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)

Any guidelines on mass deletion requests?

About 21 non-free and PD images I uploaded were tagged by an editor, all within a few minutes of each other. The images came from different and unrelated articles, had appropriate rationales, and the FfD requests were noticeably short, some just cut & pasted within seconds of each other. Obviously, finding and adding images to articles takes time and adds significantly to many articles. Is it acceptable for any editor to simply create mass deletion requests in this way? It took the requester only a few minutes of tagging, but it will take much longer to respond, especially when the rationales are questionable, at best. Are there some guidelines about using FfD tags in this way? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. So as a matter of policy non-free content may be used only if its use would significantly increase reader understanding of the article, and it may not be used if a free equivalent (including text) exists or could be created. I looked at the top four FfDs, and all of them merely decorate mentions in the text that are perfectly understandable without the images. —teb728 t c 19:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, but that does not answer the question.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don’t think there is any guideline on that subject. But it makes sense to do it that way. Indeed it makes it easier for everyone (including you) to consider together images that have a similar problem. All your non-free use rationales (with the exception of the Cazalet and Pissarro photos) are clearly invalid: (Just because a non-free image shows something related to text in the article, that reason is not sufficient for using the image. WP:NFCC#8 allows use of non-free content only if it significantly increases reader understanding.) I would preferred, however if he had not mixed the disputed PD claims with the disputed non-free use rationales. (BTW, the typical length of his nominations is comparable with that of the other nominations on the page; several of his nominations are the longest on the page.) —teb728 t c 06:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think there should be a revolutionary new guideline for this kind of blitz-tagging, maybe something like WP:CommonCourtesy. Feel free to use some of the so-called rationales from the list of 21 for things not to do: Avoid sarcasm, ie. "Non-free image of an ancient British politician." or "There are free images of this guy," for a world famous artist. But apparently no one sees a problem with tagging 21 images over a few minute time span, which inhibits an editor's work in trying to improve articles and make them more readable. Not to mention the irritation, annoyance or distress in trying to respond and/or fix the problems, ie. deletion of File:Lumet-Award.jpg after just 24 hours. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Lumet-Award.jpg was deleted by me as an immediate speedy deletion case. It was a commercial news agency picture. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything inappropriate with these "blitz taggings". If an editor finds problems with some images of an uploader, it is not at all uncommon to check many, and sometimes all, of the uploads of the editor. That's why we have the contributions history for each editor. Look at it from the view of the person conducting the analysis; would you have them limit their reviews to X per day until they're all the way through your uploads? That could take weeks, even months. We tag problems as we find them, and move on. There's nothing inappropriate being done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for at least being the first person to comment. Although merely a peasant editor, I'll be somewhat redundant and disagree in part:

• "Blitz-tagging" IMO is inappropriate on its face, as it overwhelms an editor's ability to respond in a timely and thoughtful manner. "Blitz-taggers," of course know this, and by supporting that kind of activity (disruptive?), it invites potential abuse and more of the same. There are less disruptive ways to remove images by using proper ettiquette, and accepting an obvious violation of the Golden Rule is not among those;
• Failing to provide the required notice on the image, where used within the article, is related to the above, as it requires someone else do it. According to the tag templates used, such a notice to others is required (I assume.);
• Your assumption that the tagger used some "analysis" when tagging is disputed by the fact that the 21 images tagged were done within 60 seconds of each other. There was obviously no adequate time to review the article and how the image supports and is necessary to the commentary, part of the rationale used for most. That's also why the FfD rationales were so brief if not outright incorrect.
• The fact that no one, including you, has observed the tagger's potential targeting of an editor's images in a clearly disproportionate way does not set a good example for anything, is odd.

