-free image of a living person, but if it's just for depiction, it will not be accepted. So, if you want to use this image, you're doing to have to get the copyright holder to release the image under a free license. There are instructions for how to do this at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
• I will note that in a casual reading of the article, it does not at all come off as neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Are you associated with this person? If so, you may have a conflict of interest in writing about this person. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• In direct answer to your question, if you have an appropriate tag for the image, the place to add it is at File:Luke mcmaster.jpg. —teb728 t c 06:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage should be about yourself and your purposes here; it is not intended to be used as a sandbox. Therefore, I have moved the draft article to such a sandbox: User:Petermeg/Luke McMaster. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about copyright tags on File:Nerds box.jpg

I happened to notice File:Nerds box.jpg, and not having worked much with files, was confused by the copyright tags on it. The page for the file seems to say that it is both copyrighted and in the public domain. I assume that the person who took the image is saying that the image on the box is copyrighted, but the image of the box is in the public domain. Is that the correct way to tag such an image? In general, is a photograph of a product's packaging under copyright of the company that makes the product, the photographer who took the picture of the packaging, or somehow both? Calathan (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, both. In the case of three dimensional objects, the object being photographed and the photograph itself are copyrighted. In this case, the author has released the photograph into the public domain, but the subject is copyrighted. In other words, the author's releasing the image doesn't really mean much, since you can't use the image except under a fair use rationale anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the FUR probably needs to be improved for the image as well.-RHM22 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Calathan (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

America: A Call to Greatness Article

I have uploaded an image at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prominent_Guests.jpg that is under question. The image is owned by Paige-Brace Cinema and they have already given the correct permission for all of their images that I am using in my article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sinclairindex/America:_A_Call_to_Greatness_(Docudrama)

One of your editors, VernoWhitney very kindly handled this for me and I thought for the remaining photos used in the article. All the permissions should be identical.

At this point, I am at a loss of how to proceed. I would appreciate any help.

Thanks, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you interested in doing? If you want to upload more images that you also have permission for, just use the same stuff you did for the one you already uploaded (including the OTRS number). Make sure that the other images you want to upload are already documented in the OTRS e-mail first, though.-RHM22 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The image was missing license tags. I've added them. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

License Status

Um... Why do I have to have a "license status" on an image I created and uploaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srsrox (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we have to know how you want to license the image. You can release it into the public domain, which means that anyone can use it at any time for any reason without giving you credit, or you can license it under a CC-BY-SA license, which basically means that anyone can use it, but they have to give you credit.-RHM22 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You also did not indicate on the image description page, File:Megatard.png, the source (you) of the image or what it shows. So you need to choose a free license and edit the image description page and add the license tag corresponding to your chosen license as well as source and description. —teb728 t c 22:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

America: A Call to Greatness Article

Hi -RHM22

Thanks for responding. Permission was given for all of the pics currently up on my article site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sinclairindex/America:_A_Call_to_Greatness_(Docudrama). I believe that I have all the permissions with each pic. However, I keep getting a "bot" message that reads: You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. for my pic located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prominent_Guests.jpg#Summary. But the information there is the same as the others.

I'm actually finished with the article except for correcting this particular problem. All the pics show but I don't want to "move" the article and have the photos vanish.

Am I making sense?

Thanks for answering and for helping.

Best regards, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You omitted the tag on your upload. Someone has repaired it; so you can ignore the message. —teb728 t c 23:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Using a copyright screenshot from another website under fair use

