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)

User:Jeffmeck22

Hi is there any way some one could fix these images for me, I am not sure what to do. thanks!! [1] and [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmeck22 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't do it for you. You have to write on the userpage where you found the images - we can't read your mind! If you got them from a website specify the URL and if you took them yourself please write that. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Audio Copyright Question, Possibly mistagged by bot, or I just messed up

I uploaded this file File:Dave Niehaus Winning Call 1995 AL Division Series.ogg, and I think I made it pretty clear who owns the copyright to the audio file, but the bot ImageTaggingBot marked it as missing information, maybe I put it in the wrong field or I am missing a required field. Some help is greatly appreciated, I've never uploaded an audio file before so maybe I just forgot something. --Gold Man60 Talk 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the description is fine. I've removed the problem tag, and I'll keep it on my watchlist. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I found out that the bot in question was acting up yesterday. The bot operator shut down the bot as soon as he was notified; he has since fixed the error and started the bot up again. Anyway, there was never a problem with this image. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help --Gold Man60 Talk 21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For Stifle

Stifle. Recently you pot-shotted an old FU image I uploaded to Wikipedia ages ago, File:CherryCokeBottle.jpg. Fortunately, it was fixed by the good man User:Seo75 who was kind enough to spend a few moments of his day fixing things rather than bandying about threats of deletion. My message left for him is here User_talk:Seo75#Thanks. I do hope that you read it and consider for a moment refocusing your tact towards something closer to what he has done; i.e. spending a modicum of effort updating FU content with proper FU rationale rather than being a negative nellie and lazily threatening deletes. Thanks.--Jeff (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a question for the group? – Quadell ^(talk) 00:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More of a statement, really. However, if forced to rephrase my statement in the form of a question, I might say, "Why isn't there more of an effort to correct FU rationale on existing images rather than threatening to delete them? Does not this sort of action not betray a tendency towards destruction rather than construction?"--Jeff (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a test for you, Jeff. Please honestly consider trying it out. Hopefully this will give you perspective. Go to Category:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale. Spend an hour, or even 30 minutes straight working on fixing those images. Please report back on how many you were able to do, and if you'd want to do that every day. It is not anyone's job to fix broken images. However, non-free image compliance isn't optional. Please consider the number of problematic images on Wikipedia (and how many are uploaded daily) versus the number of admins active in this department. We issue warnings to the uploaders and alert the page where the images are used, so those with vested interest in the images have the option and time (due to the waiting period) to fix those images. The system isn't perfect, but it works fairly well. This image seems to be a clear case where the problematic nature of the image was identified, and then addressed by a community member. I don't see where the problem is. You are asking someone who volunteers their time to clean up this site (and often dirty and thankless task) to do more free work? Seriously, take an hour out of your day, every day, going through the images speedy deletion categories and start fixing them yourself. Easier said than done.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, your response is valid and I appreciate that point of view. My response may be that I think I would rather see a dedicated volunteer spend the time it takes tagging 5 images for deletion instead fixing just one. Moreover, my response may also include the idea that Wikipedia and all of the people who do volunteer their time towards this effort are unfairly burdened by the idealistic and misguided crusade towards fully "libre" content, rather than the sensible and logical utilization of fair-use. I have always tended towards strengthening fair use on WP because it assists the end goal of creating a great encyclopedia. This is a battle I was involved in back a few years ago in '06-07 and that is for sure a battle lost. I feel the current atitude prevailed because the nature of the argument in this Utopian, drama filled society of Wikipedia is inherently tilted towards those with a more idealistic bent than that of a practical bent. Those more emotionally invested in an idea will tend to win in the end because they will also be the people who stick around and support an idea to the bitter end. That's the kind of viewpoint that "wins" on Wikipedia; a persistent, relentless unyielding effort.. the kind of effort pragmatists, capitalists and that sort of people just don't have time for. In the end, though, I'm not asking for more work out of the "taggers", rather, a different sort of the same work, perhaps more focused and more constructive than destructive. After all, if the image is deleted out of hand after a certain period of time of no one fixing it, it merely re-creates the work to re-upload and then once again properly retag it. Know what I mean? There seems to be, in total over the long run, more work created for a lower quality greater goal. I might suggest that if people want to run about tagging images rather than fixing them, the tag may be one that says "Hey someone who likes fixing stuff, this needs to be fixed", rather than a threat for and inevitable deletion when not fixed. --Jeff (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) While this discussion might be better placed at WT:NFC another issue to consider about images with copyright problems is where the burden of proof lies. It is with the uploader (or even on those interested in the page where the image is placed) and not on those who see the problems. This may not be very constructive and while an occasional easy fix may be possible, but Andrew c has indicated just one problem involved in making fixes. ww2censor (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, those who upload images get angry that someone threatens to delete them over seeming trivialities, instead of offering to fix the problems. On the other hand, those of us who work hard to keep Wikipedia free of copyright errors get frustrated with people who upload dodgy images and who won't follow clear instructions. Snide accusations are common, and we tire of them quickly. It seems like the choice is to either clean up after uploaders (an uphill battle which we don't have the manpower to keep up with), tag images for deletion and hope the uploaders fix them (a thankless task, guaranteed to earn you complaints like the one at the top of this section), or else give up and allow Wikipedia to be a haven for rampant copyright violations (and eventually get shut down for it). We copyvio cleaners need to do better at being polite, and we need to be willing to explain things over and over to many indignant uploaders each day... but you uploaders, please, give us the benefit of the doubt. We're only trying to keep Wikipedia running. Sarcasm and accusations just make it unpleasant for everyone. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the use of this photo is not in compliance with wikipedia policies (replaceable nonfree image) and I've nominated it for deletion. Changing the rationale can't save an image that is impermissible to begin with. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How will recover my copyright?

