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)

Use of an image

Hi all

I have just read the stub article about the British writer and historian Gerald Suster and note the request for an image. I have several hardcopy photographs in my possession, given to me by his widow (now also deceased), shortly after his death in 2001.

I believe that the images were created by her, but obviously cannot prove this. I am not aware that any of them have been used in any other context and do not believe that they have ever been published previously.

Quite simply, can I upload these photo's into the article or cant I ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjminogue (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As Mr. Suster is deceased, it's possible to use non-free photos of him in his article. However, they must have been previously published (see WP:NFCC item 4. Therefore, those photographs can't be used. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is whether the widow intended to transfer the copyright along with the physical images. I am not familiar with law on this topic, so I can't say. Can anyone else assist? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gyah. Most people don't know copyright law well enough to spell this out clearly for legal purposes. Odds are if she took them she had the copyright and intended you to be able to use them, whether she understood the copyrights behind it or not. The only potential pitfall I can see is if someone else took them, has a copyright on them, and she only had prints... in which case she wouldn't have had the copyrights in order to transfer them to you in the first place.

I think you could probably just presume she had the copyright and transferred it to you (assuming they look like normal photos and not super professional studio ones), and write it up as such, as that's your good faith belief. She anyone ever dispute it later they can alert us and we can take further actions then. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Expired copyrights question

I have a book (published in the USA) that I'm not sure if it's copyrighted or not. It has no copyright notice; the only date in the book is that at the end of the foreword, 10 April 1964. There's no evidence (as far as I can see) that the copyright was renewed or that it was filed with the Library of Congress in the first place (it's not in the online catalogue of the Library of Congress). Another question: there's a similar situation with a similar type of book (different author) published in 1930: no copyright notice is claimed anywhere in the book, and it's not in the LOC's online catalogue. Is there a clear verdict? Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

According to [1], both works would be in the public domain if they were published in the USA between 1923 to 1977 without a copyright notice, but wait for other opinions. Guy0307 (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The older one would definitely be in the public domain for being that old with no copyright notice. The newer one should be too, but I've seen court decisions do some odd things with more recent works... which for our purposes wouldn't matter since we make good faith decisions based upon the facts in front of us, and all indications are that it's public domain. If someone were to dispute it later we can reassess at that time. DreamGuy (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Papyrus

I have some scanned images of the Joseph Smith Papyrus. They were scanned from a book 'by his own hand upon papyrus', written by Charles M Larson. I have searched the book thoroughly and there doesn't appear to be any copyright indicated for the pictures or credit for the photographer for that matter - probably taken by the author. I doubt the papyrus is copyright protected since they are a couple thousand years old. Can I upload these for free use? I have found similar pictures in wikimedia so I assume it is safe. Just want to check as mine are higher resolution and sharper focus. ThanksJspice9000 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

what country are you in?Geni 13:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Couple thousands of years old? Err, not likely. If this is Joseph Smith, Jr.'s papyrus, it would have been in his hand, which would date to less than 200 years ago. It's the golden disc that it allegedly thousands of years old. The age of the papyrus would fall under public domain anyway, regardless of when it was photographed or who did it. Mere photographs of two dimensional objects like paper (assuming the thing is flat and not rolled up artistically like a scroll or something) do not get a new copyright, as that's mere technical copying and not artwork. DreamGuy (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use question, Image:JAKlang.jpg