In case anyone else agrees that "blitz-tagging" should be prevented, the solution is simple: create a guideline against it and demand that the tagger remove all such inappropriate tags. The guideline against WP:Blitz-tagging could start with a dictionary definition from Webster's: "a sudden overwhelming bombardment." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• You're presuming that blitz taggers "know this" and are therefore using the system against uploaders. Facts not in evidence. That he tagged all of them within 60 seconds of each other doesn't mean he didn't consider them. I frequently perform edits in this manner. I once voted "delete" on 25 images in a single post [1]. Does that mean I didn't consider all of the deletions? No. Looking at Damiens.rf's work on the day in question, I see significant gaps between groups of taggings. I don't find anything inappropriate going on here. I find nothing at all about his 'targeting' of your uploads. It is precisely why we have contribution histories publicly available, so that other editors can review a contributor's work. Maybe some of the images you have uploaded will be deleted. But, that doesn't stop you from uploading them again if you do so by addressing the concerns raised in the FfD request. I'd also like to note that looking at some random selections here; File:Sagan in Time mag 10-20-80.jpg, File:Sagan in skeptic magazine.jpg; Damiens happens to be right. Rather than complain about his tagging of your images, I recommend you review our policies on non-free content and be more careful with your uploads. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I am presuming some know this, especially when it's already been brought to their attention on ANI. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, I voted delete on 21 of these images. Damiens happens to be right. The only image that gave me any pause to not vote delete was File:Cazalet - Grabski.jpg. You can see my comments on that deletion request for why. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The first four indicate you actually found no supporting commentary in three articles. All within 60 seconds! Can you recommend a good speed-reading course?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• And there you've highlighted part of the problem in your analysis. In this diff, I voted to delete on one thing. The next diff is 17 minutes later. I voted to delete on 5 things. The next diff is 13 minutes later, 6 things. After that, 12 minutes and 9 things (the problematic nature of the uploads became patternistic]). So, 42 minutes for 20 things; a little over 2 minutes per item. I'm confident you're capable of reading that "fast". --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I frequently work in tabs, so that I have a dozen Wikipedia pages open at any given time. As a result, it isn't unusual for me to click 'save page' on several related pages at the same time. For example, I might make changes to an article in one tab while typing a long explanation on the talk page in another tab. If you only look at the timestamps, you might believe that I can type 500 words per minute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'd also like to add on that canvassing attempts such as these: [2][3][4], are a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All 3 fixed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you! --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. But since you've spent so much time reviewing numerous articles and writing rationales for image deletions, maybe you can take a few extra seconds to speculate on why the earlier ANI discussion about this entire subject, AKA "machine gun" tagging, appears to be irrelevant? Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I reviewed that sub-thread. Is it relevant? Yes. The problem here is multiple fold. First, WP:AN doesn't set policy. Whatever decisions that are made there are not policy. So, even if they came down in unanimity that a given editor X was wrong for doing something, if another editor Y came along a year later and did the same thing, Y isn't in the wrong by default. Please note that despite that thread there's been no modification of the instructions at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Of course, we're talking about the same editor here...which leads to the next point. Damiens is not under any editing restrictions, nor was he so three weeks after the discussion you referenced ended (see 2 February 2010 version). Damiens is also not under any active arbitration sanctions, nor can I see that he was ever under any ArbCom restrictions or brought to ArbCom over any behaviors (see index). What I do see is that on 8 January 2010 he was blocked for similar behavior to that which you are concerned about, and less than a day later he was unblocked by a different administrator with the reasoning of "lack of consensus for block and concerns over blocking rationale". He has not subsequently been blocked for this sort of behavior. So yes, the thread is relevant, but it just further shows that finding fault with Damiens for his actions is not something the community agrees with. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My initial post on this topic made no reference to Damiens, but only on the subject of "guidelines" about mass taggings. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Your initial post in this thread contained a link to a deletion request made by Damiens.rf. Further, your link to the January 2010 WP:AN thread is a reference to Damiens.rf's behavior at that time as well. Regardless, even without the association of Damiens.rf to this, the answer is the same. That earlier thread, plus the lack of any changes to the instructions at WP:FFD just goes to show there's no standing in policy to sanction anyone for conducting work in this manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requiring the use of common sense should then be the standing policy on this issue. No editor should have to deal with a swarm of mass deletions. I'm still adding support details to the Cazalet-Grabski image, used in a lead, but there's no adequate way to properly support 30 deletion requests. It took many hours to find, upload, describe, and add those images to articles. But it took the deletionist only a few minutes to tag them all, most of which are still being debated. Your earlier comment that "it makes sense to do it that way," doesn't make any sense except in extreme circumstances. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Film in Internet Archive

I'd like to take some images off the Internet Archive download of Lying Lips, a 1932 film that is claimed to be in the public domain. Can this be done and what tag should I use? The IA page[5] isn't helpful. It would be great if this is usable, as it contains a photo of Juano Hernandez, a pioneering black actor. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the reason that the film is PD? I'm not an expert on copyright, but I believe that there are two possible explanations. Either there was no copyright notice on the film (unlikely), or the copyright was not renewed. If the latter is true, the tag would be {{PD-Pre1964}}. Don't take my word for it, though. I'm sure someone with more expertise will come by and answer for sure.-RHM22 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no explanation on the IA page. I'm assuming it's because the copyright was not renewed. I sure wish IA was more informative. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be useful! I believe that the government keeps a list of all the copyrighted films before the 1970s. I'll see if I can find a link to that.-RHM22 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See wikipedia's Film Superlist entry. It looks like if you can consult volume 1 (1894-1939) and Lying Lips is NOT listed that it wasn't registered for copyright. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the website doesn't cover things that old.-RHM22 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not terribly more helpful, but this random website says, "“Lying Lips,” as with all of Micheaux’s surviving films, is a public domain title" so it's more than one source which thinks it's PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

