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)

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)

I can't see any argument for saying these stamps are in the public domain. Let's take section 5 of the (South African) Copyright Act 98 of 1978, which applied in South West Africa and which carried over into Nambian law at independence:

(2) Copyright shall be conferred by this section on every work which is eligible for copyright and which is made by or under the direction or control of the state or such international organizations as may be prescribed.

(6) Copyright which vests in the state shall for administrative purposes be deemed to vest in such officer in the public service as may be designated by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

Current Namibian law is identical except for the numbering of the subsections. Implementing and maintaining a system of copyright law is not an "act performed by South Africa on behalf of Namibia"; it is the internal administration of the territory, which South Africa was obliged to undertake as the de facto occupying power. Simply because a government is illegitimate (for a given territory) does not mean that all its acts are illegitimate. Physchim62 (talk) 16:14, 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)

OTRS probably got confused, thinking he was the uploader. As specified at WP:PERMISSIONS, in the case where an editor uploads content to which they do not hold the copyright, the uploader generally contacts the copyright holder, obtains either written or e-mail confirmation granting permission, and forwards the permission to OTRS. OTRS generally doesn't expect to hear directly from the copyright holder, since generally if a copyright holder is technically savvy enough to figure out how to correspond with OTRS, they could have just uploaded the image themselves and avoided the OTRS queue. Maybe you can just have him send you a single a consent letter that separately describes each of the files along with a statement that he agrees to publish all of them under one of the free licenses (pick one he is comfortable with). If he does so, compose a message for OTRS containing your request for permission, his response, and the proposed Wikipedia link for each of the images to which he grants permission. You can them upload the files, forward the message to OTRS, and then mark all of the files with {{OTRS pending}}. —RP88 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, that probably makes sense. The irony is that he wasn't really savvy enough to send it himself, I had to call him and walk it through step by step. I like the suggestion, I'll get him to send me the e-mail and I will forward it. Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 19:02, 4 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tranquitas (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The safest thing to do would be to assume that someone holds the copyright (whether they know it or not) and just label the image appropriately to the best of your knowledge, assuming of course that it meets the requirements laid out in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. This would also involve tagging it with {{Non-free logo}} and {{Non-free use rationale}} (filled out of course). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Painting 250ish years old

I've just recieevd a copyright notice about the picture of Ralph Allen at File:Ralphallen.jpg which must be 250ish years old, which was also used on Bath Daily Photos & they uploaded to Flikr. I've put some text onto the image explaining but I am unsure what tags to use.— Rod ^talk 06:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a reproduction of a mezzotint made by John Faber Jr (1695-1756). It's probably a scan of a reproduction of the mezzotint that appeared in some book, but I can't track down which one. John Faber Jr made the mezzotint in 1754, but he was copying a portrait by Thomas Hudson (1701-1779). I'll clean up the sourcing and copyright for the image. —RP88 19:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.— Rod ^talk 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Election Commission of India copyright

Election Commission of India copyright page claims: Information on this Website is protected by Copyright. However, since this information has been put in public domain, it may be quoted in print/electronic/other media subject to the condition that the source "Election Commission of India Website "http://eci.nic.in " is clearly acknowledged.

So what is the usability status of the site for Wikipedia? feydey (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Play it safe and contact them for a direct answer (and have them forward it to OTRS via the WP:CONSENT procedure if it's a yes). I suspect that the writer of that page had a different meaning of "public domain" in mind than we do—it may not have a well-defined meaning in Indian law. Given that it asserts copyright, you should probably avoid using it except if quoting with attribution as directed. (I'd say that disclaimer removes any limitation—e.g. through fair use—on the amount of text quoted.) TheFeds 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that opinion and assume that it's copyrighted unless they specifically tell you otherwise. And given that as far as I know Indian copyright law is based on Crown copyright, I'm not optimistic. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would assume they refer to the election data being in PD, how about the images there (like File:Cecofindia NBC.jpg)? feydey (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The election data is PD under the idea-expression dichotomy (Art. 9.2 TRIPS, to which India is a signatory). The Election Commission would hold copyright over any original expression of that data. I doubt it holds the copyright to images such as the one you mention: I suspect it is using them by permission, and the copyright is held by the original photographer (perhaps assigned to the person who ordered the photograph). Physchim62 (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