Image:JAKlang.jpg was listed on August 8th at WP:CP as infringing this source. It had been tagged public domain. Although it is not in an article specifically about the subject, John Klang, he is a major point of discussion in the article which features it, Weston High School shooting. Klang is deceased, and he was awarded a medal for his actions during that incident. Thinking it appropriate, I've taken a stab at writing a fair use rationale for it, and I would appreciate feedback on whether or not this is appropriate and also on whether or not the image needs to be resized. I know album covers usually go 200 px. I don't know if there's a ballpark for other types of images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an opinion but if it is a non-free image should it only be used on an article named after the subject? (To illustrate the subject in question), I dont think you can just use a non-free image just for identification or decoration and the image is not discussed or directly related to the actual shooting, but you should get other opinions. MilborneOne (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. :) If it's inappropriate, of course, it should be gone. Given that the article isn't about him, I did have some doubts. This is so not my area. :) I guess I'll wait other feedback, and if others concur, I'll go ahead and delete it as the copyright violation it was. No reason to go through the invalid fair use process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The title of an article should follow Wikipedia:Naming_conventions and is not an issue for NFCC. A quick look shows that Mr. Klang is at the center of the Weston shooting article. A non free image can be used in multiple articles. To meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria a non-free image "must be used in at least one article" but each use must be justified. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the image has now been nominated for deletion, here. I don't know that I'll participate in that conversation, as I don't have a strong idea here (or would not have brought it up here in the first place). But since basically there are now two conversations about its appropriateness, it seemed worth pointing out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing any reason to keep the thing. Fair Use has pretty high standards to qualify, and the only explanation here seems to be "Yeah, I know it's copyrighted, but I want to use it anyway." which of course doesn't cut it. DreamGuy (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What does cut it, in terms of fair use for dead people? There's another image at WP:CP (improperly tagged as an article), Image:Fuat-deniz.jpg. It seems to have been uploaded as pdself, but the tagger has labeled it as owned by a university. Link provided seems to bear that out. What should be done with images such as these? Are there specific things to look for in terms of fair use allowances for images of dead people? (Images have been taken away from CP, thank goodness, but I have to do something with it—either move it to WP:PUI or tag it for speedy or give it a fair use.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Temple Meads Engraving

I've found an image of Bristol Temple Meads railway station online at ingenious.org.uk. The image is on an engraving by John Cooke Bourne made in about 1843. Can we re-use it on this site to illustrate the BTM article? Are we allowed to remove the NMSI watermark before uploading? David Bailey (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

under UK law probably not.Geni 22:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have an alternative version of the same engraving now, but just wanted to ask... does UK law apply to Wikipedia? Isn't it hosted in and run from the US? Surely US fair-use rules would apply, or even public domain... as the artist has been dead for over 100 years. David Bailey (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

however you are not in the US so UK law appplies to you. You are running into the issue that UK law allows copyright on copies of public domain works.Geni 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemist William Hoskins and family ca. 1885.png

Why was this deleted, and how do I get it restored? I'm actively working on the article to which it will pertain: User:SMcCandlish/William Hoskins (inventor). Something that old clearly has no copyright issues. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to have been deleted it is still at wikimedia commons as Image:Chemist William Hoskins and family ca 1885.png but note that it has the fullstop/period missing after ca (dont think you can have fullstop/periods in file names). MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Calander Pictures

If there are screenshots of a film in a promotional calander, can these images be uploaded and used under fair use? ~ Bella Swan^? 15:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential yes if you can write a fair use jutification.Geni 16:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. ~ Bella Swan^? 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PD:Italy images

There is a continuing drive on Commons to delete images that used the PD:Italy tag, as it was considered unusable for Commons Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Italy with photos being moved to it.wiki. As the English language wikipedia also allows PD:Italy tags would it be acceptable to upload a picture like this one (which uses Commons as a source) on en:Wiki using Italian Wikipedia as a source?Nigel Ish (talk)

Image copyright problem with Image:Judith - R Whitaker shot 68.jpg

I'm not sure what you're asking of me. I displayed (or thought I did), with the images, the permission I had received from Judith Durham's agent Graham Simpson to use the images on Wikipedia (please see string below, emphasis mine). If you will, I welcome you to let me know specifically what I am supposed to provide beyond what I have provided. Please excuse my ignorance, but help me get done what needs to get done.

