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)

Musical Examples

Hi there!

I just have a quick question regarding the use of musical score examples.

If I were to create my own sibelius files depicting thematic material from a work, how do I properly indicate the source?

If the piece is over 100 years old, isn't the score public domain?

Thanks!

If the music was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

But Sibelius files can't be uploaded here. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Visit Creation and usage of media files for details of format, restrictions, etc. of uploading sound files. BEst wishes --Haruth (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why can't Sibelius files be uploaded into any Wikimedia project? --84.62.209.203 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sibelius' works might not be public domain in Finland, so it's not a good idea to upload them to Commons; however, anything that he composed and published before 1923 may be uploaded here at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. Referring to Sibelius, the music composition ("note processing") software, and not Sibelius, the Finnish composer, no doubt the questioner means using this to capture music onto a computer so as to display a suitable segment on screen and do a screen capture as a PNG file (Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Format Software screenshots should be in PNG format). Providing the music is more than a century old and is out of copyright anywhere, surely one of the tags is appropriate; the question that remains is simply: precisely which? Public domain would indeed appear to be the answer to that. I would suggest that uploading "Sibelius files", meaning the native files of that software, would be inappropriate unless there is a piece of free software that allows one to view files in that format. If it is necessary to purchase a copy of the (fairly expensive) Sibelius software package in order to get access to Sibelius files, I would suggest that it is indeed inappropriate for Wikipedia to allow uploading of files in that format. Iph (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Images Uploaded without My Permission!!!

Hi! To my horror, I have discovered that the following images created by me were uploaded without my express permission. I can provide proof of ownership by showing larger, uncropped, watermarked copies, but I need these images removed, as I never agreed to release them into the public domain!

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chuck_Palahniuk_Roses_and_Shit_Tour_2006.jpg
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chuck_Palahniuk_Roses_and_Shit_Tour_2006.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Turner_Aug_26_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_orpheum_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_Northbound_Sep_15_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_Southbound_Aug_21_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_porno_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_book_company_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_businesses_2_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_vogue_2_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_gentrification_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granville_movieland_arcade_sign_2005.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_June_27_2007.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Niomon_June_27_2007.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Bodhisattvas_June_27_2007.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Sanmon_Renovation_Poster_June_27_2007.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Sanmon_Renovation_Schematic_June_27_2007.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Kyozo_June_27_2007.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zenkoji_Temple_Incense_Burner_June_27_2007.jpg

Please contact me at <redacted> for proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.95.193 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Note this IP is claiming to be indef blocked user User:NeoThe1. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are in NeoThe1, then I'll note that at least some of those images were uploaded and licensed as they are by you, so as far as I'm aware they are out of your control now. I haven't looked at all of them, but that's my initial comment. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have completed my review and all of them were definitively uploaded and licensed for any use by NeoThe1, except possibly commons:File:Chuck Palahniuk Roses and Shit Tour 2006.jpg which I believe would require a Wikipedia admin to confirm. As I previously said, I believe the attribution license is non-revocable, but if you are not NeoThe1 and they did not have the right to release the images or if you otherwise believe there is a copyright issue which requires that the images be removed, you should send an email following the steps listed at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin and an OTRS agent, and can help clear this matter up with you. I'm a little concerned because above you say, I have discovered that the following images created by me were uploaded without my express permission. but then you also say I am the original creator of the image (user NeoThe1). I own the copyright. I do not permit it to be used So what is the case? Were the images uploaded without your permission, or are you the original creatore User:NeoThe1? And have you just changed your mind a couple years after you uploaded them as User:NeoThe1? We need to get to the bottom of your conflicting statements. Then we can proceed confirming your identity as original copyright holder via e-mail. Thanks! -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI — on his now-deleted userpage, NeoThe1 stated that his name was "Michael G. Khmelnitsky"; consequently, please don't delete these under F4 simply because they're credited to Michael G. K. as a source. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use rationale for an image published in a scientific paper.