I am in a permanent block in ruwiki. On the personal pages in enwiki write the rough copies of articles about mountain-skiers and about the hero of Russia. When will find a help for translation of these articles into English language, then will carry them in basic space of enwiki.

An anonymous user published some of my rough copies in the ruwiki. In description to the first corrections such pointers were done to the my rough copies: «Author and license here: User:Udacha/Кедрин, Максим Николаевич, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Анастасия Николаевна, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Людмила Владимировна, User:Udacha/Artsybycheva, User:Udacha/Макеев, Владимир Иванович, User:Udacha/Перец». Such requirement of license GFDL.

Discovered today, that all these first corrections are remote: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. My authorship is hidden from readers.

I suppose, that users which in a block, must not be deprived their copyrights.

I ask for a help from authoritative users.

Thank you.

Greetings, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I believe you're probably referring to File:Mir Gul Khan With habib Jalib.jpg and File:Mir Gul Khan.jpg, which were deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 10. As you know, we have to take copyright very seriously on Wikipedia. Pakistan has had copyright laws in effect since before independence, even if they weren't very well understood or enforced in the past. Since Mir Gul Khan Naseer was in office in 1972-73, these photographs were probably created around that time. According to Pakistan's Copyright Ordinance of 1962, all photographs are copyrighted for 50 years after their publication, so these would still be under copyright. But if the photographer is willing to release them under a free license, we can use them. Do you know who the photographer was in these photographs? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:39, 18 June 2009

(UTC)

I don't know about the photographer of File:Mir Gul Khan.jpg as it is a portrait photo taken in a studio, but the File:Mir Gul Khan With habib Jalib.jpg was taken by Mir Gul Khan Naseer's nephew.