---

Date Sent: 7/7/2008 1:26 AM From: <gsimpson@musicoast.com> To: "David Ramsey" <Dave.Ramsey@selu.edu> Subject: Re: Web site enquiry Attachments: Judith - R Whitaker shot 68.jpg, Judith 2001 Solo.jpg,

Dear David,

Thank you for your email, which was forwarded to Musicoast by the Webmaster at www.judithdurham.com.

I am attaching two JPG photographs of Judith Durham, one from 1968, the year The Seekers broke up, and a more recent 2000s photo of Judith performing solo - and this email confirms that I am giving Wikipedia to reproduce them without infringing any copyrights.

I have passed your comments on to Judith and she has asked me to send you her love and best wishes,

Yours truly,

Graham Simpson General Manager Musicoast Pty Ltd Record Production & Music Publishing P O Box 555 South Yarra Vic 3141 Australia Email: gsimpson@musicoast.com Website: www.judithdurham.com

---

Original Message -----

From: "David Ramsey" <Dave.Ramsey@selu.edu> To: <mail@judithdurham.com> Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:36 PM Subject: Web site enquiry

> > Dear Judith, > > Do you have a photo suitable for publication with the article about you in Wikipedia? > > I would be pleased to have it (electronic file, preferably JPG) together with a note from you that it can legally be posted on the Wikipedia article. > > You may also be interested to read the recent comment I posted recently on http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kuj1IC9kXt8 . Additionally, although many artists have recorded \"A Perfect Day,\" I chose your interpretation to link to in the Wikipedia article on Carrie Jacobs-Bond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Jacobs-Bond). > > You are cool. > > David Ramsey, Ph.D. > \"Experienced Editor\" of Wikipedia > 11 White Drive > Hammond, Louisiana 70401-1025 > USA > (985) 542.6845 > Dave.Ramsey@selu.edu

The problem is that you did not obtain a release to use the image under a free license. Permission to use an image on Wikipedia alone is not sufficient - there must be a license release that allows reuse of the image (even for profit) and derivative works. Please follow the instructions at WP:COPYREQ to obtain a sufficient permission email. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

الحاضر البسيط

ما هي صيغة الحاضر البسيط؟ 2-ما هي استخدامات هذا الزمن؟ 3-ما هي دلائل هذا الزمن؟ 4-كيف نشكل سؤال أوننفي جملة؟ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.200.7 (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See the Arabic Wikipedia, or, thanks to Google translate:

اذهب الى ويكيبيديا العربية - CL — 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

NICKLE CHECKING STANDARD

WHAT IS JIS NICKLE STANDARD & HOW I CHECK NICKLE STANDARD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.58.178 (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

 Not done - has been posted to Wikipedia:Help desk as well. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 18:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Knol Autor just copy Wikipedia articles and put them under his own Copyright

Hello,

I dont knwo if this is the right site to report license abuse. A few Google Knol Autors just copy Wikipedia articles (per Example USA ) the Google Knol Autor Nguyen Thuy Hoang per Example. Google has integrated a button "Flag inappropriate content" i put them an my friends do so, but waiting a week, nothing has been changed... Google writes in their Knol Terms of Service "...Owner’s Licensing Options...Please also be aware that the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is not currently deemed compatible with Creative Commons licenses, and that content licensed under GFDL terms therefore may not be available for reuse under a Creative Commons or other non-GFDL license..." -- Stefan 21:12, 20. August 2008 (CEST)

That's pretty funny. He's tweaked it just enough so that it doesn't match the wikipedia article 100%. I don't imagine it will last very long. You could raise the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Mirrors_and_forks. Megapixie (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

photograph of an artwork that I own

I have a carving that I have photographed myself. The carving is substantially 3-D and my choice of artistic composition in the photograph is significant. The purpose of the photograph is to illustrate the "Argillite" article, possibly for new "Argillite (Haida)" article. The original carving is new -- approx 2002 -- and the artist is known.