Hi, I would like to upload an image of the assembly of the genome of the synthetic life form created by Craig Venter and his group for use in the Synthetic Genomics, Craig Venter and Mycoplasma mycoides and any other associated articles. This is an image from a paper in published in Science. The only fair use rationale I can put up for uploading it is the fact that it is a major milestone in science - an image of the first ever synthetically created genome to power a living cell - and therefore would be very important both scientifically and historically. I would like to know if it is possible to upload this image and what fair use rationale I should mention for it. It is a very low resolution image - 854 px × 877 px to be precise. Thanks in advance. Manoj Prajwal (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the diagram, you would have to redraw it. That particular drawing is copyright to the author, but the information in it could be used to draw another diagram illustrating the same information without breaching the author's copyright. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think the diagram itself has any historic value. If you mean one of the photographs of the critter, that might be considered of historic value, and would currently not be capable of replacement by a free version, and so would probably be acceptable under a non free content rationaleElen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do both. --Manoj Prajwal (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots

If I make a screenshot of a software application, then the picture is my property right?

But am I allowed to depict the software which I don't own the rights to? And then upload the screenshot to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamirGunic (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The picture is a derivative work, so unless the software is free software, reuse of the screenshot requires permission from both you and the author of the software. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Permissions

hi

I received a talk request about the picture I uploaded and I have received the permissions but if you could please let me know the next steps to get the picture approved and I am not sure how to put the picture into the actual posting. If you could please provide some insight I would appreciate it.

Thank you,

Carol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayola830 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:IOWN for guidance on sending permissions to Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright with Picture//Confusion persists..

Hi, an admin notified me that my picture File:2009RockEagle4-HCampCounselors.jpg is in failure of a copyright license. You can view what they said on my talk page. But my confusion is this. My friend sent me the picture to put up on the Georgia 4-H page for summer camp. He is inside the picture and to the best of my knowledge bought the picture.

Does that give him some strange right to still post the picture up through me? I know I know, you're probably thinking you have to have permission by the photographer. Correct me if I'm wrong. I emailed the photographer that took the picture last summer and am waiting for a response from him to use the picture under the CC-BY-SA license. I just wanted to use the picture under Free Use and not get in trouble for any type of copyright infringement. I know how strict Wikipedia is with their licensing rules with copyrighted material. Advice would be helpful. Thanks to whomever reads and addresses this need. Tamer of hope (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While your friend may have bought a copy of this photo that does not confer any copyright to him. The source website you linked to on the file page clearly has a copyright notice on the bottom of its home page and that photographer most likely owns the copyright though they might have sold their copyright to the school when contracted to take the photos. Either way, you have not evidence that the copyright owner has given their permission to use the image. If you make contact with the photographer and they tell you they will give their permission to use the photo under a free licence you must get them to follow the procedure shown on WP:PERMISSION. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Family snapshots

I had the idea of trying to obtain some kind of family snapshot to illustrate the article on Sonnie Hale, of whom, so far as I am aware, there are no unambiguously free-licensed images suitable for Wikipedia use.

However, I find myself very confused by Wikipedia policies on image copyright/consent in this context.

If I could get a photo - and I must emphasise that I don't yet know what the family possess - it would be from at least fifty years ago, and I don't think it's very likely that anyone would know who the original photographer was. If one can assume that it was probably some family member of the older generation (but obviously not the subject himself), would a current descendant be in a position to release the copyright?

And even if WP:CONSENT does apply (I'm not clear that it does), how do I get and submit permission from someone who isn't online? Do I have to scan in a signed letter? And do I have to provide my own legal identity and proof thereof (which I can't do?) Igenlode (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

CONSENT does apply. Copyright passes to the deceased's estate, so beneficiaries of the estate can benefit from the commercial rights etc (as with Peter Pan and Great Ormond Street Hospital), so if deceased Auntie Gertie took the snap, her daughter Cousin Melba could release it PD. Cousin Melba would need to provide something - a scan of a signed letter is acceptable. She would need to provide her full name and contact details on the letter, but you wouldn't need to prove your own real life identity. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I was just wondering if someone could double check the image I uploaded and make sure it has the correct copyright information and that it won't be taken down. The image is: File:Finish-SprintforSight-Large.jpg