Imperial War Museum

Hi folks, quick question for you. I think I might know the answer but just wanna make sure before I do anything in case I'm wrong. The Imperial War Museum have a massive collection of images and I'm particularly interested in uploading this one from WWII. I've seen a lot of IWM images on wiki, typically with the UK government public domain tag (for instance here at File:HMS Stonehenge.jpg. Would I need to contact IWM first, and how do I select this tag on the image upload page? Sorry for the questions, I can normally work most wiki stuff out but find this one a little tricky - plus I wanna be totally legal! Cheers, Ranger Steve (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That image seems to come squarely under {{PD-UKGov}}: it's a photograph created by the government before 1957. Algebraist 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Algebraist. Does that mean I can just use the image on that link, as long as I supply a link to it from the new uploaded images's page? Ranger Steve (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Just specify the source, and you can use the image in articles. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much guys Ranger Steve (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Kim Warnick

My name is Kim Warnick. I played in a band called The Fastbacks. You currently have a page about me. I would like to change the photo. How do I that? That photo is terrible.

kw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.201.95 (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a photo which anyone can use for anything, you can upload it to Commons. Before you go to upload, be sure you know which license permits anyone to use it for anything. Note that a professional photographer usually will not license a photo that way. If it is not a photo you took yourself, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle the permission. After you have upload your image, you can edit the article to use your image. —teb728 t c 05:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

what???

all my pictures are from wikicomons but wikipedia tells me I qualified for speedy deletion, why? the picture:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cincy_montage_part_2.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmeck22 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The images that you blatantly pulled from google are obvious copyright violations. The montage images do not specify the source. If you got the images from commons, then just put the links where you got the images from under the description. The problem is as the image is now, there is no way to tell where you got the images from.--Terrillja _talk 03:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The skyline photo is licensed {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}; you violated that license by failing to give the attribution and by failing to include the share-alike condition on your license. The bridge photo is licensed {{GFDL}}; you violated that license by failing to list the author(s) and by failing to license your derivative under GFDL. The fountain and stadium photos are in the public domain; so the authors may not have a rights to them, but Wikipedia still requires you to give the sources of all images. —teb728 t c 05:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Will usage of this image be acceptable on Wikipedia ?

I've asked this before, but I just wanted to seek some more opinion : I thought it'd be better to seek expert opinion here before uploading any image to illustrate the 2009 Lahore Police Academy Attack article which does not have an image attached to it. As this event is a past-event, wouldn't it qualify under the 'historically significant image' ?. The image which I propose should be uploaded can be found at this link copyright AFP and found on the BBC Website. --Roaring Siren (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between a historically significant image, and an image of a historically significant event, which is what this image seems to be. I doubt this image would pass criterion 8 of WP:NFCC. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This image is also impermissible because it violates WP:NFCC criterion 2. AFP makes money by licensing their image, so our using it for free is basically replacing its original market role. For this reason, most recent photos by news agencies are not usable on wikipedia. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of Information Act

What is the tag I should use/Wikipedia policy for adding documents released in Texas (not by the US Government) under the Freedom of Inforamtion Act or the State of Texas Freedom of Information Act? Txaggie2011 (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Are the documents free? Perhaps they are available only for fair use or for personal study. Sv1xv (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Most Texas government documents are going to be copyrighted, and so can't be hosted here. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Txaggie2011, a document released under a state's FOIA does not mean that the state has released the copyright into the public domain. Those are two different things. — Walloon (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use? Can this be recreated?

The image File:ElectricSineWave.jpg has been tagged as copyright and unusable. I was wondering a few things.

1) This is a photograph of a machine displaying results of the voltage over time of a household outlet. Given how generic the image is, would it not be acceptable as an image with no copyright? The image isn't a creative expression in any way, and if the same numbers were put into any oscillioscope, the result would be an identical image.

2) The image was published by a not for profit research group. Is any exceptions given here?

3) If the image is indeed copyright and I cannot get permission to use it, can I recreate the image? Can I trace it? Can I make it from scratch to show the same general information? Or would all of this make it original research or unverified? This image is significant to its article in that it quickly provides a visual example of what is being explained, so is it possible to make a recreation that isn't copyright, and isn't original research?