These films would be a treasure trove of images for articles. Do you think it would be safe to use images from them and, if so, to use a "copyright not renewed" tag? ScottyBerg (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another source, Desert Island Films, Inc., goes beyond just stating it is in the public domain. They are a commercial website which sells versions of Public Domain films. Their faq states, for their PD films, one of which is Lying Lips, "The films copyright registration was not renewed after its initial 28 years of copyright protection. Or, the film was never registered at all." Since their clients include Time-Life, Viacom, NBC, etc. I would say the claim that this film is PD is valid and you should be able to proceed. --Quartermaster (talk)

Thanks. That's a great resource. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. I just viewed the beginning and end of this film at the Internet Archive, and there is no copyright notice whatsoever. Under copyright law, prior to 1989, omitted, incorrect, or incorrectly placed copyright notices meant this would be in the public domain. This film was likely never even originally registered. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. But how does this jibe with the Films Superlist not containing this film? This is all quite important, you know, as Loose Lips was among the films created by a pioneering producer of race films, and it's entirely possible that the same issue is present for all the films. If we can safely use the images from the films, it would be quite a treasure trove. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Has someone actually gotten their hands on Film Superlist? To me it just sounded like that's another source to check to add to the evidence and figure whether it was {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be in libraries. Far too expensive to purchase. By the way, it just occurred to me that I may want to check with Commons on this, as that is where I am likely to upload any images I'd get from these movies. I checked on Lying Lips specifically and all I found was a poster with reference to the IA page. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion there, to see if we can get perhaps more input.[6] ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

<------------- Summary: If film is NOT in Film Superlist then NO U.S. copyright registration and it is PD in the U.S.; if film does not have valid U.S. copyright statement, then film is in PD in the U.S.. Those are two pieces of independent information which could be included in a template on the Commons; and anyone extracting images could use it to posit PD status. Nearest Superlist to me is about 200 miles away. You might want to use this WorldCat link, then put in your zipcode in the "Enter Your Location" box and you can see if there's a copy near you (call the library to make sure they have the volume that covers 1939 in this case). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I misunderstood your earlier point about the Superlist. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Postscript: The discussion in Commons didn't get much of a response, but there doesn't seem to be any objection there to accepting images from that film. So I'm going to be going through that film and uploading to Commons. Thanks to all who participated here. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Uconnwomenslogo.png

File:Uconnwomenslogo.png is a logo used by the Connecticut Huskies women's basketball team as a secondary logo to File:Connecticut Huskies.svg. I originally uploaded this image under the license {{PD-textlogo}}, as in my opinion the image, which consists of an blue italic letter "C" over a red circle with white lines resembling a basketball, did not meet the threshold of originality needed to be copyright-protected. A couple of other editors have questioned this license; if people could take a look and let me know what you think, I'd appreciate it. –Grondemar 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's perhaps borderline. I could see arguments either way. It might be useful to contact UConn regarding their stance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the basketball makes the image an original creation. If it were just the "C", it would be fine, but I think the basketball pushes it over the edge.-RHM22 (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with RHM22 as the baseball image add a threshold of originality; it is not just composed of plain text and simple graphics. ww2censor (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

<cough>Basketball</cough> I'm leaning towards PD on this one when comparing it to some of the examples at commons:Threshold of originality#United States. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with RHM22. Keep in mind real life people! If that was really PD, anyone could use it, in combination with the word "Connecticut" which is the name of a state. And sell merch. And yet we know that isn't going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the selling of merchandise would be restricted more by trademark protection than copyright. There is no dispute that this logo is trademarked. –Grondemar 01:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's my understanding that something can be PD but also trademarked. The Coca-Cola logo, for instance.-RHM22 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I stated it carelessly. I still tend to think the basketball gets it by the threshold.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is past the threshold of originality, but, then again, I'm the rabble-rouser that started this at FLC ;) The basketball is more than a basic circle, which makes it more than s simple geometric figure, which would be pd-ineligible. Courcelles 10:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• With the far majority feeling this is past the threshold of originality, I've retagged this image as non-free. Grondermar, it now needs a rationale and to be used in the main article namespace, or it faces deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Generic Public Domain rationale