What say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbuchana (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your photograph would be a derivative work - and not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Thought experiment - take a video camera into a movie theatre - what happens to the resulting video ? Megapixie (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict) If you have made a significant artistic contribution, then it would be classed as a derivative work. Unless the artist agrees, you will not be able to release the image with a free license. Fair use in Argillite may be possible if you argue that a carving is necessary to illustrate the article, and that a free image of a carving is impossible to obtain for the same reason your image is not freely licensed. Kevin (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Rules of Acquisition - is the entire list a copyvio, or if sourced, fine?

During the recent Afd discussion Phirazo (talk · contribs) declared their intention to delete the list - "Most of the votes above say this sourced. It is, but it is ripping those sources off. If this is kept, I intend to remove the list of rules as a copyvio."[2] Myself and another editor questioned "How is quoting a line of text each from multiple episodes copyvio?"[3]

Phirazo has repeatedly deleted the entire list, all of which has been sourced to original episodes or one of several books.[4][5][6][7]

I would like some clarity as this editor seems determined to now delete sourced material. In particular is quoting the original sources acceptable? Should we leave out the Behr book rules as non-canon? etc. Any advice, preferably based is policy, appreciated as the editor cites WP:Copyvio and deletes everything. Banjeboi 01:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The rules, individually and collectively, are principally the creative work of Ira Behr. As such he holds a copyright interest in such a list. Copyright protected lists are routinely deleted when copied onto Wikipedia. The only exception would be if you can justify a defense of fair use. Fair use is governed by a balancing test consisting of:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Though each point matters, I would say that the courts and Wikipedia have often chosen to give a heavy weight to commercial implications, when present. It appears to me that our publishing the list meaningfully detracts from the commercial value that the rightful copyright holder would have in publishing the list himself (i.e. through his book). As such, I would generally say that fair use is not a suitable justification if one intends to publish the list in its entirety. You are of course permitted to have an article discussing the list and provide limited excerpts from it. Dragons flight (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that Phirazo is correct to delete the list of rules from the page since any use of copyrighted material that is likely to fail a legal Fair Use test is not allowed. In this case, the fact that a book exists listing all the rules means that Wikipedia's display of those rules in their entirety detracts from the publisher's ability to sell the book. In this way, the use fails point #2 of the non-free content criteria. In addition, printing all the rules is a violation of point #3, which demands that we use the only minimum amount of a non-free work in order to get across the point being made. Using a few rules to give the reader a general understanding is fine, but using all of them is unnecessary and therefore a copyvio. -- Hux (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I've now removed all the non-canon ones, specifically the ones put forth in Behr's book. The canon ones, to be more clear were all aired during the original episodes. In addition, the entire list can be seen in multiple online venues, for instance here and a quick Google search would seem to show hundreds of other sites carrying similar informtion.[8] Given this information is the original canon acceptable within policy? Banjeboi 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"I found it in other places on the Internet" is a lousy rationale - I could find lots of obvious copyright violation on the Internet. Memory Alpha is a copyright infringement lawsuit waiting to happen. The only thing keeping them safe is public relations. The distinction between canon and non-canon doesn't magically make verbatim copying fair use. --Phirazo (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's get some uninvolved opinions please, your take on the situation is quite clear. Banjeboi 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, Phirazo's assessment of the situation is accurate: the key issue is not canon versus non-canon, it's copyrighted versus not copyrighted. If I understand the situation correctly, all the rules appear in published works, which makes them copyrighted, which means we can only use them according to Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The fact that plenty of sites on the internet make use of them illegally does not mean that we can do so as well. It means that all those sites are breaking the law and that's something that we need to avoid. -- Hux (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. For the many editors who look to re-adding is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria the best place to direct them? Banjeboi 22:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The rules can be discussed, but listing them individually, whether canonical or not, is a clear copyright violation. DreamGuy (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we've moved beyond that. Now we're trying to find the best place to direct those who question the removal to avoid future issues - "For the many editors who look to re-adding is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria the best place to direct them?" Banjeboi 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

how do i get a tag?