1978-89 publication

Works published between 1987 and 1989 are in the public domain only if their copyright wasn't registered within 5 years, correct? Therefore, is this booklet in the public domain since I can't find evidence of any copyright notice? I'd like to use its pictures in the Benet Academy article. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, works first published in the U.S., with a date of publication between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice, and without subsequent copyright registration within 5 years are in the public domain in the U.S. due to failure to comply with required U.S. formalities. Such images should be tagged with the {{PD-US-1989}} copyright tag. You can do an online search of the U.S. copyright archives for registrations and renewals that occured on or after January 1, 1978 at the U.S. Copyright Office's Public Copyright Catalog. —RP88 03:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

copyrights on articles

If I want to use texts from wikipedia on my own websites, what do I have to do to make sure that I do not violate any copyrights? Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the answer to my question myself. Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a file

I want to upload a file to correspond to an article I created. The file is associated with the article in that it is the log for the orginization. How do I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwstapp (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Upload it to Wikimedia commons. See the left box for upload. Then use the link to the file in Wikimedia commons in your article. Wereldburger758 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding non-free content

I asked this on File talk:Brettina cover portrait.jpeg before I saw the pointer to direct such questions to this page:

Although I've done occasional Wikipedia edits for a long time, adding non-free content is new to me. If I've under-documented this image, please help guide me through the process of getting it right. If I've over-documented the image, also please let me know so I don't overdo it if I add non-free content in the future. If I got it right, letting me know that would be useful feedback too. Thanks.

Thanks in advance for the requested feedback. —Steve Schonberger (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm inclined to say that you've mostly documented the image well, but it fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria as it is currently being used. The part I think documentation could be improved is whether it's the entire album cover or just part of it (the dimensions don't look like a cd cover to me), and this leads into the fair use criteria I'll get into next. As far as it being her biography photo (which is how it is presently being used), I feel that it fails criteria #1: No free equivalent and #8 Contextual significance. As you indicated on the file's page, free images exist of the subject and this particular image is no more helpful to her biography than a free image would be, It may be usable for her album section (and article, whenever it gets split out) if it's the entire cover art since no free equivalent of her album cover would exist and then it would have contextual significance, but not as her primary biography image. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The file is the portrait that was used on the CD cover, but the cover image was cropped more tightly, from just below her chin to just above her hairline, and narrower on the sides too. To illustrate the CD, I could re-crop it to match the CD cover, and even paste in the title text (just her name in blue-gray next to her chin) to approximately replicate the cover, or just photograph the cover (since my scanner driver is dead).

Although free images of Brettina exist, I would prefer to use one she approves; I know her and don't want to annoy her by using a picture she doesn't like. But if I can find a suitable image – or someone else provides one – that would probably be the best fit for the infobox image.

Assuming the infobox image is replaced with something else, would it be appropriate to move this image (either as-is, re-cropped to replicate the CD cover image, or a photo of the cover) to the discography section, to the right of the one CD listed there?

I'm still learning about this part of Wikipedia editing; thanks for the guidance. —Steve Schonberger (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as the picture for the infobox, if she approves of this one enough, perhaps she would be willing to license it so that it would be a free image (there are instructions available at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). If she's not willing to do that, then her opinion as far as the image doesn't really matter as far as our fair use policy goes, and it should still be replaced by one that is free. As far as the discography section, I see no reason that there couldn't be a picture there (at least until the album gets its own article), but ideally it should be a scan or photograph of the actual cover (or similar found at an online store or the like); it should not be recreated to replicate the cover art, it should be the cover art, otherwise it fails criteria #4 "Previous publication" of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I hope that clears things up some more. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a tolerable picture of Brettina that I took myself, for article's infobox. If I find a better one I'll replace it.

I photographed the actual cover, and retouched only to the extent necessary to remove scuff marks on the surface, and white-balance and contrast-adjust it. I placed that in the discography.

That seems to match with the rules, as long as I got the photo tags right. The templates helped with that. Do I have everything right now? —Steve Schonberger (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free logo

I want to follow the non-free use rationale that several other non profits have used for uploading their logos. This is what I am trying to do and have seen their descriptor pages for their logos; I am just not sure how to do the same thing.Cwstapp (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you're talking about File:Climb 72dpi.jpg, it looks pretty good, just a couple of issues I see:

1. The source should preferably list an actual webpage or other specific place the image was taken from, not the entire organization.
2. You should add {{non-free logo}} to the image page also, so that its copyright status is clear.