Thanks. -- Floydian ^τ _γ 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For (2), no, that doesn't make a difference. As for (1), well, maybe, but we tend to err on the side of caution here. The same numbers in a different oscillioscope wouldn't show the same color or resolution, and it certainly wouldn't show the same words at the same locations in the same typeface. Probably none of this is copyrightable, but it can be easily recreated, so why push our luck? Which brings me to (3). The "data" is not eligible for copyright, so tracing should be fine. Only the "creative content" is eligible for copyright, which as I said before might possibly include colors and word placement etc. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The image currently doesn't have a license tag on it. I've tagged it as such.--Rockfang (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Valid licensing?

File:K-metal cover.jpg is licensed using {{cc-by-2.0}}.

Essentially, this is either a fan created image from scratch or a recreation/restoration of a cover. The sourcing leads back to what bills itself as a "partial restoration of an unpublished twenty-six page Superman comic-book story" [9].

I'm not sure the CC route is appropriate here.

- J Greb (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it looks very much as thought the copyright for the image belongs to the estate of Jerry Siegel. Unless they're the ones who released it under the Creative Commons license, it's not so-licensed. Have you contacted the uploader for clarification? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{bsr}} in hopes to bet a better link source.--Rockfang (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it with missing evidence of permission.--Rockfang (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just keep talking to myself. ;) The image shows evidence of permission, so I removed the speedy delete tag.--Rockfang (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:File:Not-all-dogs-go-to-heaven.png

An editor replaced one copyright image uploaded by a different user under this name File:Not-all-dogs-go-to-heaven.png with another copyright image of the same name, but did not update any of the licensing and usage parameters. I have left a notification at the new uploader and placed a generic message of my concern on the file page, but do not know what should happen next to get issues resolved. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

creating PD images based on copyrighted ones

Can someone produce a GFDL or PD licensed portrait from using copyrighted images? Basically would it be legal for a wikipedian to create a GFDL or PD portrait for a deceased person if they base it on various copyrighted portraits wihtout infringement? The argument is that the images themselves are copyrighted but the person's face or body features aren't. So if we create a portrait that isn't exactly the same pose as those found in copyrighted images but still portray the person. For background see Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Official_portraits_of_Philippine_presidents_up_for_deletion_.28again.29--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hypothetically, yes, it's possible. In practice, it would be extremely unlikely to do so without introducing guesswork, inaccuracies, and original research. I would hate to see articles routinely host amateur portraits of deceased figures when no free photo can be found or created. It would become a laughing-stock quite quickly, I think. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The measure is whether the creative elements are all original. In principle, I would say that it's certainly possible to create a portrait from other portraits without it being a derivative work, especially if it's based on multiple portraits (making it less likely that any of the creative elements are being unconsciously copied), but care should certainly be taken. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So in theory we could find artistic wikipedians who could waste utilize their talents in creating the free images but they should be skillful enough to create a non-derivate work. Thanks for the info guys. But, if you don't mind, I'll let this thread open for a little while since we still don't know what the US copyright laws says about this.--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's about right. Also note that it's likely to be easier to create non-derivative works from photographic portraits than from drawn or painted ones, since, though photographs are unquestionably creative works, their creativity generally doesn't extend to the depiction of facial features and the like, over which the photographer has little control, while the creativity of a drawn or painted portrait might. As well, what is it you're unclear on about American copyright law? I thought we explained the relevant points quite well above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you handled the question quite well but I think other editors' opinions won't hurt. Besides, I'm thinking of convincing the Philippine wikiproject about mass replacement of any fair-use Philippine portraits uploaded in the wiki with PD or GFDL friendly ones so I think I need all the arguments that I can get to convince them. I'm also unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the US copyright law but I think that's the one we're using since the Wikipedia servers are housed in the US so some info about that would be useful for me personally as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, more opinions never hurt. However, the only relevant in or out of American copyright law (which is indeed what's used for images hosted on Wikipedia; for images hosted on Commons it's both American copyright law and the copyright law of the source country) is that creative expression is copyrighted, and if you produce a work that incorporates somebody else's creative expression than you do not have full ownership of the resulting work. There's not really much more to be said on the subject. Also, note that there are dimensions other than copyright law to consider: as noted above by Quadell, these include the prohibition on original research (which is laxer where images are concerned) and issues of quality. But indeed, let's leave this open and see what others have to say. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if someone can look at an illustration and a series of photos of the subject and accurately pick which one of those photos the illustration is based on then that illustration is derivative of the original copyrighted photo and not public domain/elligible for GFDL. In real world terms that means this really isn't a practical option. DreamGuy (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Passports

