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)

Photographs for use in article George Brain

I have 3 photos that I would like to upload for use in this article. The first one is a photo that I inherited as a personal family photograph taken by my parents File:George W Brain with grandson Stephen circa 1964.jpg The second and third photos are photos that once again I inherited as orginals but am unsure of their origin. File:Billy Hughes and George W Brain.jpg The third photo was orginally in a newspaper (unknown)and I would feel is a historical fair use image. File:Hats off to Billy Hughes.jpg

File:BennelongCampaign.jpg

This image is likely a copyright violation, as the original portrait photo on the depicted poster is assumed to be copyrighted (if not proven otherwise) and as the photo of the poster is very unlikely to be covered by freedom of panorama-law of Australia[1] (no permanent display). --Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Press photo of NZLAV

File:Napier tank.jpg was uploaded with a FUR, and as the image description says it comes from a Stuff.co.nz article (photo gallery, #19) which credits ROBERT KITCHIN/Dominion Post. There is a free photo of an NZLAV File:QAMR vehicle.JPG also. I'd like to ask if Napier tank should be deleted. XLerate (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think that Siege of Napier Hill is OK with a picture of a similar tank then delete, otherwise the FUR indicates that the fair use picture is of the actual tank used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. XLerate (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I upload a picture to a Wikipedia article?

How do I upload a picture to a Wikipedia article that I have written?

It is a picture that I have taken myself, I own the copyright, and I release it to the public domain, when I post it in the article.

I am a novice, so I need to be walked through the upload process, step by step, and don't assume I know something. I need to know each and every step to do it.

Thanks!

Csneed (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

read Wikipedia:Uploading images, for your purpose start at Commons:upload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Alice Eve Needs an Image

• alice-eve.jpg Alice Eve

  Anyone know what the license/copyright status of this image is? 01:26, 26 April 2010 User:71.228.122.58

Because it is a directory called uploads, with heaps of other miscellaneous images, it would not be owned by the web site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The image also appears at http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2010/03/12/shes_out_of_my_leagues_alice_eve_prove which also explains the circumstances of it. It also states: "Photo Credits: PRN / PR Photos". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Rnc-logo.png

Hi. I've recently nominated the article Royal National College for the Blind for FAC and have been told that the fair use rational for the logo used in the aricle is valid but not quite right. I've had a look at WP:FURG but am still not sure how to correct this. Can someone help? Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Using the logo rationale template Template:Logo fur may help you. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll take a look at this a bit later on, at a more sensible hour. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I made the original review comment and am sorry if I was unclear. One of the other FAC comments was that it might not pass the threshold of originality and should be tagged {{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademark}}. It's a good question, actually, one I am curious to know the answer to myself. Any expert opinions? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now updated the template but would be grateful if someone would take a look at it for me. It seems to be repeating one or two things in the infobox. Not sure about the other stuff. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Swa 1andahalfd1937stamp.jpg

I have uploaded this file (Swa 1andahalfd1937stamp.jpg) but seem to have had trouble with getting the copyright tagging correct. I am sorry. I could not see the proper way to do this. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

It seems OK now (Msrasnw (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Film stills (publicity stills)

Can movie stills be uploaded using the "screenshot" fair-use licence, or a similar fair-use licence, to illustrate an article on a film?

Strictly speaking, publicity stills do not appear to be covered by the screenshot upload wording. Stills, at least for older movies, were taken by a stills photographer on the set, before or after the movie camera had filmed the scene; in other words, no publicity still from the older era of film making actually represents an image that appears in the movie itself.

So, can stills be uploaded under a fair-use licence, and if so, which one? --JN466 17:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the origins of publicity stills, although I think the category Screenshots covers both screencaps and screenshots created the old fashioned way. There is a tag specifically for publicity shots {{Non-free promotional}}, so if the still was used in general publicity for the film, that would also cover it I think. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Looking at it, I'd be inclined to use the "non-free promotional" license for a historic publicity still. --JN466 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bhaurao Patil

