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)

Postcards with historical images

I have a postcard from France in the 1930s, with a photograph of a monument that was later unfortunately destroyed during World War II. I am unaware of any other available images of the structure, but would like to include an image of the postcard in the Wikipedia article that talks about the monument (The White Bird). I'm fuzzy on French copyright in this case though. Would anyone know if the image is public domain at this point, or whether there's a good case for Fair Use as it's a historical image with no free equivalent? --Elonka 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• In France, the copyrights of the author last for 70 years after their death. This isn't probably a huge amount of use to you, as doubt if you know who the author is. Having said that, I'd say that it would probably count as a historical non-free image if there's little chance of sourcing a free equivalent (which it sounds like there isn't). And the existing infobox image is non-free anyway, so you'd hardly be increasing the amount of non-free usage in the article. Black Kite 22:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually that image (and many other stamp images) were recently nominated for deletion, which confuses me because I'd thought it was a clear case for fair use. But I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert on the subtleties of image licensing... What are your own thoughts in regards to that image? --Elonka 02:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd agree that a good case for fair use could be made. Photo may be out of copyright under the 70 year rule if the publisher is unknown. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • A lot of stamp images have been deleted recently because they were only being used to illustrate their subjects - however there are always exceptions to this, and I think this is one. Black Kite 06:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Anyone with an opinion on the matter, is welcome to comment at the current deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_October_7#File:L'Oiseau_Blanc_stamp.jpg. --Elonka 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of self-made photos of living people.

Hello, I have been having trouble finding a clear answer in regard to this question, so I thought that this would be an appropriate place to ask. If not, then I apologize.

I would like to upload photos of the members of the band Scale the Summit that I took while watching them on the Progressive Nation Tour about two months ago. I feel that they would add greatly to the article concerning the band. I would like to publish them into the public domain, however, I do not know if they would qualify. I would like to know this before I upload them so that if they can be published into the public domain I can upload them directly into the Commons. Thank you in advance for your help. Cs.Ps. (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, you can release the work into public domain and the appropriate place to upload the images is commons. —SpaceFlight89 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If theres any reason people would question the license or your ownership you can always use OTRS to strengthen the copyright status of the photos, and hes Wikimedia Commons would be the place to upload them. They don't have to be Public Domain, the Creative Commons licenses are just fine as well along with some others. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I created the image myself. Why copyright needed?

Hi.

I got this message:

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Istcol (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spillon"

1) If I created the image myself, why is copyright needed?
2) If I am meant to state something, how do I edit the copyright status of the image, I tried but couldn't find how to anywhere.

They call it an “Image copyright tag” but that’s really a misnomer. In this case it would be better called a image license tag. You got a copyright on it simply by creating it; which means that nobody can use it without your permission. What is needed is for you to say what right Wikipedia and everyone else have to use it. Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia, insisting on permission for reuse by anyone for anything. You have several choices; the most popular are:

• {{PD-self}} to give up all your rights to it.
• {{cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}} to let anyone use it provided that they credit you for it. You replace "Attribution details" with what you want the credit to say.
• {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Attribution details}} to let anyone use it provided that they credit you for it and that they license any modified version under the same license.

You add the license tag by editing File:NeutraliseIT.jpg. —teb728 t c 23:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally if the image is somewhat questionable as for permission, we request it so we have it on file. The process is found here. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok I think I want it to say {{cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}}, with the credit of anyone who uses it going to "Royal-T, a YAA company". However I cannot find anywhere how to edit it. I've read your instructions and gone to the page File:NeutraliseIT.jpg yet the only thing I can find that says edit is "Edit this file using an external application" which doesn't help. I've searched wikipedia and really tried to find this answer out on myself, but I just can't seem to find it, and how to edit the copyright tag once an image has already been uploaded. Please help? Spillon (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be a tab at the the top of the page (and every page) that says "Edit this page". The tab is between "discussion" and "history". Try that "edit" tab. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

making money from GNU or GFDL

Hi,

if I republish an image, under GNU or GFDL, are others allowed to make money from it? they can in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License but they's have to make the image available freely?

Thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Free licenses required by Wikimedia allow commercial use, ergo yes someone can make money from your photograph by only giving you credit. GFDL isn't meant for images, it's for text based work and sometimes software. The Creative Commons licenses are the ones that are meant for photographs. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

picture copyright

1. What copyright tags should I give for a picture that is taken by a friend of mine who has given permission to me? Is it correct to put {{cc-by-sa}} tag? 2. If I upload a picture that I just take/download from a website, what should I do to clear it from copyright problems/so that it doesn't become object of speedy deletion? Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoko santoso (talk • contribs) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll need upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and have your friend send an e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, the process is outlined commons:Commons:OTRS. That is the best way to handle it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Rich_wiki.jpeg

Last week I received the email reply below from 'permissions'....and I received confirmation on a 'talk' page that the 'deletion notice' for this image would be removed..... However, when I checked the page today the image had gone. I have uploaded it again, so could you please check that I have supplied enough information for it to remain... Thanks Sue

---

Original Message -----

From: "Permissions" To: [redacted] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 3:12 PM Subject: Re: [Ticket#2009093010046424] re. image copyright —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronk69 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear SUE WALLACE,

Thank you for your email.

09/30/2009 17:59 - [redacted] wrote:

> I have been told to email that I am the copyright owner of the following image > Rich_wiki.jpg > on > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warren_(musician) > > I have amended the licensing details accordingly. > Thanks

Cronk69 (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the ticket, and you did not copy the entire e-mail. Below the text you copied, there is a message from the OTRS agent. You need to specify, in your e-mail, what license you are agreeing to. In fact, it may be easiest if you filled out a consent form and mailed it in (see WP:CONSENT). Make sure you are replying to that e-mail, or that the ticket number 2009093010046424 is included in the subject line. Once we have a clear statement of permission and copyright ownership, we can easily undelete the file. If you have questions about this process, or anything else, feel free to ask. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

new query

I made a short video yesterday, It is a 360 degree panorama of the views visible from Win hill pike,

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

I wish to upload this video to the above page.

I am a new user and haven'g the foggiest idea what to do.

Please can you help me upload this video.Tom3t0 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

re Rich_wiki.jpeg

Sorry, I don't understand your answer.

I'd uploaded the image and emailed 'permissions' telling them I owned copyright. I received a reply from them and a message on a talk page saying that it was all ok and that the picture would not be deleted.