I would really appreciate it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshbdork (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me, if you took the photo and own the copyright then you can release it under whatever license you want. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

UK government report - uncertain diagram

File:Goldustvolatility.png

The diagram in question

Hi, I used this diagram on the right on an article to make a point about the relative riskiness of gold compared to a benchmark. This is taken from a UK government report that was presented to the House of Commons in 2002. I have no idea where this picture fits into wikipedia copyright use. UK Government works are not public domain (crown copyright). However, there are fair use clauses that apply to such works. -- yoctobarryc ⁂ ☎ 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming it's copyrightable at all, this isn't eligible for fair-use, since a free alternative could easily be made showing the same data. In fact, using png for graphs is silly anyway, so making a free svg of this would kill two birds with one stone. Algebraist 18:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite. From the original data, not this chart, naturally. We don't want anyone scream "derivative work" at us. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The report would be Crown Copyright but the data itself can be reused to make a new chart.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Winifred Knights picture

I've recently created an article on the painter Winifred Knights (1899-1947) and would like to add an image of her painting The Deluge, which was painted in 1919 as can be found here http://www.tate.org.uk/collection/T/T05/T05532_9.jpg As it was created before 1923 am I right in assuming it's in the public domain? Thanks. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of use on Wikipedia at least, yes. The copyright tag should be {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that it's not PD in the UK, as that goes from date of death of author, so it is important to use the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag, which explains all this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've uploaded it to File:The_Deluge.jpg, would appreciate someone looking at it, as the one thing I'm really unsure about on WP is image copyright. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nearly correct. Please fill in the details in all fields of the information template I added to the image. ww2censor (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Have now done so, thanks for your help. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

H. M. Bateman in Life

I am trying to figure out if this image should be considered as copyright free. It consists of a public domain image (published in the US in 1920) with a LIFE Magazine watermark added on. It's marked as "For personal non-commercial use only" though this would be a moot point if the image is PD. Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems very likely to be {{PD-1923}}. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and it's good news but how do I go from "likely" to "can safely upload to Commons and LIFE watermark be damned"? Pichpich (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If it was published first in the US before 1923 then it is public domain and can be uploaded to Commons. Faithful digital reproductions of public domain images which merely add non-copyrighted content (i.e., the LIFE logo) are still public domain (there's even a Commons policy on this subject at commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). Per commons:Commons:Watermark it should be tagged {{watermark}}. There's also some further evidence of public domain "no visible notice of copyright; stated date is 1920" and a PDF which has the picture available with a watermark of "Digitized by Microsoft" instead of "LIFE" here (on the 40th page of the 195MB monstrosity; I'm not sure what resolution it could be extracted at since Adobe's being uncooperative at the moment). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the image from the PDF I mentioned above comes out to a hefty 29.1 megapixel PNG, but apparently Microsoft was using some sort of edge-detection software which means the major lines (and most of the others) are crisp and clear, but some areas are blurred. I can upload the file I've extracted to commons (shrunk to fit below their 12 megapixel cap) if you want to compare and see which quality works better for you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alaotra Grebe is extinct

The Alaotra Grebe was confirmed yesterday to be extinct, so there is no longer a possibility of taking a picture of the bird and releasing the picture under a free license. There are, however, at least two images of the species:

1. A painting (license unknown, likely copyrighted) by Chris Rose; and
2. A photograph (license unknown, likely copyrighted) by Paul Thompson, which is the only known photograph of the species.