I was looking through a gallery of passport covers and noticed that whilst some have a specific license for government products (Examples: USA passport (free) and British passport (not free)) almost all of the images are tagged as being released into the public domain by the uploader (Examples: File:Eesti pass.jpg, File:Is vegabréf.jpg, File:Hungarian passport.jpg, File:Cover of HKSAR e-Passport.jpg. A lot are on Commons, some are not. Is this the correct way to license such images? Are the covers in the publics domain and if they are - given the lack of creativity on the part of the scanner/photographer - is the uploader release tag appropriate? 16:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a common mistake people make. If they really are public domain it has nothing to do with the uploader's wishes. Those should all be changed and the uploaders should get a friendly note on their talk pages explaining the situation. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Individual uploaders cannot claim copyright and give a free licence on any passport but this is an interesting issue because this British passport Commons:File:British passport 2002.jpg (on the commons), very similar to the one mentioned above, is up for deletion. However, on the basis of the same issue with an Irish passport commons:File:Eirepas.JPG that I challenged the free licence of but was shot down at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Eirepas.JPG because part was ineligible and part, the harp logo, was free having been in use for more than 50 years, I would say exactly the same applies to the British passport. IMHO, crown copyright applies to the royal cypher design for only 50 years and the design is more that 50 years old while the text is ineligible. The only other difference is the ineligible shape at the bottom. I suspect that if this argument is used, many apparently non-free passports could be defined as free. One editor claimed this has been discussed on this wiki before but he was unable to find it. Just to throw a cat amongst the pigeons, I think some passports, claimed as non-free, will actually be free because they are official documents. ww2censor (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo licensing code

Hello- I am trying to add a photo (File:Portrait Croppedpja.jpg) of myself to Wikipedia that was taken by a photographer. The Photographer gave me permission to use it at my will. He only asks that I credit his name. What licensing code would I use? Before posting the image? I emailed (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) with my request and left the information about the photo and our contact information. Can you help me here? Both myself and the photographer have the photo posted on Flickr.com as well. My link is http://www.flickr.com/photos/pauljalessi/2483873477/ Nicks is http://www.flickr.com/photos/apphoto/2482711388/ Paul J. Alessi 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Paul J. Alessi http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1568493/ http://www.pauljalessi.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljalessi (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Flickr upload states that the photographer is reserving all rights, so for the sake of clarity you might want to get him to change that. As for the tag you should use, maybe confirm with the photographer that {{Attribution}} reflects his intentions and, if so, use that one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian crown copyright

I tagged File:AlbertaHomesteadMap1918 t11-12 r1-3 map31.png for nonfree-without-rationale today, in response to which the uploader gave a rationale (albeit in nonstandard format) on the talk page. Two questions: (1) Is the rationale on the talk page adequate if moved to the description? (2) Is it truly out of copyright as claimed in the rationale? I've made a couple of stupid errors already tonight, due to sleepiness, so I'm not going to do anything about this myself. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See Commons:Licensing#Canada and [10] for a brief explanation of Canada copyright. Sv1xv (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of its status in Canada, it's PD in the US. I tagged it as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dilbert comic