I found today that it had been deleted so I have uploaded it again (commons:File:Rich wiki.jpg) and put it into the article Richard Warren (musician) with a different license. Could you please check that this is now correct. Thanks very much

(I have now emailed the following to 'permissions'):

> I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive > copyright of Rich_wiki.jpeg (ticket 2009093010046424) > > I agree to publish that work under the free license .Creative Commons > Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 > > I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial > product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided > that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. > > I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right > to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others > make to the work will not be attributed to me. > > I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content > may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. > > SUE WALLACE > > CRONK69 > COPYRIGHT HOLDER > 12/10/2009

Sue Cronk69 (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes images get deleted before an OTRS ticket is applied to the image file but in this case the image was deleted, as a blatant copyright violation of Richard Warren's MySpace page, quite quickly as often happens with such images. You have now uploaded it to the commons under the same name but no OTRS ticket has been applied; you put in a different licence. The image source now says that it is your own work which is not confirmed by the MySpace image. Because the image now has the same name, the ticket should be applied to the commons file when it gets processed, which can take up to a week. I will tag the image as pending an OTRS request. ww2censor (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So do I have to do anything else? And I don't understand the 'myspace' violation??!! It is not on a myspace page as far as I know (and I know Richard Warren does not have one!) Sue Cronk69 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Stifle deleted this image with the summary that it was the same as a MySpace page image per this deletion summary and the notice he placed on your talk page was because there was no copyright status. There is now nothing else you need to do but wait until the OTRS permission is processed. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But he doesn't have a Myspace page? (One of his bands does, but this image is not on that site...)Cronk69 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(Thanks for your help) Cronk69 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

simple way to find if images can be used in print?

I've written a book. It's 95pp right now but could sure use a bunch of images to amplify points. I've looked at umpteen statements and notices and just can't get a handle on this. I surmise not all images on W.commons can be used in print, and if they can the attributions need to be in 47 formats according to the eleventeen license texts. Is there a short way I can (1) determine if I can use a particular image in print, and (2) use a common format for credits? I am the copyright holder of my book (so far). Many thanks in advance for your sage and succinct counsel on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCMeredith (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You can expect that any pictures from the Wikipedia commons could be used in print. See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use for some of what is required. You can probably have a picture credits page where you can give the URL you got it from or the attribution that is specified. If the image is marked as public domain, cc0, or all rights released you can use it without attribution, but do not claim the copyright on it yourself. For the pictures on en.wikipedia if they have a fair use rationale, that means they are not free and you will have to consider yourself whether you can use it or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

reasoning behind a fair use rational

What is the reasoning behind this fair use rational?

2) It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material (text or images, existing or to be created)

Couldn't nearly anything be created in the future as a free image? Is this the best rule for inclusion? Wikipedia does everything possible to insure that free images are used, and I understand, I also understand that there are certain rules for using non free images, however, this is unrealistic in my opinion. Waiting for an image that may or may not come along is irresponsible. We have a responsibility not only to the copyright holders, but to our users as well.

Specifically this is in regards to this image: File:Sarita impact.jpg. While it is true that at some point the image could be replaced by a free image, what are the chances of a image that truly meets our requirements could be found? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse, but it does prove a point, how many images are on wikipedia from press events? How many of them could not be replaced by a picture taken by a wikipedia user? How many wikipedia users are walking around hollywood or anywhere else with stars.

• There are actually a lot of free images of wrestlers on Wikipedia - people do get some good photos. However, even if there weren't, the fact is that this is a living public figure who it is therefore possible to take a free image of, and the image thus fails WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). Black Kite 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at some famous peoples articles. Majority are from press pictures, that you'll see on CNN or Access Hollywood. How many of our editors get perfect pictures on the red carpet? I understand it fails, my argument is that that rule should be changed. The criteria should be based on is there currently a free alternative available. We don't make assumptions in articles, we should do the same for pictures, dont assume a free replacement is available. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Im no copyright expert, but it seems that we are allowing people to bypass this rule anyway by allowing Flickr images on many articles, based just on looking at a few well known people, I can see promotional photos that someone has posted on Flickr, released it, and some user has uploaded here, so it can be freely used. Im not a lawyer, but if I had to guess, this wouldn't hold up in court, Thats not a legal threat, just my opinion. I dont see how this rule is helping the encyclopedia, merely hindering it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Flickr is a problem. Some of those images you mention are probably OK, but many aren't, and they don't get picked up enough. The other problem is that some of the Flickr images are on Commons, who don't do nearly enough to pick up copyvios. Oh, and this "rule"? Have a look in the top left-hand corner of the page, between "The" and "Encyclopedia" :) Black Kite 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[...] Commons, who don't do nearly enough to pick up copyvios?? Mind yours own business, the problems on Wikipedia are much much larger from my experience ;) Regarding the Flickr problems: See commons:COM:QFI, if you have problems to trust in an image from Flickr that was transfered to a Wikimedia project you might adress the problem there. --Martin H. (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a good page, but I doubt that many people will support deleting pictures in highly visible articles such as File:Oprah Winfrey (2004).jpg, File:Mariah Carey in August 2006 2.jpg, or File:Vince McMahon - ECW Champion.jpg. The question is, can we, or should we change the fair use rational for images, based on what I said previously. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats not true, I dont know how often it happens that an image on the mainpage of one of the various Wikipedia was replaced or removed and deleted. So it is the opposite, the more notable an article is the merrier someone will take a closer look at the images. In case of copyright violation it is absolutely unimportant how important the article is. Regarding the named images: The images are ok, I cant see any problems. Especially File:Oprah Winfrey (2004).jpg. You may have a look at commons:Category:Alan Light or the photostream on Flickr to see how many wounderful images Alan Light contributed to the world. I cant say something to your fair use problem, that problems not exist on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sephiroth, the policy isn't going to change. If a person is living, we do not use a fair use image of the person for depiction purposes on their biographical articles here. If there's a copyright violation, it can be brought to the attention of WP:PUI, and there are instructions for how to nominate a file for deletion via that vehicle. The three images you note, I have to agree with Martin; I see no problems. All of the images are licensed under free licenses, and there's no reason to suspect any of them are thefts/re-licensing of non-free images. We only accept non-free images when a free image could not be created to serve the same purpose. We don't hold onto non-free imagery waiting for free imagery that could be created. We only hold onto non-free imagery when there's no chance of free imagery serving the same purpose (such as is the case in most cases where a person is dead). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that the problems on en.wiki are worse, but there are a lot of copyvios on Commons - the problem being that they're often not picked up until they're used here, and someone says "hang on a minute...". I'm not criticising Commons editors as such, but, for example, I've speedy tagged four copyvios by the same author on Commons recently, which have been deleted - but no-one seems to want to block them [1]. Black Kite 17:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. It won't be allowed. The issue with the winfrey article is that Mr. Light TMK, is not a wikipedia editor, I have no way of knowing if he is a photographer, or that he took the picture. It appears to be something you would see from a horde of paparatzi outside her house, or wherever it was taken. Nothing against Mr. Light. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if he's a Wikipedia editor or not. He could be a disaffected Martian living in a hovel on the dark side of Mercury. If he releases his works under a free license, then we can use them here, placing them on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Extremely old ad

I'm trying to figure out exactly what I need to do to include this old Gibson advertisement. I can't precisely date the photograph, but the instrument advertised was manufactured only between 1930 and 1933, so there's only a narrow range of possible dates. I'm sure copyright has lapsed, but how do I demonstrate that?—Kww(talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming this was an American publication, if the advertisement carried no copyright notice, it entered the U.S. public domain instantly upon publication. Advertisements were not covered by the copyright of the publication in which they appeared (unless they were the publisher's own advertisements). 17 U.S.C. § 404(a) specifically excludes "advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the owner of copyright in the collective work" from coverage under the collective work's copyright. Federal case law:

Canfield v. Ponchatoula Times, 759 F.2d 4930

C.A.5, La., 1985

Where advertisement was inserted on behalf of automobile dealership and its new employee, and no specific copyright notice appeared directly on advertisement itself, newspaper could not protect its asserted copyright in advertisement by relying on general collective work notice of copyright printed on front page of its newspaper under masthead.