Having read the text of {{Non-free 2D art}}, it appears that the painting may not be used merely to illustrate the topic of the article; rather, there must be "critical commentary" of the artwork itself. Would the photograph qualify for fair use under the {{Non-free historic image}} license? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the {{Non-free historic image}} is for similar situations as the {{Non-free 2D art}} tag, only specifically for notable photographs (e.g., File:Vj day kiss.jpg). However, if the fact that it is the only known photograph is discussed, then it would probably qualify. You could also just use the generic {{Non-free fair use in}} template. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the generic template... Thanks! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

de:Datei:Flag_of_Australia_with_Aboriginal_flag_replacing_Union_flag.svg

Can this image be used in en.wikipedia.org? --84.62.209.203 (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It can be uploaded and used here, but only so long as its use meets all 10 of the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and it is appropriately marked as copyrighted per the discussion and sources linked at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Burj Al Arab

Please add images to the article Burj Al Arab! --84.62.209.203 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon

I have added a copyright tag to Deepwater_horizon_in_gulf_of_mexico_2004.jpg

File:Deepwater horizon in gulf of mexico 2004.jpg

This image was published by the US dept of the interior. I don't know what else to do to prevent the image from being deleted. There is still a warning of deletion on the file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgostr (talk • contribs) 05:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Publication by the US government does not automatically render copyright material in the public domain. Images CREATED by the US government are in the public domain - in this case, the copyright resides with Transocean and the Government only published it - under some kind of licence from Transocean which probably does not place the image in the public domain. Hope this helps.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Help!! I need to change the copyright setting of my image

This image File:Bill lucas house.jpg was actually a sketch of a picture for which I have obtained permission to use. I assumed that since I had sketched it, I could authorise it for use in the public domain but I read in the help topics that it is only an adaptation and thus, it still needs to be referenced. Could someone show me how to edit the copyright settings on the page? Or if someone could delete the picture altogether so I could start again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakuramoji (talk • contribs) 09:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

From what did you adapt it? If you simply mean that it's an adaptation of the house itself, and that you were the only one to produce a 2D image, don't worry. If I'm misunderstanding, please clarify a little bit. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I sketched it from a photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakuramoji (talk • contribs) 10:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How to Copyright Images Produced by Municipal Government

I am employee within municipal government in the U.S. We have numerous images that have been taken by staff members over the years that are used widely in various forums to visually illustrate our city. I would like to upload one of these images to a Wikipedia page, but do not know how to license it. These images need only to be attributed to the municipal government as a whole, not to the individual staff member who originally took the photo. These would definitely be considered works-for-hire. The images may be freely distributed. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurorapio (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If the images are truly works for hire, then the copyrights to the images are owned by the municipal government. As such, these images can only be used on the English-language Wikipedia in one of two ways: either by complying with Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free copyrighted content (i.e. only use as permitted by WP:NFCC, include a fair-use rationale on the image description page, and tag it with one of the non-free copyright tags), or, alternatively, you can follow Wikipedia's instructions for requesting permission to use copyrighted material on Wikipedia (i.e. contact an official of the municipal government authorized to make decisions regarding copyright, ask them to consent to license the images under a free license, and forward the consent declaration to OTRS). —RP88 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Photos from Presidential Libraries

I am looking at a photo on an official White House "archives" website. The photo was taken in the White House of a presentation to President Reagan. The URL is > http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/president/holiday/hanukkah/03.html. However, on that White House archive website, the photo is labeled, "courtesy of the Reagan Presidential Library." There are other photos of former presidents on the same site, taken in the White House, but now labeled "courtesy of" their presidential library. I am almost certain that these White House photos are the ones taken by the presidents in question for their libraries. My question is whether these photos can still be treated as official government photos, especially if the "courtesy of" line is included? Or -- once they move from the White House to the presidential library, do they leave the public domain, and permission must be obtained from the Library? NearTheZoo (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If it was taken by the White House photographer or another federal employee in the course of his duties, it's PD no matter what. I would contact the Reagan Presidential Library, emailing them with the URL and ask them if it was taken by the White House photographer. Try to get their catalog number and the name of the photographer and the date it was taken. With that, and sending their affirmative reply to OTRS, you should be good to go. This is what we did for two photographs on the Antonin Scalia article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Great advice! Thanks very, very much! NearTheZoo (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Shared experience makes things easier for everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Public domain? Just want to be sure