A number of public domain images have been disputed by User:Hammersoft with the comment:

"contains generic support for the idea that many of these images were PD, but it does not contain any proof that this particular image is free of copyright." (italics in original)

Since I was bombarded with 30 image dispute tags, I obviously can't deal with each one without cut & paste responses. However, I responded to one image's opposition [:File:Taylor_Dean,_James.jpg ], with the brief explanation:

"Such "direct evidence" for publicity images is almost never possible. As the image rationale indicates, such images are assumed not to have a copyright, and without evidence that they do have one, it's reasonable to consider them PD on a legal basis. For typical vintage movie photos, Copyright is what requires "proof" not PD."

In addition, the image, like the others, have a detailed and well sourced rationale to support it. This image is a different type of obvious publicity still, also tagged and justified for deletion for the same reason. But the "deleting" editor simply repeats the above stating "You do not know for a fact the image is free of copyright." Hence, the discussion goes nowhere. This is obviously an important legal issue for numerous images, and the reasons stated in voting to delete them are in effect overruling U.S. copyright law and its interpretation by many experts. Review would be appreciated. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that you need proof to prove copyright and not the other way around. That may be true when using the images in real life (newspapers, books etc), but in Wikipedia, I think the burden of proof should be on the uploader. Caution is paramount when dealing with potentially copyrighted material.-RHM22 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Guess what? Wikipedia is "real life". The legal interpretations DO have merit in WP. If an image is PD in the real world, it is PD here; no matter of regulation on WP will ever change that. It doesn't magically change from one format to another (the concept of "fair use" is another issue altogether. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood. My meaning was that you could probably use it if you wanted to self publish a book or something, and it's likely that no one would complain. Still, when uploading to Wikipedia or Commons, extra care needs to be taken. We can't just take your word that the images are PD without any evidence. Of course, we assume good faith, but if you don't have any evidence, then there's no good faith to assume, if you take my meaning.-RHM22 (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to get off the original topic, but your conclusion about "self publishing books" is actually the reverse. Only a non-profit use like WP, which is also a research site, is allowed to use non-free (Fair Use) images quite easily. Before the new 1978 law revision every copyrighted item had to have a notice of copyright posted up front; before 1963 they were required to file an official copyright registration, like a patent or trademark, for a fee, which only then gave the image legal protection for 28 years (after which they could renew for only another 28.) Unless those rules were followed, an image or text automatically and permanently fell into the public domain. So unless an image is PD, self-publishing for profit is not allowed under fair use.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't mean fair use. What I meant is that you might get away with using an image that is probably free in your own published book, but you have to be very careful to prove copyright (or lack thereof) on a high-traffic website like Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

All copyrights and renewals since 1978 are available online. Luckily, I have a copyright depository nearby for the earlier years.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• If you want to address the abstract issue of this copyright question, fine. But, dragging this debate from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 16 to here is forum shopping. To the abstract issue; If we have 1,000,000 photographs that, as a group, have been declared in the public domain via a given vehicle, there's no contesting they're in the public domain. If we then come across another 100 photographs that are of the same type, but not specifically covered under the other declaration, we would then have to act on presumption that since they are similar, they are therefore PD too. Imagine a photo opportunity, where there is a subject and two photographers. One photographer produces their work and that work is subsequently released by the copyright statements you refer to. The other photographer takes a very similar image, but they choose to retain copyright on the image. Your stance is that the second photographer's rights are void because the first photographer's rights have been released. In fact, you've done this by asserting that since this image is supposedly free (very debatable, but I'll let it stand for the sake of argument) that this image is therefore free too. That's guessing. You don't actually know. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

  Asking for more input is, by definition, not forum shopping. Please understand, I am not stating whether this person's statements are correct or incorrect. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• The question of being allowed to use a "generic" copyright rationale has not been answered so far. In the meantime, I added a relevant copyright section to Movie still, which expands on this subject. It's also worth realizing that the topic of movie stills is mostly a subject involving Hollywood films and American legal experts discussing it in terms of U.S. copyright law. Some of the editors who dispute the generic nature of this issue may be looking at it from the perspective of their own country's laws, which could be totally different. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Luke Mcmaster image - apparent copyright issues