Moore Pub., Inc. v. Big Sky Marketing, Inc., 756 F.Supp. 1371

D.Idaho, 1990

Copyright notice applicable to real estate advertising magazine, which was a collective work, was not sufficient to protect whatever copyright protection publisher of magazine might enjoy in logos of real estate firms advertising in the magazine, where publisher never placed copyright notices on the separate advertisements.

Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. BPI Communications, Inc., 378 F.Supp.2d 1189

C.D. Cal. S.Div., 2005

Copyright protection under the 1909 Copyright Act required copyright notice in the name of the copyright holder, not merely in the name of the publishing newspaper, magazine, or campaign book.

— Walloon (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've uploaded to File:1930's Gibson bass banjo ad.jpg. I'd appreciate any help that anyone might be able to provide in keeping the licensing-nag-bots away, as none of the standard templates fits this case.—Kww(talk) 15:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, one does: Template:PD-Pre1978. — Walloon (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

West Virginia logo

The University of West Virginia "WV" logo (File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png) appears to me to qualify under {{PD-textlogo}} and seems to have no copyright notices/claims associated with it, but User:Hammersoft has consistently disagreed and tagged this as copyrighted. If you could confirm whether this qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}} I'd appreciate it. Answer on my talkpage if possible. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not just simple text, so it should be eligible for copyright. Their marketing department probably has a policy on the use of the logo, and it is possible that it is released under PD (but unlikely). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Graeme Bartlett. This is eligible for copyright (and is also used in far too many articles at the moment). Stifle (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not just simple text. There are artistic elements at play. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to their trademark licencing. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I apprecaite the link, but trademarks by nature do not need licenses. No matter what the site intimates, a non-copyrightable mark has no restrictions on use other than proper attribution of source. That's the whole point.

If the consensus is that this is not {{PD-textlogo}}, then I'll leave the image tags alone (although I disagree, and honestly, I don't think this one should even been a close call). But more fundamentally, the latent confuson of about the need for trademark licensing needs to be addressed in the policy pages, IMO. I have a proposed section on the WP:Image use policy talk page. BillTunell (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright protection. See User:Elcobbola/Copyright. The "flying WV" does not meet the criteria of originality to be copyrighted and should be considered {{PD-textlogo}}, IMO. It is a trademarked logo, and should be afforded the protection of such. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Crazypaco (talk · contribs). The logo is merely a couple of stylized letters stacked on top of each other. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• And it is partially in that stylization that it departs from being simple text. Also, BillTunell; simply because something is trademarked does not mean it is not copyrightable. The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be copyrighted, and not enjoy trademark protections, and something can be trademarked and not enjoy copyright protections. Items can also enjoy protections of both, or neither. Trademark and copyright rights are independent of each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand what you're saying, but there are no "pictorial" elements in the "WV" logo as required for copyrightability under U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03. It's a mere letter/color combination. "Stylization" is not a copyrightable element under any legal standard. Likewise, "departing from a simple text" does not mean something is copyrightable -- even assuming that's true in this case. There needs to be a picture incorporated in the logo somehow. BillTunell (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Umm, no. Regardless, I recommend contacting WVU if you want to get this image declared as free of copyright. Enough people here disagree with it being pd-textlogo eligible. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Um, no." is just contradiction void of any logic.

We do not need to contact every institution's legal department every time you personally don't like that an image has been declared PD.

Bill, Paco, and Wordbuilder all have it right. This image simply isn't copyrightable. Under Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, the courts ruled: "[a] typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)" and a "Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as "...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters...whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text."

In this image, the letters "W" and "V" are letters and intended to be used as such. Contrast this with ASCII art or the Washington State University logo in which letters are not intended to be used explicitly as letters, but as a medium by which an artistic image is formed.

There is this apparent opinion amongst some editors that something has to be "simple text" to be PD and everything else isn't. There is nothing in the law, legal rulings, Congressional clarifications, or our policies/guidelines which states this. As such it is an opinion, not policy.

Lastly, I agree with Hammersoft that something can be trademarked, copyrighted, both copyrighted and trademarked, or neither. It is important to make such a distinction. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• BQZ, I grow tired of this. Contacting the potential copyright holder isn't something that causes one to catch a mortal affliction. You say you have it right. Several of us say we have it right. You keep throwing coypright law at us, yet aren't a lawyer and we disagree with your interpretation of that law, and we're not lawyers. So, we're still at square 0. When you pass the bar in some state, and especially when you become a practicing IP attorney, let us know. Until then, your opinion is that of a lay person, just like the rest of us here. Since there's no consensus this image is free of copyright, it has to remain tagged as non-free until we prove it is free. Step 1: Contact WVU's Trademark Licensing Services. Their contact info: Trademark Licensing Services, Stewart Hall Room 302, P.O. Box 6686, Morgantown, WV 26506 304.293.8028. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I want this to remain civil. However, I am a practing IP lawyer, and I would agree with BQZ. Contacting WVU wouldn't be a bad idea necessarily, but it's unrealistic to think that anyone there would have the authority or incliniation to "declare" a particular image uncopyrighted. WVU has neither noticed the image as copyrighted, nor applied for a copyright on the image (I've done a loc.gov search). And, in any event, if contacting the mark's owner were the required procedure, there would effectively be no fair-use or public-domain images on wikipedia, whcih is obviously not the case. BillTunell (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Then submit your credentials to m:OTRS along with your analysis of why this is free. If in fact you are an IP lawyer, you should well know that copyright does not have to be declared to exist, and that has been the case for a long time now. Further, contacting WVU isn't out of line, and doing so wouldn't mean we wouldn't host non-free content here. Fair use exists whether WVU wants it to or not. We contact copyright holders frequently. That's why we have instructions here for doing so. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to cut this conversation off here since it is getting ugly. My arguments were presented here since this is the wikipedia encyclopedia forum, as opposed to some other wikiproject. I have no problem submitting my credentials but I do not see how the procedure at m:OTRS could possibly affect this determination. The published copyright standards are what they are. BillTunell (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• And subject to interpretation, which is why we have court rooms and an entire third branch of government to interpret the law. We don't operate solely on what the law says. You should know that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll add my layperson opinion to the mix, since that's all we have here. The West Virginia logo reminds me of the old Van Halen logo, and also the Weezer logo which is a take on that, and both of those are copyrighted. I believe the "wings" are a pictorial element beyond a typeface element. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer either. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew: The "VH" logo is an example of a trademarked but not copyrighted logo. Van Halen has other copyrighted marks relating to guitar design, and their album covers are a different story. But the "VH" itself is not copyrighted. See Van Halen trademrak site for an explanation. BillTunell (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• [Edit conflict x3] I appreciate your opinion Andrwsc. Do you have something that shows those logos to be non-free? File:Weezer logo.png appears to be a trademarked, free image. As for File:Van Halen logo.jpg, the flame alone makes this image copyrightable, but the basic logo appears to be just trademarked (see above post).