I wanted an image for article Bhaurao Patil. He was an educationist in India who founded several schools and colleges. I could find no free image for the article, but there are a few which I got in a google search. The image at [2] would really be helpful for the article. This image appears on a website of one of the colleges he founded. Can we use that image on this Wikipedia; If yes, what would be the license? I have autoreviewer rights on Wikipedia, but frankly I am not that comfortable with uploading images. So rather than uploading the image in hurry and then getting it deleted by someone else, I felt it prudent to ask someone for help. Thanks. Shivashree (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if there's no free licence and if you can't determine whether the image is still under copyright (roughly speaking, a 60-year term for India), we can't use it. If you want, you could contact the website's owner, and refer them to WP:CONSENT, where they can find instructions for giving permission to use the image (if they own the copyright). Also, if there's a way to demonstrate that this is a particularly significant picture, and isn't replaceable, there might be room to use it under fair use (see WP:NFCC). TheFeds 05:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Old photos and posting on behalf of others

My local History Society have collected a significant number of very old photos of our village. The people who took the photos are either dead, or unidentifiable (and probably both in 99% of cases!) We would like to put them on Wikimedia, but none of the licence conditions seem to fit the bill

For a few, the photographer is alive, and happy for the photos to be placed on their behalf (but have no computer skills of their own), but Wikimedia doesn't seem to allow for that either. Any advice gratefully received. Sammy_r (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Where the photographer is alive, get them to write you a letter stating that they release whichever image under whichever license they deem appropriate, including their name, address and dated signature. Take a scan of that and email it to OTRS - it should function just as well.

Where the photographer is deceased, you have a problem, as copyright persists for 70 years (in the UK) after the photographer's death, and the rights pass to their next of kin, or as assigned in a will. If the next of kin is known, they could be asked for permission.

Where none of these apply, you may not upload the image to Commons (as it must be free) but you could upload to Wikipedia if it meets the non free content requirements. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a third option. Judging from Sam's message, these are probably (in their majority) anonymous unpublished photographs and, in this case, the copyright terms starts from the date they were created not the author's date of death. We also need to know which country we're dealing with, as copyright laws vary A LOT! Physchim62 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean that (in the UK) for photos that are clearly taken over 70 years ago, we can post them to Wikimedia (or Wikipedia)? If so, which category do we use? Sammy_r (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answers. Hate to sound dim, but what is OTRS? By the way, we're dealing with the UK. Sammy_r (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The OTRS is Wikipedia:Volunteer response team. (you mean you are not familiar with every combination of alphabet soup letters that are Wikipedia abbreviations???? ;) Active Banana (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Screencaps from C-SPAN?

The C-SPAN copyright page http://cspan.org/About/Copyright.aspx says that coverage of legislative hearings is in the public domain, as it's a creation of the Federal government. This suggests that a screencap of a headshot of a witness who's testifying may well be free to use. Would this be acceptable to Wikipedia?

SJFriedl (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak for the project, but it's acceptable to me. It would be public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's my understanding too, so long as it's screenshot from the government-produced video and not C-SPAN's video (which restricts the reuse to non-commercial, and so would fall under WP:NFCC). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Too high resolution of copyright image?

File:PBBTeenClash.jpg There is a disagreement about which version of this image to use, and I dont particularly have an opinion about which one, but one of the arguments the uploader has stated for using the current image is that it is an "HD image and much clearer" than the other. This seems to violate the Fair use guidelines that we should be using a low res version of copyright images. Anyone care to step in and/or create an appropriate resolution image? Active Banana (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

using public domain pictures of senators and house members?

I'm working on a project I need to finalize tomorrow, filing for a copyright, using images of senators and house members that are public domain, is it ok for me to use these pictures? I am using them for a editoral type product, but do plan to make money off it, can I do this? If I can only charge for my cost of the product, I could charge for shipping and handling to make up the difference. What about right to privacy? Didn't they forfit that as long as I do not use personal information only public information?

Candie

You are free to use any public domain photos for any purpose. I don't think we can advise you as to the right of privacy stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with explaining non-revocability of CC licenses?

I've just declined several requested speedy deletions (example) of GFDL/CC-by-sa images, all by the same user. At each of these images, the uploader added (months after upload) a notice of "don't use this except at Wikipedia", and months after that, s/he added a speedy tag with "No longer free. Now copyrighted." as the reason. I see this as a blatant attempt to revoke the licenses; accordingly, I'd like to explain to the uploader that they're nonrevocable, but I'm not sure where to start. Advice on how to proceed, please? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There's an essay that might help: Wikipedia:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted. (I didn't know it existed either!) TheFeds 05:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

don't understand

Hello,

Please help me. I received this:

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

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

How to add a copyright tag to the image description page? When I click on 'copyright tag' it tells me what is copyright tag but doesn't give instructions on how to add a copyright tag.