Recently, I uploaded an image of Luke Mcmaster to a development version of his Wikipedia page (User:Petermeg) - The image is owned by Luke and was downloaded from his Facebook page - There is a message that the image will be deleted on April 22nd for lack of copyright info - PLEASE show/tell me where or how to find access to a page where I am able to update the required info - Like many people form whom i have sought help, I'm finding Wikipedia to be extremely difficult to navigate - Thank You

Peter Glen (<e-mail redacted>) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petermeg (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you're not going to like the answer. The image is from his Facebook page, but there's no statement there to indicate the image is free licensed or free of copyright. Under international treaty, anything created today by private entities that is copyrightable is automatically copyrighted. Therefore, this image must be presumed to be copyrighted. Wikipedia has a very strict policy against the use of non-free images on the project for depicting living people. There might be other qualifying reasons to use a non-free image of a living person, but if it's just for depiction, it will not be accepted. So, if you want to use this image, you're doing to have to get the copyright holder to release the image under a free license. There are instructions for how to do this at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
• I will note that in a casual reading of the article, it does not at all come off as neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Are you associated with this person? If so, you may have a conflict of interest in writing about this person. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• In direct answer to your question, if you have an appropriate tag for the image, the place to add it is at File:Luke mcmaster.jpg. —teb728 t c 06:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage should be about yourself and your purposes here; it is not intended to be used as a sandbox. Therefore, I have moved the draft article to such a sandbox: User:Petermeg/Luke McMaster. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about copyright tags on File:Nerds box.jpg

I happened to notice File:Nerds box.jpg, and not having worked much with files, was confused by the copyright tags on it. The page for the file seems to say that it is both copyrighted and in the public domain. I assume that the person who took the image is saying that the image on the box is copyrighted, but the image of the box is in the public domain. Is that the correct way to tag such an image? In general, is a photograph of a product's packaging under copyright of the company that makes the product, the photographer who took the picture of the packaging, or somehow both? Calathan (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, both. In the case of three dimensional objects, the object being photographed and the photograph itself are copyrighted. In this case, the author has released the photograph into the public domain, but the subject is copyrighted. In other words, the author's releasing the image doesn't really mean much, since you can't use the image except under a fair use rationale anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the FUR probably needs to be improved for the image as well.-RHM22 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Calathan (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Using a copyright screenshot from another website under fair use

Resolved

 – Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to illustrate Tagged#Controversy over bulk email invitations with a screenshot of one of the spam emails sent by Tagged. I understand this would be permitted under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The problem is that Tagged are no longer sending those emails, so there's no way I can take a screenshot myself. A screenshot is available at this page on Snopes.com, a copyright site that states, "This material may not be reproduced without permission." Can I take a screenshot of the Snopes page, crop it to show only the spam email, and use that under the Non-free content criteria? I couldn't see anything in the criteria that would forbid me doing so, but I wanted to check here first, given that the subject that's being illustrated is Tagged, not Snopes. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it, but I think that the FUR might not hold up for this. Not because you took it off a website, but because the image could probably be conveyed with text and without an actual image. Like I said, just my opinion, and some more expirienced users will probably be able to tell you for sure.-RHM22 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think it would matter where you got the image, as long as no new copyright is created. If the Snopes people modified the image in any major way (such as added wording), then you probably couldn't use the image. If it's just a straight screenshot of the spam e-mail, then it would probably be ok, assuming that the FUR would stand up.-RHM22 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, RHM22. I'd be surprised if it failed Criterion 1 due to being replaceable by text. There's a lot in the image: the way it implores the recipient to click; the frowning face to guilt-trip them into replying; the inconspicuous presentation of the opt-out notice; the manner in which it brazenly and falsely states the "sender" sent photos... It seems too much to convey by text alone. I can't see any reason to think Snopes modified the image, so I'm glad you don't think the source matters. But I'll wait for further comment before uploading the image. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure this is not just your original thoughs about the image. I mean, find some third part discussion about all these aspects, to avoid making the article to reflect your personal views. --Damiens.rf 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. The article cites several sources discussing the spam, and I wasn't proposing to describe its appearance the text, apart from a staid description in the alt text. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My hunch is still that there's no creativity involved in taking a screenshot of generic spam, so Snopes should have no claim on copyright, but given that neither I or RHM22 are 100% sure on that, I'm still hoping for a third opinion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Snopes has no claim on copyright, as long as that is the exact appearance of the spam e-mail and as long as you crop out everything from the website.-RHM22 (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The more I think about it, the more I agree. Snopes' Fair Use of the image does not give them any special rights, any more than Wikipedia's Fair Use of a copyright album cover gives Wikipedia any special rights. Marked resolved. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Help