  1. Nothing in policy/guidelines states that we default to non-free if there is disagreement. It certainly doesn't "[have] to remain tagged as non-free until we prove it is free." Moreover, even if you had such a policy/guideline, you have no standards by which to provide "proof", so we can never satisfy your personal requirements.
  2. "[W]e disagree with your interpretation of that law" You disagree, but you fail to provide any rationale.
  3. My opinion is backed up by law, caselaw, Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia guidelines, and Wikipedia disclaimers. Hammer, your opinion is backed by what? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  For the Van Halen logo, I just mean the "core" design as seen on http://www.van-halen.com/samples.html (Thanks for the link, Bill!) The two versions are pre/post the David Lee Roth/Sammy Hagar switch. The image we have on en.wiki includes more than just the plain (new) logo. For Weezer, I don't mean that Commons image (used on recent album artwork) but the "flying W" seen in the background of File:Weezer.jpg for instance. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, point taken. I see what you mean, but as was stated above, mere variations of fonts are not eligible for copyright. These "wings" are no more than a double serif, a common typeface addition. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• BQZ, once again I'm going to ignore your comments. They're lather-rinse-repeats of prior arguments. If you truly want answers to these arguments, go to those prior arguments where myself and many others have explained how you are wrong. What your arguments keep boiling down to is step 1: through copyright law quotations at the problem, insist your interpretation is right. Step 2: read comments from others showing disagreement with your interpretation. Step 3: go to step 1. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well explain it to me again, because I clearly don't get it (or just provide a link). All you are saying is "You're wrong." (even in your steps above), but you don't explain why. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's been explained to you many times, by more than just me. I'm not interested in repeating the arguments all over again just so the next time this comes up you can say "All you are saying is I'm wrong, with nothing to back it up". I'm sick to death of these lather-rinse-repeat arguments from you. I will not be baited into it. As I said, if you truly want answers (and I'm well beyond AGF here at this point, given the huge body of arguments you've ignored) you know where to look. But you don't want answers. You just want to be right. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe I am right. I am willing to admit when I am wrong or may be wrong, but you've provided no evidence to the contrary other than your own opinion. Again, all I am asking is for clarification as to where I am wrong in anything I've said above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I know you believe you're right. Honest, I get it. I really do. I'm just sick to death of contributing to and seeing many others contributing to efforts to show you how you are wrong, and when a similar debate comes up you throw the same arguments at it all over again, then say we're empty of support for our positions and insist we repeat all of it over again. It's tiresome, counter productive, and useless as to the point of trying to show you how you're wrong. You say you'll admit when you're wrong, but you don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That statement is falls under the fallacy of a loaded question. I can either disagree and thereby give you more "evidence" that I continue this "behavior" (thereby proving your assertion) or I can agree with you that I don't admit when I'm wrong (thereby proving your assertion). It is a self-fulfilling statement, but it ignores reality and all I have to do is show that I do admit when I am wrong or make a mistake: try doing a word search for "oops" in my edit summaries. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Will my saying "You're right, I'm wrong. On everything." make you happy? Is there ANYthing that I can say that you won't disagree with? For the love of God I sure as hell have no clue what it might be. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• To BillTunell, the page you reference on the VH designs does not state the VH designs are free of coypright. It states they are trademarked. That doesn't mean they are ineligible for copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but why would the band actually copyright other things and not the "VH" logo, if it indeed was coopyrightable? While not determinitive, this strong evidence supporting the published standard. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's not evidence at all. Without a specific release of copyright from the rights holder, there is no release. Without that release, we must consider it copyrighted. This is why we have things like {{npd}} and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you want to get release of those VH logos from the copyright holder, contact licensing_administrator@van-halen.com. and get it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this makes no sense to me. I'm not trying to use the VH logo for anything, so there's no reason for me to contact them. And it's just not true for wikipedia purposes that "without [a] release, we must consider it copyrighted." That would categorically eliminate all public-domain images on wikipedia. As much as that might be your agenda, it simply is not wikipedia policy.