I published a picture to a page on wikipedia about my grandfather, and it was deleted by a moderator, due to missing tag. how do I get the tag from a photo thats published on antoher website? just write them and they can send it to me? what exactly is a tag? is it a little jpeg? thanks in advance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notsodutch (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The "tag" is just a piece of template wiki code that you can use to document the copyright status of the image. The important thing is really not so much the tag itself, but the information in it. You can also just write it in your own words on the image page. You need to document why the image is free for everybody to use. If the photo belongs to another website, you need to document that they have given free permission to use it. That means not just for us on Wikipedia, but everywhere else too. They can do that by either writing such a licensing declaration on their website, or by sending an e-mail, preferably to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org". It should say something like "We release image xyz for free use under the license cc-by-sa" (or "... GFDL"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's not much use restoring that image. Your grandfather does not satisfy wikipedia's notability policies, so Wikipedia cannot have an article on him You can instead add his article to Wikiobits if you'd like. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this defect resolved?

Image:DeGuignes_Pekin_livres.jpg The fair use rationale for this image has been questioned. Perhaps since the book was printed during the reign of Napoleon I, I should have just used a public domain template -- something like PD-Old? I added more words in the "Purpose" section. Is this what I should have done initially? If this is not what is required, it becomes obvious that I really don't understand well enough? --Tenmei (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think this is a non-free image. If it were, we probably could not use it: Wikipedia strongly restricts the use of non-free content. By WP:NFCC#8, “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.” Simply illustrating an article does not qualify. And the patronage of Napoleon could be stated in text; it would be clear enough with no image. In any case the article has no critical commentary on the image, which would be required for a non-free image.

The books were published in 1808; so the copyright expired long ago. I recommend replacing the {{non-free book cover}} tag and the use rationale with {{PD-old}}. —teb728 t c 20:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... These books are old, but someone took the photograph. The photo in this case is of several three dimensional objects, so such a photo would include new artistic decisions on placement, angle and lighting... is this photo taken by the uploader? If so, he owns the copyright and can release it through GNU or whatever. If the photo is by someone else, that person owns the copyright. DreamGuy (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of DreamGuy's analysis, I removed this image from the sole article in which it was posted. I also modified the information on the image description -- indicating that my reasoning was flawed when I uploaded the image. It should be deleted, but I don't know what more I should do. --Tenmei (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am suspicious of online references

Should Wikipedia delete audio files of songs that are more than 30 seconds, or 100% of the recording? Should Wikipedia delete articles that cite references that will lead readers to a site with illegal content?TLD GmbHph (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the second part is: NO you do not delete the article just because there is a citation to a bad site. A site with illegal content is probably not a reliable source, and if it is not a reliable source, the link to that site can be removed. (or if the link to the bad site is in the external links section, you can delete it under these guidelines WP:EL) If there are no reliable sources for the article, then you can follow the deletion procedures to get rid of an article that is probably not about a notable topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the article should not be deleted, but the links MUST BE-- we do not link to copyright violations, whether they are otherwise reliable sources or not. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For copyrighted audio, if the file is of the entire song then it should probably be deleted. If, on every article that the file is used, the length of the file is longer than it needs to be in order to illustrate the point being made then it probably should be deleted and replaced with a shorter version. If its length is appropriate in article A but too long for its use in article B, then it should be removed from article B but the file itself should not be deleted (a shorter version could be uploaded for use in article B). The 30 seconds thing is a rough rule of thumb but in and of itself it should not be considered an absolute. It depends on the context in which the work is being used.

For articles that have references pointing to sites that infringe copyright (e.g. YouTube), as TheRedPenOfDoom says, the article should not be deleted. Instead, just delete the reference or replace it with a better one. -- Hux (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of William Longair

I've just found this image of former Manchester United player William Longair, who played for the club in 1895. I want to upload it to Wikipedia to use in the article I'm writing about him, but I'm not sure of its copyright status. Obviously the image was taken more than 70 years ago, which may have some bearing on it, but I'm not sure. Help please. – PeeJay 08:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the author probably didn't die 70 years ago. Pictures of early footballers are a problem in this respect.Geni 20:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Valid copyright interpretation?