I think that the claim about File:Dilbert_PHB.JPG being 'public domain' is quite dubious. See here: http://www.dilbert.com/terms/. Probably it should be removed? Jdpipe (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously not public domain. Probably a valid case of fair use though. Algebraist 09:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The present use is not valid under the non-free content criteria. To be valid, it needs to show the bare minimum necessary to provide information directly related to what the text is discussing, in a way that the text alone cannot adequately describe. It might be valid to have an image that solely consists of the pointy-haired boss, in order to illustrate to the reader who the character is, but since the image contains Dilbert as well it's currently on the wrong side of the line, imo, irrespective of whether it's accompanied by non-free rationale. -- Hux (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedied as a blatant copyvio. Anyone wanting to make a fair use claim can let me know and I'll restore it. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg

The image File:Ukpassport-cover.jpg gets periodically added to the image gallery at European passport, I keep removing it as not having an FUR or meeting NFCC. Today User:Passportguy pointed me to this, which in point 4 seems to say that use is applicable. However, in further reading I wanted to see if the Value Added Licence mentioned was relevant. Point 15 of this explains that the liscense does seem to be relevant and that it can be obtained for a cost of £50. I notified Passportguy of this and he selfreverted his edit, suggesting that I seek further input here. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the passport discussion a few post above this one? I believe that en:Crown copyright, which lasts for only 50 years, applies to the royal arms and that design is more that 50 years old, so crown copyright has run out, while the text is ineligible for copyright, in which case the non-free rationales are unnecessary. ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ww2censor. However, if we did need to for some reason purchase the value-added licence it would not be valid for use here since there is a royalty, it doesn't appear to be sublicensable to others, and the making of derivative works is questionable. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Need someone versed in trademark and probably copyright law to give an answer.

This has been an ongoing debate about whether it violates any copyright law to crop an image with the explicit intent to remove a logo from it for the purposes of WP:NPOV in the Video Games Wikiproject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#COPYVIO implications and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Which box art to use as well as invisual game talk pages too numerous to mention.陣内_Jinnai 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I know of no reason why a cropped version of the cover would violate copyright law or trademark law any more than a non-cropped one would. Our own WP:NFCC policy would accept either image equally well. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Quadell, beyond that WP:NFCC would, if anything, prefer the cropped version owing to criterion 3b. IANAL yet, but there is nothing in intellectual property law to prevent cropping a copyrighted work for any reason, provided that the doctrine making the use legitimate (in the U.S., that would be fair use) applies to the cropped work. Here, it would. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Image of Neda from the Iran protests

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Neda_non_graphic.jpg is a trimmed frame from a youtube video of the Iranian demonstrator Neda Soltani. It's impossible to determine who the owner of the work is at this point, but what kind of license should be applied to it? Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to know the author in order to know the copyright status. Normally, that status would be "under copyright", since whoever the author was would have copyright unless he/she deliberately waived it. However, per Iran and copyright issues, "Published works originating in Iran...are not copyrighted in the United States." Let me do a little more digging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, per Wikipedia:Public_domain#Countries_without_copyright_treaties_with_the_U.S., Jimbo apparently wants us to respect Iranian copyrights. That being the case, tag it with {{Non-free fair use in|Neda Soltani}} (and then include a fair use rationale), and maybe put the link I just posted somewhere on the description page to explain why we're not treating it as being in the public domain. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, SI. Well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Template:Iran copyright to deal with such images. Let me know if you think it's helpful. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Usage.