I would like you to comment specifically about how you'd like to shorten the proposed policy on the image use policy board, if you have the time. BillTunell (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Without a release, we have no proof the work is free. Why do you think we have {{npd}}????? If we follow your model, where everything is free until proven not free, why bother with Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission???? Obviously someone here (and many someones) think it is important to prove release. I'm not stating something unilaterally here. As for the VH logo itself, you used the VH logo as evidence. I contradicted that evidence. Does that make sense? As to the proposal; it's your own proposal. Figure out how to shorten it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, this has turned ugly, which I have tried to avoid. I'm not claiming that "everything is free until proven not free." But if you're going to fight against that straw man, I see no use in continuing. As I stated before, I will abide by any adminstrative determination on the "WV" logo, if and when it comes. Until then, I do not consider a lack of consensus to be determinitive one way or the other. BillTunell (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're saying that non-free until proven free doesn't make sense. I'm not making this up. You said it. If that's the case, it's a logical conclusion that you believe free until proven non-free. If that's not the case, just what DO you believe? Something between free and non-free until proven something between free and non-free? <confused look> The only straw man here is the one you're making. Forgive me for the windmill made from your own words. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hammer, this is a combination of logical fallacies, Bare_assertion_fallacy and False dilemma specifically. You are making the assumption that there is a default position from which all images start. This simply isn't the case. From that, you've derived that there are two possible default positions from which to start, free or non-free, leaving one to prove that an image isn't in such a category. In reality we take all kinds of images (copyrighted, trademarked, patent images, free images with some restrictions, free images with no restrictions) and use them appropriately (or at least try to). It is up to the uploader to show that the image is under the license which they claim it is and for the Wikipedia community to accept/reject that claim. There is no default position within Wikipedia regarding images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hammer's right. Our image policy requires not only attribution but proper licensing for an image, even if it is free. You have to have a clear statement that an image does fall into a free license to assert that it is free, otherwise, as per US Copyright law, we assume its copyrighted. An image failing to include a statement as to being free or not is removed under the assumption it is non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} is a "clear statement that an image does fall into a free license." That tag was applied to File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png and Hammersoft removed it. The content of this debate is not about whether or not there needs to be a clear statement accompanying the image, but whether or not the correct tag was applied. —Ute in DC (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. BillTunell (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Masem, what you said isn't true (caveat: see below). There are LOTS of images that were published prior to 1923. These have no accompanying information that states "This image is in the public domain", but they clearly are public domain images. Additionally, Copyright law makes no such claim that you have to have a clear statement that it is free or it is copyrighted; that simply isn't true. For things published in the present, if they are copyrightable (which is the key phrase here), I concede that what you say is true and that an automatic copyright applies, but they must be copyrightable in the first place. Many of us contend that this isn't the case for this image and many others. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• And many of us contend it isn't. Therefore, we leave it non-free until we can prove it is free. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that this discussion is about the copyright-able nature of the image, and not so much about the copyright, but the logic of our default position of assuming non-free unless proven other still applies in that we need to consider taking the position that the boundary for the threshold of originality for whether an image is copyrightable is very fuzzy and typically only defined for specific cases in the court of law; because of that and our image policies, we need to take the position that unless the image clearly fails originality, it should be considered non-free. A logo that is plain block text is clearly unoriginal, but anything beyond this is always going to be in question due to the fuzziness of the threshold law unless asserted by another source. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you missed the point. One license we use is images that have fallen into PD due to their age. We accept that this is a default for images before 1923, but we still need assurance the image is dated before 1923. Without clear proof, we can't assume its PD, and thus assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you missed my point entirely. Copyright law doesn't say that, Wikipedia says it about copyrightable images and how they are treated, not those ineligible for copyright (which are, by definition, PD). Another license we use is for images that are PD due to the fact that they are not eligible for copyright in the first place. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• We here can agree that something is PD by way of age, for example. It's when we disagree, such as with this logo, that we have to have proof. Even in cases of age, we need to be able to prove how old it is beyond reasonable doubt. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We agree to it because Wikipedia has a concrete line (1923) that we've established because of Copyright law which states images prior to that are PD. By the same token, we have guidance on what trademarked images are ineligible for copyright and which ones are copyrighted. You have provided no rationale against any of the above arguments other than "no, that's not right." This isn't a logical argument, it's just contradiction. Your desire to insert additional requirements in this process is not part of this guidance and is disruptive. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh. As I said before, I will not be baited into this bullshit argument of "You have provided no rationale.." You've been shown multiple times why you are wrong. You disagree. Every time we have a similar debate, you trot out your old arguments again, insisting they are right until proven wrong, but never believe for a second that you could possibly be wrong and insist that everyone play your little game of refuting your argument again, only to have you do this all over again. You want to talk about disruptive? Look at yourself. This behavior of yours is utterly despicable. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of which arguments you two have had before, you need to articulate it again. Many of us were not party to those previous conversations. It may be frustrating that you have to repeat yourself, but it is necessary to reach consensus. We are trying to determine if this image is subject to copyright protection. You need to articulate why this image is copyrightable. I have yet to see an argument from you as to what the "artistic elements at play" in this image are, that arise to more than text and color. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I refuse to be continually baited into these bullshit arguments. Over and over and over again, BQZ uses the tactic of throwing just as much shit at the wall as he can in the hopes that in a new similar argument, something sticks this time. Whether it sticks or not, it still stinks. He knows damn well what the rejections of his stances are, yet demands over and over and over again that people refute him. It's a stupid, silly game, and I won't be party to it anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The "wings" are slab serifs, a standard typographical feature. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with BillTunell. As he has demonstrated, this image is not a copyrighted image. Nor is it eligible for copyright protection as is a mere variations of typographic lettering and coloring. It is a trademarked image and {{PD-textlogo}} is the correct tag. —Ute in DC (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, this thread is really out of hand. Lots of talk, not a lot of authoritative knowledge. We have entered into a discussion on the topic "can a trademark also receive copyright protection" and "is the WV trademark copyrightable", and we're quibbling about slab serifs and frigging wings? You've got to be kidding.

A few observations...

• Bill Tunell says "trademarks by nature do not need licenses." This is patently false (pun intended), witness "official" NFL and MLB logo'd wear, etc. This really throws Mr. Tunell's credibility as "a practicing IP lawyer" under the bus so to speak.

• some have referred to User:Elcobbola/Copyright as some kind of authoritative source on this issue. I find the presentation very unconvincing for various reasons. Going from saying a typeface can't be copyright to saying the IBM logo is the same as a typeface seems really absurd to me, so I don't think User:Elcobbola/Copyright adds any clarity to the discussion.

• Here's something from the Electronic Frontier Foundation at http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP:

Can I use a trademark in my blog's name or in the title of a blog post?

Yes, if it is relevant to the subject of your discussion and does not confuse people into thinking the trademark holder endorses your content. Courts have found that non-misleading use of trademarks in URLs and domain names of critical websites is fair. (Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, URL http://www.compupix.com/ballysucks; Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, domain name www.bosleymedical.com). Companies can get particularly annoyed about these uses because they may make your post appear in search results relating to the company, but that doesn't give them a right to stop you.

Sometimes, you might use a trademark without even knowing someone claims it as a trademark. That is permitted as long as you're not making commercial use in the same category of goods or services for which the trademark applies. Anyone can sell diesel fuel even though one company has trademarked DIESEL for jeans. Only holders of "famous" trademarks, like CocaCola, can stop use in all categories, but even they can't block non-commercial uses of their marks.

• Since the logo in question is a trademark, it seems reasonable that the above applies, and therefore it should be OK to use the logo in a non-commercial context which does not claim endorsement by the mark owner. NOT being an IP attorney, I wonder whether a logo can have both copyright and trademark protection. If the mark can indeed also be protected by copyright, then we have a issue.

Doesn't Wikipedia have any contributors who actually practice in this field of IP law, and who can weigh in on this? 99.48.50.155 (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Proof

What kind of proof do you want that could possibly show this image (or any other image) is ineligible for copyright? — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since this image was made post 1976, a release statement from the copyright holder. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. That assumes that it was copyrighted and no longer is. If it isn't copyrighted, then you'll never get such a statement.
  2. There is no policy or guideline which states this as a requirement. If you want to create such a requirement, please do so. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since 1976, copyrights do not have to be registered. And kindly cut the crap with <parrot>"There's no policy or guideline..." blah blah blah. Enough of the wikilawyering bullshit. You asked a question. I answered it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:IUP Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This image was tagged appropriately: [2]. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine, but I'm answering the question "what policy requires proof of ineligibility for copyright"? As every image needs a license, you needed to add that licenese to show your assertion it fails originality and thus uncopyrightable. You couldn't just post that image without the license and say it's uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I see what you're saying. No worries. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

photo i took of an art exhibition

Hi I took a photo of an art exhibition in the United States. I'd like to upload the photo for the article in wikipedia about the this artist. Do I need permission from the artist or the art gallery (The Met museum, New York)? Thanks. Teine Savaii (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally, yes. If the art is in the public domain, then it's possible it may not, but if it's not in the PD then you'd need permission from the copyright holder, which may or may not be the art gallery. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is the artist? Ty 13:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not the gallery, maybe the artist. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the gallery is the copyright holder, which is possible. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. The artist is Shigeyuki Kihara, I created the page on them. I took the photo of the exhibition at The Met (no people in shot) - later the artist asked me if they could borrow it for a website about their work at the Smithsonian institute, which I said yes to, so I guess they should be ok with me using it for wiki. Its just the question of The Met venue & photos of artist's work that I'm unclear about. Thanks heaps for the feedback too. Mmmm...what do you guys reckon?Teine Savaii (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Shigeyuki Kihara contemporary artist so his work is not in the public domain, you could not use his photographs on wikipedia without explicit copyright release by the copyright holder (likely is Shigeyuki Kihara). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the answer. Much appreciated. Teine Savaii (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This question could actually be more interesting that that. After looking at the page, there is a findlaw article on the copyright status of the work itself. PDBailey (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Colesseum Photo