Other than those nitpicks, it looks good. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag problems

I have copied some film star images from 1932 and 1938 British movie magazines. There are no signs of authorship. I used the "PD-EU-no author disclosure" tag as they are over 70 years old but "ESkog" doesn't think it is the right tag. I have been unable to find any alternatives that might fit so I can get on with filling in a fair number of such images missing from the wikipedia.

Also I got a screen shot from the 1950's American "Life of Riley" TV show, which the Internet Archive site (which is fussy over copyright) says is a public domain TV show. I have no idea which tag is appropiate for it. Can you help? (Cyberia3 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Regarding "Life of Riley" - some collections on the Internet Archive may be fussy over copyright, but not all of them seem to be. The Life of Riley videos don't give any justification for their public domain claim. I checked a couple episodes there, "Riley's Separation" & "Riley's Anniversary"; they have the necessary copyright notices at the end of the credits, and searching copyright.gov's database yields renewal registrations for those episodes (and many others). So it's doubtful that the videos really are PD. --dave pape (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been extremely difficult to find anything relevant on the web. I did find this:

"It is also legal to download TV shows when the copyright owners have released material for free distribution. This is sometimes the case with older series’ that have long been internationally licensed and have no further distribution value."

http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-legal-to-download-tv-shows.htm

What distribution value has a 60 year old (1949) B&W show in today's HD-TV world? (Cyberia3 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Distribution value isn't the key part to take out of your quote (although the answer is in selling DVD sets and rebroadcasting the show for people who like classics). The key part is "when the copyright owners have released material for free distribution". In other words, it must have entered the public domain, either by the owners not renewing the copyright or by explicitly releasing it. Continuing what Davepape said, if they have copyright notices and renewals, it's highly unlikely that they're public domain. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Random music question

My choir would like to perform Bach's Magnificat, but we are concerned about copying the music and performing it from the copies. Please advise. May 5, 2010

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.121.112 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This forum is for questions regarding the use of images on Wikipedia, we cannot give legal advice here. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with VernoWhitney, we can't help give you legal advice on what you can do with the score you have in your possession. However, I can direct you to where you can obtain a public domain score that you can copy or otherwise use as you like. The International Music Score Library Project has downloadable public domain music scores in its online Petrucci Music Library that are free for any use. You can download several different public domain versions of the score for Bach's Magnificat in D from their site. —RP88 22:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Images

I want to upload a few pictures of my favourite band members but I'm not sure which are allowed and I don't know how to find the copyright on the images I find online. I really want to upload some pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amebabame (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know who owns the copyright to an image, you can't upload it here. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can make a reasonable assumption about the copyright (as for an image from the band's official web page), it could be uploaded if it satisfies all 10 criteria listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

picture deleted at: Paul Martin (illustrator)

Hello, my main picture at this web site was deleted (from Wikipedia Commons) yesterday due to copyright issues. It was a scaled down version of a picture that appeared in an issue of the Saturday Evening Post in 1930. (It was the new trademark figure of Fisk Tires, which was drawn by Paul Martin, who passed in 1932.) I was told by a Wikipedia editor that the picture is the property of Fisk Tires, and since they were bought out in 1940, and that company was bought out by someone else etc., that the image belongs to the current tire company which is Michelin!! Hence, it was deleted. Is there a way to get this picture (SmilingBoy) back onto the article's page? What would be an acceptable copyright tag? Such as: an exempt because it's a lower resolution version and needed for ID (or educational) purpose or because it falls under "fair use." Thanks. Jim Percy (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the facts as you present them, If this work was first published in 1930 with notice and the copyright was renewed, it will fall into the public domain on January 1, 2026.