How to specify a file's license and source of the file and tag it? I click on the 'link' and it brings me to a page which requires me to enter logs, from year and month, and tag filter. I don't understand what is required of me. I just want to put an image up. I created it.

Please help. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliphang (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your questions appear to be answered at the top of this page where it says: How to add a copyright tag to an existing image. Follow the steps listed there. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper Image Copyright

I'm in the process of botching up an article, that could benefit from a couple of images (of people involved) which appeared in various newspapers covering the story back in the late 60's. Problem is, none of these newspapers (I assume) will actually hold the copyright, or do they ALL hold copyright? They are most likely family pictures / college yearbook pictures, so I imagine that the families might retain copyright? Given that they were published in so many places, does that make them public domain? If not, which is the recommended license to apply? Fair use seems the only option at the moment, but I am wondering, since they were so widely available at the time, whether some other rule may apply?

Any guidance gratefully received. Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(This question added here by Chzz (talk · contribs), pasted from {{helpme}} question User talk:Haruth#Help Request Newspaper Image Copyright  Chzz  ►  14:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

It sounds like the newspapers or the families (or yearbook photographer or the like) would hold the copyrights. Being republished many times doesn't make them public domain I'm afraid, so fair use if they fall under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria would be the way to go. Keep in mind that if the subjects of the pictures are still living fair use is usually a tough sell. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice VernoWhitney. The subjects were killed in the events described in the article, which is why they were all over the newspapers. Can you clarify for me how their death makes Fair Use easier? I've read the copyright pages so many times, but I'm still really not clear on the difference (I'm a slow learner...;-)). Chances are that I might not even use the images at the moment - plenty of the reference links contain them, and the images won't actually be discussed - just one of these instances where an image says a thousand words. Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy lists 10 criteria which every image must meet in order to qualify for fair use. In particular, #1 "No free equivalent" is easier if the subjects are dead, since you clearly can't take a new free picture of them. The key "make-or-break" criterion for most fair use images is #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Obviously this part is subjective, and I know it's generally accepted to use fair-use pictures in bios of deceased people, but I honestly don't know about an event article. If you want a second opinion (since I don't really have one), maybe someone else hanging around here can give you more guidance on whether or not your use would pass the bar of contextual significance. Hope that helps. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks VernoWhitney. Certainly helped get my head round the policy. The images aren't essential in comprehending the article (I just like lots of pictures in my reading material... ;-)), and will be available via the references section links anyway. I have marked you as copyright guru #1, and may visit you often...lol Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Image owner asked me to upload this image

What is the correct permission to use to upload an image of a building, possibly historically significant, when the image owner, who is also the building owner, asked me to upload it?Svanslyck (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure the building owner holds the copyright to the image? Did the building owner take the photo themselves? The reason I ask is that, by default, the copyright holder of a photograph usually belongs to the photographer (even if the photographer was paid to take the photo). Contact the copyright holder (probably the photographer) and follow the directions at WP:PERMISSIONS in order to document that they are willing to to license the image under terms that allow anyone the rights of modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. —RP88 21:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. And thanks for the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.96.176 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Porcine and pericardial valves.jpg

I appear to have made a real mess of providing information for this file, and all the other images I have uploaded! This file was created by me for use in the article I am developing, I believe I am therefore the copyright holder. The photo is from my personal collection and I wanted to use it to illustrate my article. I obviously allow use of this image by anyone using wikipedia under the creative commons share alike licence. Please can you help me with this?Jflatarget (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just from a quick look at that file and some of your others, it looks like you scanned pictures/charts in a book, which means you aren't the copyright holder, most likely the book publisher is. In this case, each of the pictures needs to meet the standards laid out by Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria in order to be included. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help you, but just like VernoWhitney, I too got the impression that the underlying image did not originate with you. To help identify the copyright status of the image, could you provide the exact details of how you made this image. Is it a scan of a photo or an illustration? If it is a scan of photo, who took the photo, etc. —RP88 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Flickr question