Trying to evaluate a DYK—can someone confirm that the license on File:Thomas Darden.jpg (This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.) prevails, despite the copyright notice here? I'm guessing that American Samoa Government can copyright a page, even though it may contain public domain material, but given the prominence of a DYK, just want to be sure.--SPhilbrickT 00:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

While the {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} tag would indeed be the correct tag for a photo portrait taken by a U.S. Navy photographer in the course of his official duties, I don't see any evidence that that photo was made by a Navy photographer -- that fact that the subject of the photo is in the Navy and is pictured wearing his uniform doesn't necessarily mean it was taken by a U.S. Navy photographer. It was probably an official Navy portrait, but plenty of servicemen sit for third-party portraits wearing their dress uniform and I can't see any indication that wasn't the case with this portrait. —RP88 00:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this photograph is his official governor portrait. At the time he held the office, it was a post in the US Navy, and the office was appointed by the Secretary of the Navy. So, even if the image was not taken by a navy man, it was commissioned for the Navy, and was a work-for-hire where the photographer does not own the copyright. That being said, I have removed the image from the article until this discussion is closed. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That all may be true, but it's just supposition. At the very least you need to include that reasoning in the permission section of the image description. Why not contact americansamoa.gov and see if they'll confirm the portrait was taken by a U.S. Government employee? As a side note, in the U.S. the work-for-hire doctrine generally isn't applicable unless the photographer is an employee or signs a written contract agreeing that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. —RP88 03:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Scalper, I notice that you've uploaded a bunch of portraits from americansamoa.gov to Commons, and while many are Naval officers, several (including commons:File:Phelps_Phelps.jpg and commons:File:Richard_Barrett_Lowe.jpg) are not. In the case of those two you've indicated that they're works of the US Dept. of the Interior and American Samoa, respectively. How were you able to determine that the portrait of Phelps Phelps is a photograph taken by a photographer working for the US Dept. of the Interior? Just because Phelps Phelps at one point in his career worked for the US Dept. of the Interior doesn't mean that one of its employees took this photo. In the case of Richard Barrett Lowe, you've attributed the photo to American Samoa, but americansamoa.gov has an explicit claim of copyright and the {{PD-USGov}} tag you've placed on it does not apply to U.S. territories. In fact, most, if not all of the images you've uploaded to Commons that are sourced to americansamoa.gov appear to be problematic, while it seems plausible that they are all public domain, there doesn't appear to be enough information to confirm their PD status. I'd encourage you to contact americansamoa.gov and see if they can provide you with additional details about the sources of these images -- particularly since they're on Commons, which holds images to a higher standard than Wikipedia. —RP88 03:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a page I had found on their site that stated that the governor photos were all official portraits. As I said previously, all the Naval governors portraits would be owned by the US Department of the Navy, and the appointed ones would be owned by those who controlled the office at that time: the Department of the Interior. It is not until the governors began to be elected that the modern day Office of the Governor owned the photos or administered the office. Until recently (1978), every governor was an officer of a US federal agency, and the portraits did not belong to the territorial government. I am having a hard time finding that page now, however, since the entire website underwent a major overhaul very recently, and was hard to navigate even before that. I will continue looking for the page that says they are the governor portraits. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if the photo was commissioned for the Federal Government but done by a private photographer, it is very likely not PD, as the Federal Government can acquire copyrights. I've run into that problem with official photographs of Supreme Court justices.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the image is hosted on the commons the above discussion is rather academic and the image should be nominated for deletion there but if it is deleted there you may be able to use it under the fair-use criteria as long as it complies with all 10 non-free content criteria because the subject is dead. ww2censor (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Earth