So one possible avenue you can pursue is researching whether or not its copyright was renewed, because if the copyright was not renewed this image would be in the pubic domain and could be tagged with the {{PD-US-not_renewed}} copyright tag (make sure you also document your renewal search at the image description). Since, at the time, a copyright renewal had to be sometime in the 28th year and the publishing of renewals wasn't always immediate, to be safe you should check for renewals in the copyright records of 1957, 1958 and 1959. Copyright records from 1978 onward are available to search online from they Copyright Office, but this doesn't help you. Prior to 1978 you have two options. First, the records are available in print and microform, both at the Library of Congress, and at other major libraries around the country, including many Federal Depository Libraries. A few libraries known to have a reasonably full set are the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh, the Free Library of Philadelphia (in microform), the University of Chicago library, and UCLA. Second, scanned copies of a portion of the earlier copyright records are available online from a number of parties. In your case you're in luck, the University of Pennsylvania Libraries has placed online scanned copies of many of the earlier copyright records covering the period in question. In particular, you want to examine the renewal records from 1957, 1958 and 1959.

If that sounds like too much trouble, or it turns out that the copyright was renewed, you might consider using it under a fair use rationale. I haven't gone through the criteria with respect to your proposed image, so don't know if possible to make a valid fair use claim for it that also complies with WP's non-free content criteria. However, if you think it does, the two things you must include on the image description page are: an appropriate copyright tag explaining the basic claim of fair use (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free for a list) and a detailed fair use rationale for its use on the Paul Martin (illustrator) page. —RP88 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's a lot for me to digest--later. Right, I figured that most public libraries don't have catalogs with this information anymore. Jim Percy (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this illustration from an advertisement, or from editorial matter in the magazine? If it is from an advertisement, did the advertisement carry its own copyright notice? If not, the advertisement is in the U.S. public domain. Per U.S. copyright case law, outside advertisements (i.e., not from the publisher) are not covered by a periodical's copyright. — Walloon (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Walloon. I see you found a couple good finds and added them onto the article. I wonder about the two references in the opening born/died line. I've never seen them put in that spot before. Anyway, a Wiki-editor deleted the picture without warning, but I'm pretty sure that this is how it reads at the bottom (below the boy's feet) in three lines: Time to Re-tire / GET A FISK! /trade-mark reg. us. pat.off. Understand, that their original drawing of the boy and saying were copyrighted in 1910. The boy (their trademark) was redrawn in 1930 by Martin. By 1934, they switched back to using their original drawing. It would seen to reason that this short-lived boy that was used as their trademark from 1930 to about 1934, was not reclaimed (or renewed) around 1957-59. I really don't know. PS. Yes, the picture/s accompanies an advertisement by Fisk Tires Jim Percy (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright and trademark are two different things. If there was no copyright notice in the Fisk Tires advertisement from 1930, then the advertisement immediately entered the U.S. public domain upon publication. As for trademark, the phrase "Time to Re-tire?" has been dead as a trademark since 2003; I just checked the online trademark registration database. The smiling boy illustration has been dead so long it's not even listed in the trademark database. — Walloon (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, there is no "Wikipedia Commons." Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The image in question was uploaded to (and deleted from) the English Wikipedia. —David Levy 05:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Strangely the Saturday Evening Post did renew some things but not complete issues. From this time period they renewed "The world does move" from 1928, "The night letter" from June 15 1929, "The deferred living plan" from June 1 1929, "Robe de style" from Febr. 2 1929, and then nothing till 1932 with "Keeper of the Keys". So as it would have been used in advertisement? and not in these stories, it looks like copyright not renewed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Graeme- thanks for the feedback. Jim Percy (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Walloon- Some background: I have library access to the original Saturday Evening Post from the 1930's. The Smiling Boy image appeared 11 times in their magazine, via Fisk Tire ads for the year 1930. (I could not spot any Fisk ads that appeared after that year.) Only 3 of those 11 images were signed by P.Martin. So, that was mentioned in the article, in order to establish authorship. Fisk Tires was taken over by United States Rubber Co. in 1940, and then renamed Uniroyal Inc. in 1961. Anyway, a person above gave me some helpful tips on searching for copyright information. I checked under the mentioned years of 1957-1959, and found nothing under "Renewals for artwork." I did spot something under "Commercial prints & labels" (with subheading: renewals) for Jan. to June 1958. United States Rubber claimed their 1930 print called "The air-flight principle." I recall seeing a few of these ads in the Saturday Evening Post of 1930. Something (as recalled) about the dynamics of Fisk Tires, told through a set of diagrams. But, that's something completely different. I recently uploaded another imagine of the Fisk Tire Boy. I tried to put the right details in the description page (seen after clicking the enlarge icon). Maybe, you can reword it better. Is the layout okay. I suppose the important thing is that if fits within Wikipedia's guidelines. I didn't spot any copyright insignia (or word) on the original drawings of the Smiley Boy of Fisk Tires. I figure that's a good sign, but not something to be replied on completely either. I hope that covers it all. Jim Percy (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Renewal of copyright was unavailable if the work lost its copyright because it was published without a copyright notice. Renewal, trademark, and later ownership of the company — these are all irrelevant. Your research is complete when you see there is no copyright notice on that 1930 advertisement. The appropriate copyright tag at Wikimedia Commons is {{PD-US-no notice}}.