I have taken a picture from inside the Colesseum which I think it might look good on your page, what is the procedure? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.155.116 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Upload it to Wikimedia Commons then either boldly add it to the article yourself or discuss its addition on the article's talk page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Extent of non-free usage

Do we have any current consensus on the number of articles for which a fair-use rationale can be validly applied? I'm looking at File:FloridaGators.png, and it seems rather excessive, and contrary to the spirit of WP:NFCC policy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good find. US college football team logos have been discussed quite a bit in the past. There has been some disputes, but I think we can all agree that the use of this non-free logo is excessive. I think it's pretty uncontroversial at this point for each individual season article to NOT use the non-free logo. I'd recommend replacing most of these instances with the free "Gators" text logo File:Script ``Gators``.png, or a similar PD-ineligable text-logo. This way, the article is still illustrated, but we are more inline with our non-free content policy. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know that it is non-controversial. There were massive, massive debates over this back last December, extending to February. Everything that was tried failed to reach any cooperative conclusion, with only arbitration left as an option. To Andrwsc, according to WP:NFCC #10c, we need a rationale for each use of the item. Thus, if it's used 170,000 times, we need 170,000 rationales. I don't think the writers of that policy anticipated people attempting to use a fair use item so many times. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  That's what I'm getting at. I think we need to be clearer in NFCC about the number of allowable FURs per image. Ideally, "1" would be the best answer for the project, but I've seen instances where 2 or 3 can be justified. But not dozens! (or 170,000 ;) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the number of times an image is used is less important than strictly and clearly defining how they are to be used. As Hammer mentioned, there are still unresolved issues and WP:NFCC isn't entirely clear. If those can be cleared up, then we can stop future problems like these. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  WP:NFC#3a used to say that an image use should be minimal across both articles and Wikipedia-wide, but the language was removed in belief that it was clear that "minimal use" applied to both articles and Wikipedia-wide space. However, people have taken the lack of a clear statement in that as it now exists to presume that only image use in article space needs to be minimal, not across all WP. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  Well, the arguments will NEVER end unless we either (a) get rid of non-free images entirely (a la the German wikipedia) or (b) allow fair use images as much as possible under law. Though, in the latter cases the arguments will then end up in court. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The arguments will never end because there will always be someone who has questions, is ignorant on the subject, makes a mistake, doesn't understand Wikipedia, doesn't understand the law, etc. It is human nature.
2. Even Wikipedia's attorneys state that there is no chance of us getting sued even if we use non-free images all over the place. We have NFCC to keep us away from the edge though. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Case in point to my statements in the WV logo discussion above. You've already been shown how this argument about "Wikipedia's attorneys state" is an empty argument that has little relevance, yet continue to bring it up as some shining gem proving how you are right and everyone else is wrong. You know damn well why whether or not we'll be sued over something has virtually no relevance. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't an empty argument. It's a statement that we aren't going to get sued over image usage, ergo, your scenarios are exaggerated. There are laws that require a notice to be given to an entity such as Wikipedia that a logo is improper and that we should not be using it. At that point, Wikipedia lawyers could decide whether the lawsuit is worth the hassle and address any issues then. There are not just two extremes (no non-free images or lawsuits), but a middle ground is possible. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do have a question though that I'm curious if it was discussed previously. How would you balanced a goal of minimal used across the entirety of the Wikipedia project with the idea that each Wikipedia article is to have sufficient notability and is to be, ideally, self-contained and stand on its own? Can one assume that the reader of any particular article is on-line and has access to wikipedia.org? For example, an article can be printed out, be part of a Wikibook, and/or may have been included as a limited selection of articles on a CD/DVD-Rom. It would seem that printed and off-line versions must be assumed to exist based on the many provisions in various guidelines and the manual of style that are set up specifically to allow readibility when printed. How does the idea of "article independence" impact a desire by some to limit non-free images across the entire Wikipedia project? CrazyPaco (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the question of whether this usage is excessive, the logo seems to be of no contextual significance in most of those articles (per NFCC 8). There's no need for the logo in an article about the composition of some school's sports team in a particular year—that's just using the logo as decoration. In other words, it is relevant, but it does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" for those articles. It would seem, however, to be legitimate in the main articles about the University and the University's athletic department. TheFeds 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily want to veer off topic, but this also gets into the question of what the purpose is of logos in an infobox. It was my understanding they are present for the purposes of identifying the topic of the articles. If this is the case, the do serve an informative purpose in helping to identify the institution and/or team. I am also assuming there will be readers who may not be completely familiar with college athletics in the United States. For example, how many people do you know choose NCAA tournament picks based on the mascot or logo of the team? I know quite a few, and unfortunately, they sometime do better than me in these tournament pools. Such individuals may better recognize the topic of an article if say, it was about Michigan State as opposed to Michigan, based on the logo of the institution. I therefore believe they do serve important identifying, and thus informational, purposes. In addition, it seems that the goal of Wikipedia is that each article is to stand on its own and have its own notability (see my post above), which would appear to be somewhat in conflict with the idea of restricting logo use in one article because it appears in another. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As ever, use of the logos in articles about the teams is probably OK; elsewhere is probably not. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The image that started this latest round (File:FloridaGators.png) is the official athletic logo of the University of Florida, and as such was used in articles about University of Florida athletic teams, with a valid rationale listed for each usage. Unless non-free logos are banned from wikipedia, there was no problem here.

I also find it intersting that the user who started this conversation linked to it on my talk page as justification for removing the logo in question and replacing it with a secondary UF logo. This renewed argument only illustrates the lack of consensus on the issue. Zeng8r (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 is a two way street: images need to be relevant to the text that accompanies then (the image is dependent on the text), but at the same time, the text needs to have the image to be appropriately clear to the reader (the text is dependent on the image). Combined, this assures that all non-free content on a printed page should be germane to the content, and at the same time complete that content thus allowing the article to stand alone. So if an article has 10 non-free images but each one fully satisfies #8 (and presumably all others beyond #3a), in particular being necessary for understanding the article, then that's "minimal use" per #3a. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg taken from a book cover

The "Permission" section of File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg bares the claim that "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain..."

I have no quarrel with the second claim – according to historians, the portrait was indeed painted in the later half of the sixteenth century. I do have a serious concern about permission to use this particular image, as it is not in fact "a faithful photographic reproduction" of the painting in question, since it has been cropped. More importantly, I have seen this cropping – and color balance – before. After a trip to the bookshelf, I compared the image on File:Vlad Tepes 002.jpg with the photograph of this painting that appears on the cover of Florescu and McNally's Dracula: Prince of Many Faces(copyright 1989 by the authors, published by Little, Brown and Company, ISBN 0-316-28655-9 (hc), ISBN 0-316-28656-7 (pb)).

Although the two are mirror images of one another, they are indeed identical in all other respects. It seems that someone made a high resolution scan of the image from the book's cover, and then the image was digitally reversed back to the orientation of the original painting.