File:FGCS logo.jpg came from http://www.newhamlep.co.uk/find_your_school/Pages/ForestGateCommunitySchool.aspx but I don't know its copyright status. LordDarkPhantom (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you don't know the copyright holder or status, the image can only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.-RHM22 (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a {{non-free school logo}}tag and {{logo fur}} rationale. I think that is all you needed. —teb728 t c 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

claimed CC 2.0 attribution license on likely public domain image

i believe this image File:BostonMolassesDisaster.jpg, being published prior to 1923 in the U.S., has entered the public domain, yet the Boston Public Library claims a CC 2.0 attribution license and corresponding restrictions on use of the image. i left a note on the discussion page for the image, sorry if that was an inappropriate place for it. can someone please verify whether or not this is a valid claim, and correct if appropriate? thanks Shelleybutterfly (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can use it as long as you can prove it was published before 1923. Please note, however, that "published" doesn't mean created. You have to prove that it was published (probably in a newspaper) prior to 1923. Alternatively, you could also prove that the author died more than 70 years ago, but that seems unlikely since the photo was taken in 1919.-RHM22 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This image is hosted on the commons for over 5 years, so any discussion challenging its copyright status should really take place there. It may be a case of copyfraud whereby someone claims some copyright over images that are actually in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

biology

how does the xylem vessel support the flowers and fruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moses464 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It transports water and nutrients through the plant. However, this is not the correct place to ask that question. The correct forum for biology questions is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.-RHM22 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FROGSMILE's Garrison cap photos

I've been helping User:FROGSMILE in making some edits and citing references to the Garrison cap article. The user also has a collection of pertinent photographs. I've been trying to work out whether they'd be okay to use from a copyright point of view but, even after having read up on relevant policies, don't feel that I can say with any confidence. It would be a shame to say no needlessly.

They have asked if I can seek guidance for them. Their talk page discussion from around the 14th March gives the background. Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Doddy Wuid (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Images on Australian property bubble

Several of the images on Australian property bubble have been copied directly from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) website. The editor concerned has claimed they are "own work". Are RBA documents subject to copyright?

See advice to editor. I have also noted on the talk pages of the images themselves.

I am concerned about the images in this article generally. This one for example, looks like it's been scanned in and the image page says the source is "Own work Morgan Stanley". I would be grateful if someone could take a look. --Thepm (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, the RBA copyright says

You may download, display, print or reproduce material on this website in unaltered form for your personal, non-commercial use or within your organisation, with proper attribution given to the Reserve Bank of Australia. Other than for any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved.

That being the case, it would appear that the images are in breach of copyright. --Thepm (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

All the images, except these two File:Chart comparative population growth 2010.pdf and File:Household Prices and Debt 1980 - 2010.pdf, are hosted on the commons and you will have to nominate them for deletion over there, but they all seem to be copyright violations and if they are based on public information new images can be created that are freely licenced. If you don't use the commons, just ask here and someone else will do it for you. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't use commons and wouldn't know how to go about nominating something for deletion there. Can someone do this for me? ---Thepm (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Complex GFDL/CC question

Hey all. I'm trying to assess the conditions which must be met for text (sorry, I know this is MCQ, but it's still a good place I think) to be imported from [7]. They switched licensing from GFDL to CC-BY-SA in March this year. Given that that's outside the relicensing period, is it even legal? And presumably it means we can only import creations after that date with no GFDL-only elements? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 10:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, no, it's not legal unless they got every contributor to re-release their content under CC-BY-SA. To make it even messier, their "detailed" Copyright page has nothing on it, and their general disclaimer still only indicates GFDL, so they're giving contributors contradictory information. I don't know that anything is clearly licensed enough to be usable here. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to proceed

I would like to use this map (p.23) for the Bloody Sunday (1972) article. That map is part of a report that is under Crown copyright. A current map of this section of Derry, Northern Ireland would be too different. The buildings colored black are more or less where key events occurred. Just the names around those, and some street names would then make a valuable visual reference for the article's subject. Just point me in the right direction (Map Lab didn't seem to have much in terms of tutorials). Thanks for your help in advance, Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Crown copyright lasts for 50-years so you can't use that image and because someone could draw a map containing the essential elements without being a slavish copy or derivative work you can't use it under fair-use either. I don't see any suitable free map that could even be modified in the article other than an 1937 map which I presume is not what you suggest. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am assuming now that I should proceed by making my own copy of that map. The original has a grid so I think I should be feasible even for me. When I am done is it good practice to show it here (or somewhere else) as to make sure it isn't a "slavish copy" or "derivative"? Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