Is the copyright notice here [9] valid? I thought copyright was for a much longer time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.20 (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the where the content was originally published and where it is reused. In the case of this image, it was originally published in the US, and Wikipedia is hosted in the US; so US law is applicable. {{PD-US-no-renewal}} reflects a peculiarity of US law. As it tag says, the image is not PD in some other places. —teb728 t c 06:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Postal stamps, copyrighted?

I find the images of the following postal stamps in some articles.

1. Image:Thomasstamp.jpg

Issued on December 2, 1964.

Launched by Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, Value: 15 paise, Perforation: 14x13x½, and Watermark: None.

1. Image:St.thomas stamp.jpg

Issued on July 3, 1973.

Launched by Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department, Value:20 paise, Perforation: 13 and Watermark: None

Are these two postal stamps issued by a India Governement Department (in 1964 & 1973) copyrighted? Neduvelilmathew (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these stamps are PD because they are not more than 60 years old. See the Commons Public domain templates. Besides that, even if they were alleged as "Fair Use" stamps, they can only be used in an article about the stamp itself and not an article about the subject of the stamp. In that case they fail Wikipedia:FU#Images point #3, except perhaps for Image:St.thomas stamp.jpg used in St. Thomas Mount article but it does not have the correct licence and would need a FU rationale instead. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't stamps typically PD despite how old they are because they are produced by the government and paid for by taxes? That used to be a rule we followed. Did you not know that, or did the legal view on that change? DreamGuy (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. While postage stamps are generally official government works, especially before postal deregulation, few countries put those works into the PD. Check out the commons PD licence page, the commons stamp PD templates and you will see how few country's stamps are in the Public Domain. India stamps are only PD after 60 years according to the template page but you may also want to read these two Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/Archive 25#Indian Stamps and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive59#Fair_use stamps: revisitied ... discussions. The Fair use stamp images category also points out the proper usage of non-free stamps. ww2censor (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian postage stamps are under a Govt. of India copyright, and that persists for 60 years from the release date. Also, India Post explicitly prohibits any color reproduction of its images. And the stamps can't be used to illustrate the stamp's subject under a fair use claim. All these things have been discussed in detail in the past. --Ragib (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use?

I have heard two different things regarding this subject. Se here's my question. I redrew a raster image of a logo into a vector image of that same logo. Is the image that I redrew still need have a fair-use rationale? Or am I free to license it as I please? The original image is located here and my redraw is located here. Please notify me of your reply on my talk page. Thank you. --pbroks13^talk? 04:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The vector version would be a derivative work so it is non free and would need a fair-use rationale yes.Geni 10:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --pbroks13^talk? 12:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Images' copyright

Is there any copyright at the all images in this page and this page?Aquitania (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

yes. Why wouldn't there be?Geni 03:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the images are so old they'd be in the public domain by now. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How about an images which are postcards, cut view (cross section), and portrait which unknown artist in this page and this page?Aquitania (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Has the potential to be very messy copyright wise. Unlikely to PD in the UK. In the US it would depend on when they were first published there and how.Geni 09:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Those links go to the same pages as above. Was that a mistake? DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.11.18 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos of artworks that are part of my collection

Can photographs that I have taken of artworks that I personally own be uploaded into Wikipedia under creative commons license?

Image:Callum keith rennie.jpg

This image is tagged as free, but it displays a (C)+web address I can't read at the top, half hidden in the hair of the subject. I'd like to know if it's free or not free, as it appears in a biography of living person. Thanks, Rosenknospe (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, it looks like the text says "(C) belelie@livejournal.com" —teb728 t c 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

looking for specific event

I have been searching for Butler Field House in Indiana for articles in October 31, 1963 the Holiday on Ice show ther .. I cannot seem to locate anything on this do you have any suggestions

thanks tbrat2900@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.138.13 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

But what if you don't know, and can't find out?