I'd like to illustrate Tagged#Controversy over bulk email invitations with a screenshot of one of the spam emails sent by Tagged. I understand this would be permitted under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The problem is that Tagged are no longer sending those emails, so there's no way I can take a screenshot myself. A screenshot is available at this page on Snopes.com, a copyright site that states, "This material may not be reproduced without permission." Can I take a screenshot of the Snopes page, crop it to show only the spam email, and use that under the Non-free content criteria? I couldn't see anything in the criteria that would forbid me doing so, but I wanted to check here first, given that the subject that's being illustrated is Tagged, not Snopes. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it, but I think that the FUR might not hold up for this. Not because you took it off a website, but because the image could probably be conveyed with text and without an actual image. Like I said, just my opinion, and some more expirienced users will probably be able to tell you for sure.-RHM22 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think it would matter where you got the image, as long as no new copyright is created. If the Snopes people modified the image in any major way (such as added wording), then you probably couldn't use the image. If it's just a straight screenshot of the spam e-mail, then it would probably be ok, assuming that the FUR would stand up.-RHM22 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, RHM22. I'd be surprised if it failed Criterion 1 due to being replaceable by text. There's a lot in the image: the way it implores the recipient to click; the frowning face to guilt-trip them into replying; the inconspicuous presentation of the opt-out notice; the manner in which it brazenly and falsely states the "sender" sent photos... It seems too much to convey by text alone. I can't see any reason to think Snopes modified the image, so I'm glad you don't think the source matters. But I'll wait for further comment before uploading the image. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure this is not just your original thoughs about the image. I mean, find some third part discussion about all these aspects, to avoid making the article to reflect your personal views. --Damiens.rf 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. The article cites several sources discussing the spam, and I wasn't proposing to describe its appearance the text, apart from a staid description in the alt text. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My hunch is still that there's no creativity involved in taking a screenshot of generic spam, so Snopes should have no claim on copywrite, but given that neither I or RHM22 are 100% sure on that, I'm still hoping for a third opinion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Snopes has no claim on copyright, as long as that is the exact appearance of the spam e-mail and as long as you crop out everything from the website.-RHM22 (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Help

File:FGCS logo.jpg came from http://www.newhamlep.co.uk/find_your_school/Pages/ForestGateCommunitySchool.aspx but I don't know its copyright status. LordDarkPhantom (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you don't know the copyright holder or status, the image can only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.-RHM22 (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a {{non-free school logo}}tag and {{logo fur}} rationale. I think that is all you needed. —teb728 t c 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

claimed CC 2.0 attribution license on likely public domain image

i believe this image File:BostonMolassesDisaster.jpg, being published prior to 1923 in the U.S., has entered the public domain, yet the Boston Public Library claims a CC 2.0 attribution license and corresponding restrictions on use of the image. i left a note on the discussion page for the image, sorry if that was an inappropriate place for it. can someone please verify whether or not this is a valid claim, and correct if appropriate? thanks Shelleybutterfly (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can use it as long as you can prove it was published before 1923. Please note, however, that "published" doesn't mean created. You have to prove that it was published (probably in a newspaper) prior to 1923. Alternatively, you could also prove that the author died more than 70 years ago, but that seems unlikely since the photo was taken in 1919.-RHM22 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This image is hosted on the commons for over 5 years, so any discussion challenging its copyright status should really take place there. It may be a case of copyfraud whereby someone claims some copyright over images that are actually in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

biology

how does the xylem vessel support the flowers and fruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses464 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It transports water and nutrients through the plant. However, this is not the correct place to ask that question. The correct forum for biology questions is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.-RHM22 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FROGSMILE's Garrison cap photos

I've been helping User:FROGSMILE in making some edits and citing references to the Garrison cap article. The user also has a collection of pertinent photographs. I've been trying to work out whether they'd be okay to use from a copyright point of view but, even after having read up on relevant policies, don't feel that I can say with any confidence. It would be a shame to say no needlessly.

They have asked if I can seek guidance for them. Their talk page discussion from around the 14th March gives the background. Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Images on Australian property bubble

Several of the images on Australian property bubble have been copied directly from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) website. The editor concerned has claimed they are "own work". Are RBA documents subject to copyright?

See advice to editor. I have also noted on the talk pages of the images themselves.

I am concerned about the images in this article generally. This one for example, looks like it's been scanned in and the image page says the source is "Own work Morgan Stanley". I would be grateful if someone could take a look. --Thepm (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, the RBA copyright says

You may download, display, print or reproduce material on this website in unaltered form for your personal, non-commercial use or within your organisation, with proper attribution given to the Reserve Bank of Australia. Other than for any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.

That being the case, it would appear that the images are in breach of copyright. --Thepm (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All the images, except these two File:Chart comparative population growth 2010.pdf and File:Household Prices and Debt 1980 - 2010.pdf, are hosted on the commons and you will have to nominate them for deletion over there, but they all seem to be copyright violations and if they are based on public information new images can be created that are freely licenced. If you don't use the commons, just ask here and someone else will do it for you. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)