Can I upload a screen capture from Google Earth to Wikipedia? Djmaschek (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, images created by Google Earth are constructed from satellite imagery licensed by Google, and as such are copyrighted derivatives of the copyrighted satellite imagery licensed by Google. Google allows non-commercial personal use of the images (e.g. on a personal website or blog) as long as the appropriate copyrights and attributions are preserved, but this is not adequate for Wikimedia's free content policy as WP considers "non-commercial use only" images to be non-free. However, you might consider taking a look at NASA's globe software World Wind. Images created with NASA's World Wind use the Blue Marble, Landsat or USGS layer, all of which are a terrain layer in the public domain. You might be able to use this software to produce a suitable image instead of using Google Earth. —RP88 02:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How to add scanned image of book that is out of print

I have a page for my great grandfather Alfredo Jahn. He wrote two books "Los Aborigenes del Occidente de Venezuela" parts 1 and 2. I own these books. The copyright shows 1973, but he dies in 1940, so I know the books are much older. I scanned the covers of the books and added them as images, linked to his page. But they were removed because of fare use. Not sure how to correct this. I see book covers all over Wikipedia, so I assume I should be able to add is. Can you please help me? The legalize seems very complicated and makes it very difficult to update Wikipedia. Thanks for your time. AlfredoJahn (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know who owns the copyright on the cover of those two books? Usually it is the book publisher, though in some cases it is the artist who designed the cover (in which case you'd normally see an artist credit on the book's copyright page). Assuming you do not own the copyright to the book cover, a scanned image of the copyrighted book cover should only be used in Wikipedia by complying with Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free copyrighted content. Unfortunately, in this case I don't think it will be easy to meet criteria #8 at WP:NFCC, namely "contextual significance." As the Alfredo Jahn article currently stands, non-free images of two of Alfredo Jahn's book covers would be merely decorative, as the article doesn't have any critical commentary about any of his books, much less these particular books. Are these two books particularly noteworthy or otherwise representative of his works? If not, it seems unlikely that you'd be able to modify the article in such a way that you'll be able to draft an appropriate fair-use rationale for scans of his book covers.

However, If you want to be able to use these scans, I think your best approach is to obtain permission from the owner of the copyright for the book covers (as mentioned above, this is probably the publisher) and follow Wikipedia's instructions for requesting permission to use copyrighted material on Wikipedia. Ask the publisher to license the book covers under a free license (i.e. one that allows modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes) and forward the permission to OTRS (see instructions at WP:PERMISSIONS). See WP:CONSENT for an example letter of consent that you should get from the copyright owner (i.e. publisher). —RP88 11:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Screen shots from television

What about screen shots from television? The section "Screenshots" only covers computer software screen shots. With software like BBC iPlayer, you can get a TV programme screen shot that is as good quality as a still digital photo image. Is the copyright of a still captured from (say) a news broadcast by the BBC owned by the BBC or is it public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia? (There are clips from major TV channels/companies being added to YouTube all the time and they are full video, moving pictures with sound, and seemingly freely uploaded there.) Iph (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Images captured from copyrighted television programs, news programming or otherwise, are derivative works of the copyrighted program, and as such are not in the public domain unless the television program itself is in the public domain (which BBC news programming is not). As such, images captured from a BBC news program should only be used on Wikipedia by complying with Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free copyrighted content. In other words, an image captured from a television news program must meet WP:NFCC, include a fair-use rationale and accurate description of the source of the image on the image description page, and be tagged with one of the non-free copyright tags (probably {{Non-free television screenshot}}). —RP88 11:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the proper copyright tag for a photo taken by myself?

What is the proper copyright tag for a photo taken by myself? Austin3301 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just select one of the licenses. One of them is recommended, and it will tell you that on the upload form.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo supplied by owner keeps getting deleted. Licensing confusing.

I was supplied a photo owned by the owner for use on Wikipedia and it keeps getting deleted. It says to supply the image link, but if the image keeps getting deleted how am I supposed to do that? The photo was for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Baldesarra The image that was uploaded was File:Lara BaldesarraPhoto350x250.jpg Lara Baldesarra, the subject of the page, owns the photo.

The client is asking what the problem is, and I don't have an answer. Any advise greatly appreciated. Thank You