I do not know what the legalities of this are here, but does this seem like copyright infringement to anyone else? BlueCerinthe (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem – if the original painting is PD, and according to US rules photographs of it also remain PD, then merely cropping such a photograph and printing it on a book cover doesn't create a new copyright for the cropped version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! :) Actually, this is a relief to me, since I prefer this cropped and color-corrected version. Also, as it happens, it is the image used on the main article about the subject of that painting.BlueCerinthe (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Image of poster

I found File:District-9_advertising_Canterbury_Tail_25_June_2009.jpg‎ in the District 9 article, and noticed that it had been released under CC-BY-SA. I had some niggling doubts about its copyright status, since it is basically just an image of a poster, but deferred to the judgement of the uploader, and the fact that it is somewhat widely used here. However, when I uploaded a slightly modified version to commons, File:District-9_advertising.jpg, it was drive-by tagged for speedy deletion. Naturally, if that image is deemed to be a copyright violation, then so is the other. I was hoping someone here could provide an explanation why this is not a copyright violation. Thanks, decltype (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the same question about File:Starsuckers.jpg, a poster for UK film Starsuckers. Rd232 ^talk 09:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good questions. As the original author of the D9 image I'd like to know the answer. I took the photo of something freely visible in the streets, however that's where it gets murky. Obviously I at that pointed owned the copyright of the photo as an entity, however the content of the photo is it in such a state of copyright that I can't take a photo of it? Is it any different to people taking photos of products and posting them? If it came to that then a lot of photos need to be removed. Canterbury Tail talk 11:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. It is a derivative work and thus non-free, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be used - it can, if it passes all the criteria in WP:NFCC. Photos of products are slightly different, it depends on the product. Black Kite 12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed File:Starsuckers.jpg to a non-free license, and asked the uploader to send in OTRS or link to the license information on the official website. Hopefully this addresses the concerns on that image. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Which of course rules out it being displayed on userpages and in userboxes, which it currently is. Hopefully its use to illustrate the viral marketing of the film can be NFCC-justified. decltype (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos from Ladakh, India

I bought a few very fine B&W photos taken in Ladakh (a couple of them hand-tinted) in 1981 from an elderly Kashmiri photographer living at that time in Leh, Ladakh. I gather he has since passed away - but I have no idea exactly when. When I bought them from him I was thinking of writing an article and using the photos in it - I mentioned this to him and he seemed very happy with the idea (of course, I said I would give him proper credit for the photos as I always do). However, I never got this in writing - nor did I write the article. I myself am now not that young (and not that well physically) and I would like to make them available in the public domain while I still can. I would like to upload them to Wikimedia Commons and use them in appropriate articles, if possible, so others can enjoy them too (and make it a requirement that they remain properly attributed). However, I have no idea what the laws are that might apply to them. Can you please tell me if this is possible - or, if not, what I might do to make sure they will be available in public when any copyright restrictions might run out? Many thanks in advance, John Hill (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, these images are effectively in a copyrighted state for many decades into the future at least. We don't have access to a specific release from the photographer or his estate that releases the images under a free license. Permission to use, with credit given, is not acceptable on Wikipedia. We accept images either as non-free or free, not permission to use here. What appears in the images? Sorry about your failing health :( --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• When you "bought" the photographs, were you just buying the copies, or additionally the right to reproduce them, or additionally the copyright itself? This depends on how your conversation went...if he sold the right to reprint only in those articles, then any use beyond that would be up to his heirs. But if he sold you all rights to use the photographs as you desire (and you only suggested as an aside that you would publish an article and credit him), then you would seem to own the copyright outright.

  Also, in India, there is a procedure for licencing certain works by petition to the Copyright Office: "Where, in the case of an Indian work referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of section 2 [i.e. the author was an Indian citizen when the work was created], the author is dead or unknown or cannot be traced, or the owner of the copyright in such work cannot be found, any person may apply to the Copyright Board for a licence to publish such work or a translation thereof in any language." (See Section 31A of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, and the Copyright Office website.) You'd have to clarify with the Copyright Office if they would allow it to be published as (for example) CC-BY-SA-3.0, or if they require that their own licence terms be used. Maybe there's an Indian Wikipedia user who might be able to assist with the administrative details? (This could involve publishing a notice in an English-language Indian newspaper, and paying a fee.) TheFeds 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for the detailed and very helpful information. I am in the process of composing a letter to the Registrar of Copyrights in New Delhi to ask him if there is any way the photos can be released and how I might go about getting written permission from the appropriate authority. Many thanks again for your generous help, John Hill (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File appears to violate copyright

I don't know what to do with this except delete it from the public page where it appeared and bring it here. It was taken from a book, uploaded to this link, and the rights given away. Skywriter (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a scan so in what way is is taken from a book?©Geni 00:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a derivative version of commons:File:BlankMap-World-1985.png with countries coloured in and a legend added, so it should have the same licencing as the original. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check: File:Wizard101 Logo.jpg

Hello,

Could I get a review of the use rationale on the above? Thanks in advance. MLauba (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Logo in userbox?

Hi there, I'm just wondering whether I can use the image File:NSW Rural Fire Service.png as a part of a userbox, providing the resolution is extremely low (30px)?

Thanks. JustinSavidge (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• No. Our policy at WP:NFCC #9 prohibits the use of non-free imagery outside of the main article namespace. Userspace usage is not permitted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding fair use

Currently looking at the article for John Mayer's new album Battle Studies and it currently has no album cover. He recently debuted it on his Twitter photo account (which is verified as being him) here: http://twitpic.com/lqtok

Now I know that album covers are permitted at a lower resolution so that they can't be used to replicate the album cover illegally, and I can fill in a good summary on the file page about how it's legal to post it, but the one doubt in my mind is with regards to the source I obtained it from. It's not the official label, it's from, essentially, Twitter (a verified account). Should I just wait until the label releases the image officially before uploading the file, or is it okay for me to do so now? I had a preliminary look and it doesn't appear to be on many sites yet.

Thanks for your help. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think we have to rush things. I'll be released next month. Pick up the album cover then. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sure thing, but is it allowed anyway or not? Just curious. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• One of the criteria under fair use is prior publication by the rights holder. I don't think it's clear this cover has been published yet. So, I'd venture to say that it's not acceptable just yet. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks for your help :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

need attribution for photo in article about stevie ray vaughn

in wiki's article about stevie ray vaughn, the pic on the top right was made by John T. Commerford, and should be attributed to him. John is a noted rock-and-roll photographer,with a valuable portfolio of images. Unhappilly his images have been used many times without credit. Please fix this.

John Kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkkelly47 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On the image's page, File:StevieRayVaughan.jpg, the image is attributed to the irocknroll.com site. Do you know of a site that claims that John T. Commerford did in fact take the picture? --Odie5533 (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

File:82nd WWI insignia.jpg

I came across File:82nd WWI insignia.jpg while researching my own user page. It seems to be taken from a commercial web site without permission. I posted the details of what I found at Talk:82nd Airborne Division (United States).

It seems the three year old image still represents an item for sale at the commercial web site. The web site explicitly reserves its copyright in the page footer (see above Talk page for link). I found no evidence of use permission being asked or granted.