For example, for the purposes of discussing development of the article, is it alright for me to have uploaded this image with the associated fair use rationale? My intention is to make a better quality image entirely of my own work. LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not understand the above response, but there are several reasons why this image is not acceptable here. It is still crown copyright and the fair-use claim is not acceptable either because the image is not used in any mainspace article (fails WP:NFCC#9) and replaceable (fails WP:NFCC#1), so I am tagging it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I know I was being lazy but hoped there was more wiggle-room. I'm making a version from scratch, I'll run it by you guys here when I'm done. Thanks! LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Posting a picture

Hello I am trying to post a picture from the Nature magazine. However, i was able to view this picture on the nature website for free. So is it acceptable picture? That is the link to the picture: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6865/fig_tab/414799a_F2.html#figure-title) Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshadid (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that image is copyright. You need to draw an image with the essential elements of that image or get some one else to do so. ww2censor (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

How to post a photo of my father who was an indian politician and was a member of legislative assembly to Tamil Nadu Assembly . His Wiiipedia page already exist

How to post a photo of my father who was an indian politician and was a member of legislative assembly to Tamil Nadu Assembly . His Wiiipedia page already exist. I wanted to post his photo to his page. I don't know how to obtain license . His photograph was taken by us and it is been with me for many years. Please advise how to proceed. is Since this photo belongs to me, do i have to obtain any license ? if so what is the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsamy2008 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a clear case of {{pd-self}}. Just upload. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If you need more information on uploading pictures, see Help:Files and Wikipedia:Uploading images. You can release the image as pd-self, described above, or you can choose one of the Wikipedia compatable licenses. The recommended license is to dual license the picture as GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0, an option for doing so is part of the image license pull-down menu when you try to upload an image. --Jayron32 04:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thorium

OK, I'm sure this one is dear to all WP:ELEMENTS members' hearts. :-P Namely, the fact that it's near impossible to get an image for thorium, because (1) no non-free images are acceptable because it should be available as free image and (2) you just can't get a free image. I found http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/thorium?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=thorium&sa=Search#906, which has a picture of thorium in a glass ampule sealed under argon atmosphere: is it free? (I hope so...) Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Most unlikely because we cannot establish the copyright status. What makes you think it is freely licenced? Based on the attribution on these two webpages images [8] and [9] they came from here over four years ago but it was deleted per this deletion discussion and there is no indication where it came from originally. Perhaps a US government website will have a similar PD image you can use. ww2censor (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I was just hoping it was. Any example of a US-gov website for the elements?? Lanthanum-138 (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If any government agency would have a (PD) picture of Thorium, my guess would be the USGS. I'll also see if my University has any that I could photograph. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

We've got thorium now! File:Thorium sample 0.1g.jpg. Hooray! Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

rayman origins boss

can i upload the image pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon davies (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if you were trying to write about yourself, and perhaps we don't want to see a picture of you in underwear. You are only a couple of edits away from being autoconfirmed, so if you do some more editing you can upload images. However bear in mind that the images should have a use here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

User SandBox

Is it possible to use non-free images in a user sandbox to rework or format images, if the intent is to improve wikipedia and the target article?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 permits non-free content only in article space. But if no one objects, you might get to do it for a few hours or even a few days. For test purposes you could use File:Example.jpg as a substitute for a non-free image. —teb728 t c 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

PD logo?

File:Jm logo.tif was uploaded as a non-free logo, but should it be {{PD-textlogo}}? The part of it that I thought might meet the threshold of originality is the "m", because of the variation in colour and size across it, but I'm not sure. January (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say yes, it would be {{PD-textlogo}}. The M isn't original enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

PD Text?

I was wondering if File:BjorkArmyOfMeUSCDPromo.gif would qualify for {{PD-text}}. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a little too complex for PD-text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with image at backlog

file page As the FUR indicates, this is a Library of Congress image. LOC says no known restrictions, so this should be a free file. What type of tag(s) should the file's license be changed to? Thanks, We hope (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the tag to {{PD-old}} and replaced the rationale with an {{information}} template. —teb728 t c 00:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much!! We hope (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese Government PD?