I found this photo on Flickr and I know I can use it here, but I'm wondering if I'm allowed to crop it, to center on the ship, before uploading it? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That image is licensed under the cc-by-sa 2.0 license, so you're allowed to modify it. However, it's generally considered best practice to upload the both the original, unmodified image, as well as your modified image and then in the image description of both images reference the other image as an alternate version (see Help:File page). Also, it's probably best to upload appropriately licensed images to Commons, that way the images can be used on more than the English language wikipedia. If you don't have a Commons account, see Commons:First steps for more help. —RP88 22:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots, are they acceptable?

I once attempted to upload a photo of a musician onstage to Wikimedia Commons. It was no different than many other concert performance photos I'd successfully uploaded and placed in en.Wikipedia. However, that particular photo, because the photographer was too far from the stage, was taken by shooting the performer's image from the large screen to the side of the stage. For this reason, the photo I was trying to add to Commons was denied. I thought that was bizarre and incorrect, but.. there, unlike in the Wikipedia, often it's hard to tell who is blocking the image, and what's going on! So here is my question: I found this photo, (among many) recently uploaded only to Wikipedia, but with either a Creative Commons license requesting attribution, or one releasing it as a free image to the public: File:Luismiguelvivo6.jpg. Is the image acceptable? If so, should it be moved to Commons, or does it need a "fair use" explanation, given my past experience? Thanks- if anyone can reply to my talk page, I'd appreciate it, but if not, that's understandable. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably because, if I understand correctly, the other images were uploaded by their photographers (i.e. copyright holders) and you do not hold the copyright on the film the screenshot is taken from, so cannot grant a license on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Twenty20cuplogo2.png

Is this really free? It's a copyrighted image of the ECB surely, as it is the logo for the competition? Even if the uploader works for the company that made it the ECB surely owns it. It should be non-free rationale surely? SGGH ^ping! 21:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you suspect that an image has been inappropriately claimed under a free license, you should follow the procedure at WP:PUI. More generally, the complete set of steps to follow if you suspect a file uploaded to WP is a copyright violation is documented at WP:FFD. In the case of File:Twenty20cuplogo2.png, a quick search turned up this higher resolution version of the image. In the higher-res version you can see that the "smudge" arround the upper left corner of the logo in the original image is actually the words "© 2003 ECB TM". I suppose it's theoretically possible that the original uploader did, in fact, create the image and has obtained ECB's permission to CC license it, but I highly doubt it. I'll handle the steps of listing it at WP:PUI as well as the appropriate notifications. —RP88 23:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I shall know for the future. SGGH ^ping! 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

uploaded picture of my father

Greetings,

I am not sure what the copyright information is regarding a self-portrait photograph of my father (deceased in 2005), of which I own a print copy, given to me by my father in the early 1970s, and which I scanned then uploaded to his page on Wikipedia.

My father bequeathed all personal objects to my brother, but I own this photograph. Does that make me the copyright holder? If so, how do I prove it to the satisfaction of Wikipedia authorities?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigony (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Which country are you in, this will determine the appropriate law. The intellectual property rights will be inherited also. Is Wikipedia the first publication ever of the picture? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Explain on the image page that you are the copyright holder, and why, and what kind of license that you want to release the image under - eg CC-BY-SA-3.0 and specify the attribution required, perhaps "Whitall N. Perry". There needs to be a free license granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How to change the picture of the article?

Hello, I´d like to know how to change the main picture of the article? Caused I was seeing Garrincha´s article and thought there was a better picture for it. Thanks. Marcos H. Ary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoshary (talk • contribs) 02:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question doesn't appear to be related to copyright, nonetheless I can give a couple of quick pointer (maybe someone else can direct you to resources for new users). You can find a series of links to articles and tutorials on how to work with images at Help:Contents/Images_and_media. In particular you may wish to look at the help page for uploading images and the help page for how to insert and use images in Wikipedia articles. —RP88 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Exceptionally low res images

Hi, User:Gufcfan has been uploading low resolution images [here] the overwhelming majority are derived from non-free copyrighted works eg File:UCD_Dublin.png becomes File:Ucd_crest.png. My gut instinct is that these new images are derived non-free images, however I was wondering is there a threshold at which this method works? Fasach Nua (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, merely reducing the resolution of an image does not convert a non-free image into a free image, at best it's part of a rationale for including a non-free image on WP. —RP88 06:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Want to use images and historical that are in the public domain to create e-books.