The image that I wish to upload is an image of an author. The author gave me permission to use the image but I found the image on a website. Is it acceptable to use the image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamconor (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but, I would suggest reading this. It shows how to request/document getting permission to use images. If you need help, let me know.--Rockfang (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's acceptable to use the image only if, in addition to permission to use the image on Wikipedia, the author gave anybody permission to use the image for any purpose, including commercial and derivative works, with only the requirement of attribution retained. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as this is a photo of the author, the copyright would be assumed to be owned by the photographer and not the author. We need the copyright owner to give permission. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, quite correct. I was taking "author" to mean "author of the photograph", which probably wasn't very sensible of me. Alternatively, the image could be owned by the author if it was commissioned as work for hire, which would not be all together surprising. Anyway, DreamGuy is correct, and where his comments contradict my earlier ones, listen to him. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Image found on several different sites and is at least 50 years old

This image [11] is said to be found at multiple internet sites (A search for 'Velimirovic' on Google images will reveal another dozen internet sites that use this image) and is at least 50 years old. Does this make the image acceptable for Wikipedia? Kpant (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not definitely. If it's more than 86 years old (i.e. it dates to before 1923), then it's in the public domain. If it's in the public domain in its country of origin and was by 1996, it should be in the public domain in the U.S. But based only on the information I have available, no, I can't say it can be used on Wikipedia (unless it's under fair use, but I'd have to know what article you wanted to use it in an why to evaluate that - see WP:NFCC). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I assume it must be after 1923, but I don't know how to check if it is public domain? I want to use it for the main article on Nikolaj Velimirovic, who is on that photo. The same photo is used on the Serbian wikipedia [12]. Kpant (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to be in the public domain, unless (assuming it's a Serbian work) its creator died at least seventy years ago. It could be usable under a claim of fair use if you can make a case that no free alternatives can be found (this would require you to defend the proposition that no images published pre-1923 photographs of him are available and/or that older images would not serve the intended purpose). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Hello. I uploaded this image: File:PinterDavidBaron.jpg for use in the Harold Pinter article. Pinter is a deceased playwright. Another editor disputes whether the image satisfies our non-free image policies, while I believe that it does satify the policy. Can anyone here help? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the rationale should include a better justification of why a picture of him early in his career specifically is needed. Assuming that one is, and assuming it's true that no free images from that period are available (and recognizing that you can't prove a negative), I think this is probably okay. Some of User:NYScholar's arguments puzzle me somewhat; he/she does not seem to have a clear understanding of fair use or WP:NFCC, and almost all of her/his arguments seem to be devoted to establishing that the image is under copyright, which seems to have been conceded at the outset. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a correct fair use rationale, as this is a length article, it would be good to use in the early life section. I agree that NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) arguments are somewhat impenetrable. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:NFCC does require that non-free images "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Frankly, I doubt that the use of non-free images solely to illustrate people really complies with the letter of that statement, though it's very well-established practice. But non-free images to illustrate people at different states of their careers? That might be pushing it. But that's also probably a question for WP:FFD, which is where NYScholar should probably take this if he/she wants it deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comic vignette scan from magazine

Hi. I would like to use this image for the Migraine Boy article. What's the policy on this case? uKER (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Should be usable under fair use. Upload it at a total size of one megapixel or less, tag the image page with {{Non-free comic}}, and attach a fair use rationale. Let us know if you need help with any of that. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused about speedy deletion criteria

Hi, I came across the image File:Bercow.jpg yesterday which had no source or licensing information and found that it was a picture copyrighted by PA (Press Association) as can be seen from a a slightly differently cropped version which is used in this article: [13]. From reading the speedy deletion criteria, it looked like it fit F9 given that it was obviously copyrighted and no fair use claim had been made by the uploader (in any case, from my understanding of the rules it would not qualify for fair use as it could easily be replaced by a free version). So I marked it with the CSD template but I see that another user has changed it to the {{di-no license}} template. Was my reading of criteria F9 correct? -Paul1337 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think F9 would have been incorrect as that is for images tagged as free when they obviously shouldn't be. When you tagged it, it wasn't marked as being free, so I think lack of license was a better tagging. With regards to ...in any case, from my understanding of the rules it would not qualify for fair use as it could easily be replaced by a free version..., I think that would be Wikipedia:CSD#F7. But that would also be an unwise tagging as it wasn't marked as being free or non-free. Just my opinion though.--Rockfang (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)