— Walloon (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Walloon- I noticed that you took out the closing paragraph under the heading "Fisk Tire Boy." I was the one who put it in there. I thought it did pertain to the subject matter, because so few people today, have heard of Fisk Tires. It was a quick overview to explain to the reader, that Fisk Tires was a major tire retailer of its day, and it showed the linkage of Fisk Tires to modern times. (That can only add creditably to the illustrator.) Also, there is no article at Wikipedia on Fisk Tires. Another reason the information seemed worthy. Plus the links it gave to US Rubber, Uniroyal etc. Jim Percy (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

KENS 5 HD Logo

I've been wanting to change the logo on the wikipage for KENS-TV (KENS 5 Eyewitness News in San Antonio) and finally found a good picture via google:

http://sanantoniobrownberets.com/assets/images/kens5-logo.png

Is this acceptable for uploading and replacing the current picture? or is there a copyright issue? if so, I will not proceed to upload. 20AL09 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This picture is not just the logo, but includes it and some promotional screen. This may be OK if it is commonly show on the TV station, but the more common is to just cut out the logo. However the resolution is too great, and you will have to reduce resolution to a non excessive amount, say 300 pixels wide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

taking a picture of a coprighted image

if i take a picture of a tv screenshot with my own camera, why is it copyrighted? my camera=my own work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadgofmaine (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's what they call a "derivative work"; it's no more "your own work" than if you photocopied a copyrighted story and sold it as your own. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a slavish reproduction, so no creativity goes into it. Cameras aren't magical copyright stealing devices, just like blank VHS tapes and CD-Rs don't transfer movie and album copyrights to you (you know bootlegging and piracy and all...) -Andrew c <sup>[talk]</sup> 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Where be piracy? Argh, ye matey! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I use...

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/Multiverse2009.jpg ? Chaotic Inflation theory could really use this image. In the talk page of that article it looks like someone was asking A. Linde (the apparent creator of this image) if they could use it in 2008 and seemingly had no response. I feel that since this is an illustration of a published scientific theory it seems logical to be for public use... but I suppose it is also an illustration, something the artist would own the rights to. If you feel this is not allowed to be uploaded, do you think that if I were to make my own replication of this in Photoshop that would be allowed? That feels less kosher somehow. Eddie mars (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is an illustration, so it is copyrighted, most likely by the artist. If it was an illustration created based on some kind of non-creative (and thus non-copyrightable) data, then you could recreate it and that would be allowed, but if it is simply an artistic representation of what something could look like then you can't just replicate it in Photoshop, as that would be a copy, or a very close derivative work (I'm not at all familiar with Chaotic Inflation theory, so I don't know which is the case here). Assuming that it is just an artistic representation of something, then you should be able to just use Photoshop to draw something else which serves the same purpose. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

License list

Is there a list of acceptable GPL and CC licenses? Specifically, is Creative Commons Attribution 2.5/2.0 Generic acceptable? Shadowjams (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about acceptable licenses to for importing material into Wikipedia, there's one at the copyright FAQ, and the particular answer (unless I'm missing something) is yes, CC-BY 2.0 and 2.5 licenses are acceptable. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Public Twitter Profile Picture

Why can't I use a Public Twitter Profile Picture? I would think it'd be okay. Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that just because an image is in public view does not mean it's in the public domain. The owner of the Twitter account still holds the copyright to the image, and as such we'd need their explicit consent to licensing the image under a Wiki-friendly license before we can use it. Tabercil (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a Twitter account, so I can't contact him, so I can't do anything about. So the Suburba.jpg I think might have to be deleted. If someone would like to contact him themselves, it's twitter.com/timhoh

Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Traced SVG file

Hi! I recently traced a logo from PNG format to SVG using Inkscape. I am trying to upload it, but I am unsure of whom the license belongs to. Does it belong to me, as I traced the bitmap? Or is it again a fair use rationale image like the original PNG? Help? —Untitledmind<sup>72</sup> (let's talk + contribs) 18:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of photograph of subject with autograph

http://www.detroitcitysports.com/servlet/the-430/Ernie-Harwell-Autographed-8x10/Detail Below is email correspondence with the store owner. Does this meet the criteria?<br. />—NBahn (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy emails

Mr. Foley-- What matters is that Wikipedia does not get sued. Thank you very much for your time and information; I will forward both your information and the images to Wikipedia. Have a good day, sir. --XXXXXXXXXXX -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html & http://www.openoffice.org (XXXXXXXXXXX) On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:32 PM, DC SPORTS <Info@detroitcitysports.com> wrote: I believe it is the Detroit Tigers official photographer. So, by extension, I would have to guess the Detroit Tigers own the copyright for the image itself. Since ours is autographed, would it be considered a different image? We did the scan. We obtained the autograph. I am not sure how it works. Thank you, DC SPORTS *Since 1987* 586.566.8331 www.DetroitCitySports.com ----- Original Message ----- From: XXXXXXXXXXX To: DC SPORTS Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 1:29 PM Subject: Re: Ernie Harwell Image (link added) Mr. Foley-- You wouldn't, by any chance, happen to have any ideas as to who might hold the copyright, would you? Any information that you can provide will be greatly appreciated. --XXXXXXXXXXX -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html & http://www.openoffice.org (XXXXXXXXXXX) On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM, DC SPORTS <Info@detroitcitysports.com> wrote: XXXXXXXXXXX, You have our permission. We are not the copyright holder, though. Thank you, Mike Foley DC SPORTS *Since 1987* 586.566.8331 www.DetroitCitySports.com ----- Original Message ----- From: XXXXXXXXXXX To: info@detroitcitysports.com Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 6:10 PM Subject: Ernie Harwell Image (link added) To whom it may concern: I am writing to request permission to use the attached image on the Ernie Harwell Wikipedia Article . Sincerely, XXXXXXXXXXX -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html & http://www.openoffice.org (XXXXXXXXXXX)

It does not meet the criteria to be uploaded as a free image, as there would need to be permission from the actual copyright holder of the original photograph, and it would need to be more permissive than using the image on Wikipedia; it would have to be released under a compatible license (or into the public domain) as per Wikipedia:DCM#Donating_your_photographs. As far as I can tell, you would not be able to use it under the terms of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, as there are free images available of him, which appear to be equivalent (I could be wrong about that part though). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Screen capture from publicly available PDF with no copyright statement

I have uploaded 2 images that were screen captures from a publicly available PDF with no copyright statement. How do I attribute them so they are OK ?Jembana (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Source was http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/ODonnell.pdf

I have emailed Aberystwyth University but no reply yet.Jembana (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Publicly available" does not mean public domain. And neither British nor U.S. copyright law requires a work to contain a copyright notice to preserve its copyright. — Walloon (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Dicc_RAE_1780.jpg

I am concern about the message http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhurtadon#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Dicc_RAE_1780.jpg about File:Dicc_RAE_1780.jpg. It is obviously an old book (1780). It is out of copyright, so I could reproduce it as long as I wished. Also, I have stated that I made each image I have uploaded. What do I have to do? Do I have to state from where the book itself come from? Well, it is done right now: "It is my own photograph of an out-of-copyright book of my own library." I hope that this clear any uncertainty. Whether it does not, you are free of erase the file. But it will be a shame.

Concerning "NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page.", I did not identified such tag rightly. So, I called your attention by erasing

Image Copyright problem

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhurtadon#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Dicc_RAE_1780.jpg instead.

I thank you. Rhurtadon (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhurtadon (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem trying to license a screenshot of Adobe Illustrator CS5(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illustrator_CS5_Windows7_64bit.jpg). Could anyone tell me exactly how I need to change the current licensing to make it correct.

I probably need this:

Licensing

But it currently says this:

Licensing

If I post the Non-free software screenshot license on wikimedia the screenshot is tagged for speedy-deletion. What do I need to do to make this correct?

I used this as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Photoshopcs5.jpg

Thank you very much,

Martin Jorn