Wikipedia is a great source of images and many of them are in the public domain. What I want to know is if I can use them to create a series of e-book for commercial use. Can you provide me with clear instructions so as to proceed correctly? Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.68.210 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Ask a lawyer. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Stifle's response was terse, but entirely correct. Nobody here is in a position to provide you with legal advice on how to comply with copyright issues related to your commercial venture. However, hope is not lost. Wikipedia has a sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. Commons is explicitly a collection of reusable media. Commons maintains a page of instructions intended for those who wish to reuse material (text and/or graphics) from the Commons. Not all images on Wikipedia are available via Commons, but those that are have received additional vetting to make sure that they are available for a wide variety of uses, including commercial use. —RP88 18:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of South West African Stamps (1985)?

Does anyone know the Copyright Status of South West African Stamps issued in 1985. "In 1971, acting on a request for advisory opinion from the United Nations Security Council, the ICJ ruled that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and that South Africa was under an obligation to withdraw from Namibia immediately. It also ruled that all member states of the United Nations were under an obligation to recognize the invalidity of any act performed by South Africa on behalf of Namibia". Would the stamps issued by the South African "puppet regime" thus be free of copyright? The territory became the independent Republic of Namibia on 21 March 1990. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

I doubt it. While the stamps may not be considered valid someone will hold the copyright. It might be argued that the copyright transfer from the initial artist be considered invalid but that gets messy.©Geni 00:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Msrasnw, it looks like you got some pretty good answers to your question last month when you asked it over at Commons. Have you looked at those responses? They look pretty good, and put forth a good argument that South West African stamps issued in 1985 are copyrighted for at least 50 years. If you are looking for something more, you might consider contacting Namibia Post Philatelic Services. They might be able to confirm if, or if not, a transfer of government-held copyrights for already-issued stamps from South Africa to Nambia occurred during the transition. —RP88 00:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks - I contacted South African post a couple of weeks ago and they referred me to namib post - they have forwarded my request to their legal department (all very efficient) - but the legal department have not replied yet. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

I don't think the fact that the UN repeatedly voted to demand South Africa leave Namibia affects the validity of SWA's stamps or the copyright on same. They were surely accepted by the Universal Postal Union and its members. I would suggest, in addition to the above suggestions, contacting a newspaper in Windhoek and see if they can shed some light on the matter through their knowledge of copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

'

Correct process for images given to me for free use with attribution

I just received a number of pictures that I would like to upload for use in various articles. The photographer sent me some pictures in the past - I uploaded them, selected the "It is from somewhere else" option, then selected the OTRS pending and asked him to send in an email confirming the CC-BY 3.0 license. He did so, but received a message back that it wasn't necessary as he has taken the pictures. I don't quite follow that answer, but now I have a half a dozen more, and want to be clear whether I should ask him to send an email for each one. Can I create an email listing all the files? Can I get him to send an email that says any file created by him and uploaded by me is fine? He has said that a couple times, and I'd like to minimize the work for him as well as the OTRS volunteers.--SPhilbrickT 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Issue with a logo for an organization that is no longer in existence

I just got a notification that a logo that I have uploaded (Multi-Image_AMI_logo.png) is slated to be pulled due to "This file does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted after Tuesday, 11 May 2010. Please remove this template if a copyright license tag has been added. "

I have been doing a diligent search since January for the association, it no longer exists and I have not found any records as to who owns the logo other than the organization - which is of course is no more.

I would like to see someone out there who was responsible for the AMI organization assist by pitching in with editing or contributing, but the entry, multi-image is not out or released yet (maybe next week?)

In the meantime is there a way to provide a tag that covers this temporary status? Or should I submit the information in a somewhat different ,manner so it can be approved, and when it is live, someone who does know something about it can respond with better copyright information?

I just want to do this right, the use of the logo might be a way to attract past members or better, past officers of the association so they can contribute.

Thanks