My concern is two-fold:

1. Is a commercial image of a government representation of a logo, badge or patch insignia automatically owned by the Federal Government and not the entity who took the picture of it? (I believe the answer is: No, the entity who took the photo owns the copyright to the image of the representation. See, for example, File:Washington Monument Dusk Jan 2006.jpg. The representation presented in the picture is owned by the Federal Government, but the picture is owned by author David Iliff. Since Iliff licensed his work under a Free license, there's no problem.)
2. Can Wikipedia assign to the Federal Government the copyright of a commercial image (as it seems to on the image page) and fiat it in to the public domain? (I believe the answer is: No, the commercial entity owns the copyright and the Federal Government ownership tag is misleading at best.)

I also proposed nominating the image for a WP:FUR at the above-referenced Talk page, but I'm unclear how to proceed, so I'm asking questions here instead.  :-) Thanks for your input. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The design of the badge is in the public domain as a work of the US government. According to US legal precedent, a simple photograph of a work in the public domain cannot be copyrighted; it, too, is in the public domain. This is a case of either the website asserting copyright where they have no right to do so, or, more likely, their copyright message is only meant to refer to things over which they can legally assert copyright (such as the design of the site). Either way, there's nothing wrong with this image's copyright status. (I'll post this on the talk page as well.) -- Hux (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Media copyright question

Would it be possible to use an image of a non-free album cover on my user page? TechnicolorNightmare 17:22, 18 October 2009 (Australia/Hobart)

Not according to the WP:Fair use policy. Criterion 9 says that non free imeages such as covers can only be used in articles.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Images from Google

If i uploaded a picture that i have taken off of google, how can I find a copyright for that image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The911venom (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Every single image you've uploaded seems to be blatant copyright violations. You can not just find any image of the web and upload it to wikipedia! You have to verify it's source, link to it's source, verify it's copyright the copyright holder released it under, and if you can justify fair use then you are REQUIRED to put in the fair use justification criteria. You must follow the guidelines in our Image use policy to the letter. All the images you've uploaded have been tagged for deletion. In the future I HIGHLY recommend you don't violate copyright or you might get banned. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What i guess you didn't understand is that iam trying to ask as to how i can verify it's source, link to it's source, verify it's copyright the copyright holder released it under, and how I can justify fair use. So if you can help me that would be great, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The911venom (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright holders that released their images under a compatible free license for wikipedia/commons that license is clearly visible for the image. For example this image at mushroomobserver.org is clearly licensed as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, and this image at flickr.com is clearly licensed as {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. Images found on websites that do not EXPLICITLY list the license for the image with the image or as an overall license for all content on the website you assume is NOT released under a free license. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For fair use you need to read that page carefully, wikipedia only allows very specific types of images to be used under fair use. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay so any image i upload from flickr.com is good and if it is how can i get the right copyright for it.The911venom (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No only freely licensed images, flickr allows you to license images that are not free (and can't be used here). For directions on how to upload Flickr images: Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No all flickr images are not good; only those that are clearly licenced as free can be uploaded to this wiki. Also, in general, fair use is not permitted for images of living people, because they fail one of the the most basis requirement of fair-use; they are replaceable with a free image. So, the images you uploaded cannot be claimed under a fair-use justification. Please refer to non-free content criteria. Just go out and take photos yourself and release then with a free licence, don't steal other people's images. ww2censor (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay i think i got the hang of it i have posted 2 images i think that they are good, but one more question if an image says "all rights reserved" does that means i can't upload it to wikipedia common then to add to a bio. By that i mean if i upload a image of vince carter from flickr.com that says "all rights reserved", can i add that to his wikipedia bio page or would that be delete.68.151.8.97 (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)the911venom68.151.8.97 (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clock Question

To whom it may concern:

Bsck in 1993 I was given a hand made clock with two cards (A and J)on the left, in the middle is the clock (with the back ground a 12 noon heart, 3 o'clock club, 6 o'clock diamond & a 9 o'clock spand symbols), and the top right side is a red chip with a very large 'B' and around the B is the words; ROULETTE, top and bottom. On the bottom of the right side ia a red book of matches that reads: HOLIDAY CASINO, ON THE STRIP, BETWEEN SANDS & FLAMINGO HOTELS, address is as follows: 3473 LAS VEGAS BLVD, SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89109 (all lettering is in white caps). The frame is AROUND: 2" wide (all around), with a clear glass front.

I have looked all over the internet to see if I could find any item and or casino that even came close to this hanging item, I did come very close to finding a casino on the strip in Las Vegas, which made me fill pretty good. I also found a little info that Holiday Inn bought the Holidy Casino out around the early 70's.

Could you please help me find out some info on this item. I thought that maybe a collector or someone would be insterested in buying it.

I just want to say thank you for your help either way.

Bess Wilkins trouble2uall5@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.134.33 (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Malin Akerman photo appears to violate copyright of Cafe.se online magazine

The file File:Malin Akerman portrait.jpg appears to violate copyright of Cafe.se online magazine. The media description says it was uploaded from Flickr, but the description on Flickr said "... more at Cafe.se... " (paraphrase).

Doesn't this mean the image was lifted from the copyright holder and then posted at Flickr? That would make any claim of rights by the Flickr poster irrelevant as they do not own the image.

The original image, with the magazine's watermark intact, is at http://www.cafe.se/public/templates/v3bildspel.aspx?id=3365&fid=2219&level=4 It's not clear to me who actually owns the copyright on the image, since the Cafe website does not give attribution or copyright details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.50.155 (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely looks like copyright violation to me. But since the name of the photo stream is "Magazine Café" it's POSSIBLE that that flickr account is the official account for Cafe.se and they are releasing those images under those licences. Hard to say for sure, but it's suspicious. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 11:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"This is a commons image, so you would need to ask over there. The original uploaded image had the watermark which was removed. This image might well be OK. ww2censor (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Assuming that Flickr account is Cafe Magazine's official stream, then it looks OK. Has a CC licence. Black Kite 17:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Coat of Arms Images

I have a question. On various coat of arm images of Canadian provinces, many of them were granted more than 50 years ago, but augmented in the 1990/1980s. Would this put them into the {{PD-Old)), because they were granted more than 50 years ago, or is copyright status renewed when augmented? Connormah (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a similar discussion that might be relevant here regarding the Canadian coat of arms shield. It's been unresolved for quite a while. TheFeds 15:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Coats of arms protection is usually 1) not misattributing it, or using to suggest something other than was intended (unlimited) and 2) copyright on the image itself. If the image has been changed since 1950, then the image is under copyright, I think, depending on the Canadian interpretation of originality. Subject to condition 1) which is specific to registered coats of arms (before 1950 would by registered at the College of Arms), then it's just a normal image, I believe. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 15:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add our tournament logo to my page

Please tell me how I can upload a logo or a picture for my page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vancouverrob12 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You can only use freely licensed images/logos/art to your user page. What tournament logo are you referring too? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Integrated National Police logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatles eric (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you responding with another account than what you originally posted on, Vancouverrob12 and Beatles eric, both scream bot created user names to me. As for a logo, even the wikipedia page doesn't have a logo for them, see Integrated National Police. Not sure of the legal copyright on a logo of that organization though. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)