I would like to use the image at the bottom left of this website to illustrate a proposed article about Jane Winstone, a New Zealand pilot who was killed in her Spitfire in WW2. The photo is 70-ish years old, no-one knows who the photographer was, no-one knows who possesses the original print or neg (if they still exist) and no-one knows who supplied the image for use on that website. The website manager says that although their site is copyrighted, they don't claim copyright of the image and we are free to use it. Is that enough? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a regular here, and someone else might have better information. I would suggest, however, that if *they* don't know who took the photograph, then actually *they* don't have the right to use it themselves, let alone give permission for someone else to use it. An analogy: If you buy stolen property from a guy who bought it from a fence, in most jurisdictions that is insufficient for you to keep it, because it's still ultimately stolen property. I'd let it go - just because they don't claim copyright doesn't mean copyright doesn't exist on the image, and therefore you should assume someone does have copyright until proven otherwise. Best, LaughingVulcan 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You could label it as a non-free image {{Non-free fair use in}} but it would need to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and have a fair use rationale - probably under the grounds of no free equivalent available. MilborneOne (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

business proposal

please i would love to have an eassy on business proposal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelnaboh (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lou 1955 di Guido Ruzzier.jpg

Hello! I am Guido Ruzzier - caroguru@gmail.com - and I am the author of the photograph of Louis E. Sauer which is discussed in page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yvonnert#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Lou_1955_di_Guido_Ruzzier.jpg

Free publication of the photo was originally granted by me to the owner of the webpage http://www.arc1.uniroma1.it/saggio/Libri/Sauer/SauerIlaud.html

I am quite willing - being a very, very old friend of Louis' (the photo was taken in 1955) - to let anybody else freely use the image, with no restrictions, provided my name is mentioned as the author's.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to get in touch with "Yvonnert" (who probably does not know how to reach me), but I'm sure you'll find a way to solve this small matter to everybody's satisfaction.

Best regards, Guido Ruzzier, Milano, Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.119.95 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Handled at WP:EAR and User talk:Yvonnert. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you put a link of email this article or reference ?

Why don't you put a link of email this article or reference ? You should have this link to make more of your information. Please do it.

And as I told you before you should have a kind of notification to be checked by the main editors about the articles that are wrong as it is "vandalism" to delete complete articles. I deleted complete articles about my country which were wrong and I had problems (my ip exposed..) and called a vandal for doing it! --166.114.206.90 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In general, you should be discussing these sorts of things at the help desk - this is the page for questions regarding copyright. As for the email button, I have submitted a feature request for you (see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15325). This is something that a fair number of people ask about. I can't answer your question about vandalism because it appears that your IP address has changed since your last contributions. In general, you won't be accused of vandalism if you explain yourself on the talk page. (Click the "discussion" tab at the top of the page.) Articles are deleted not by blanking them but by listing them at WP:AFD. You may need to register an account to nominate an article for deletion. (Side benefit: hides your IP address!) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of an Image for living musician

A relatively novice contributor to Wikipedia, I have permission, via email, to upload an image of rhythm and blues guitarist Henry McCullough by both the photographer and Henry's management. They have asked me because I am a registered user of Wikipedia and they are not. How do I satisfy Wikipedia's copyright standards for this upload? Kuan-shih Yin (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:COPYREQ --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

GFDL

Good morning, Copyright Gurus! Some content had been marked as copyvio on the Wessex Institute of Technology article. An edit war ensued, but that's tangential to this issue. WIT has apparently released their content under GFDL,[10] but I'm not sure if that page is enough for us to reuse the content (no link to the license, the mention of Wikipedia in the page). Is WIT's content GFDL, or would use of such content still be a copyvio? -- Mark Chovain 21:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)