Does this photo (referring url) fall under any Vietnamese PD copyright policies since it appears to be from the official website of Quảng Ngãi Province (English version)? Goodvac (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you checked information, if any, at Commons on Vietnam? Please remember the US is exceptional in letting its works be PD. Few other countries are so generous.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I hadn't checked Commons, but it looks like there are no special copyright policies for Vietnam except the 50-years-after-author's-death rule. In any case, I just emailed them to see if they'll release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0. That's probably the safest route to ensure I'm staying in line with copyright laws. Goodvac (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the text at Template:PD-VietnamGov incorrect then? Commons:Template:PD-VietnamGov also exists and is very similar. —teb728 t c 01:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. To be honest, while the existence of this template instills hopes in me that the above image is in the public domain, I'm not an expert in image copyright, so I'm going to check with Carcharoth (talk · contribs), who I know to be an expert in these matters (I've seen him review images in articles at FAC). Goodvac (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt you can claim this image is PD because it may be a government photo. Remember that not all photos on government websites are government works. The image can certainly not be considered to be: Legal documents, administrative documents and other documents in the judicial domain and official translations of these documents per the templates referred to above. ww2censor (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know very little (OK, nothing) about Vietnamese copyright laws. I would suggesting asking around on Commons (at their equivalent of the village pump), or following up with whoever created the templates mentioned above. it is also worth bearing in mind the difference between the image policies on Wikipedia and Commons. On Commons, you need to satisfy both US and Vietnamese requirements. Here, you only need to satisfy US requirements. At least it was that way last time I looked (which was admittedly not that recently). Also, despite the kind words above, there are people who know far more about this than me - they hang out at various image copyright places where you could ask them. I would say ask at 'Media copyright questions', but I've just noticed the title of this page... Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You might like to discuss this further with Jameslwoodward who added the Vietnam info to the commons licencing page a few months ago. You may find it useful to read the " Law on Intellectual Property No. 50/2005/QH11 of November 29, 2005" linked on this WIPO page. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt, TEB728, ww2censor, and Carcharoth for your comments. I've contacted Jameslwoodward on Commons. Goodvac (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of those templates is that the law does not apply to images. There might be grey area if the images apprear in government reports or other documents, but the templates use the word document, which is generally considered to be a primarily text medium, and the templates do not address images at all. Sorry. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Trying to determine if an image is OK to use

I asked this on the Help Desk and was referred here. I believe someone attempted to answer me there by saying "No derivatives is not an acceptable restriction," but that is very confusing to me.

First, can I just link to the Flickr page in question for ya'll to look at? That would be the easiest, but I'm afraid doing so might be a copyvio in itself.

If not, then here's the description given on the image. Maybe you can tell from this: "Some rights reserved. You are free to Share-to copy, distribute and transmit the work under the following conditions: attribution— You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work."

Sorry, but I am really ignorant in the ins/outs of licensing...it's all so confusing. The image is for the article Red Bluff (Mississippi landmark). Thanks Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 17:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The only permission which Wikipedia accepts is a free license. Such a license means that images may be reused by anyone for anything, including commercial use and derivative works. The license you describe does not permit derivative works: “No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.” Is that what you wanted to know. —teb728 t c 18:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that clearly answers my question. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, by that criteria, there does not seem to be a free image of this landmark that I can find, so I suppose I will need to take a road trip and bring my camera. Thanks again. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo copyright - George Cornelius Gorham

The aticle about George Cornelius Gorham contains an image of him. I own the original of this, having inherited it from my father (George Cornelius is my great great grandfather). I have discussed its use with my siblings and we are in unanimous agreement that we would waive any copywrite that might exist anywhere globally. I'm not sure what to do or how to indicate this or if it is even required given the age of the original. I'm also not sure how to prove that I own the original other than to maybe take a photo of me holding it!

Also, given the file size (253 × 275 pixels, file size: 12 KB), would it be useful if I uploaded a better quality image?

Any feedback on this would be appreciated. Thank you.

I can be reached more directly at <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.92.58 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Gcg.jpg was taken in 1850; so its copyright on has expired; so you do not need to worry about licensing it. It is correctly tagged {{PD-US}}, and its size is appropriate. —teb728 t c 19:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, hold on there. Were these images ever published? That is, printed in some sort of publication, or copies made available for sale, say?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, should not matter unless the photographer lived until 1941, most unlikely.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We can always use better quality images, so if you have a higher resolution scan, I see no problem uploading it. – ukexpat (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Derivative work of item in an Indian museum

File:SatyendraNarainSingh.JPG

I have had a conversation with an image uploader at User_talk:Sunny_singh9128 regarding permissions for File:SatyendraNarainSingh.JPG, which is currently up for CSD. The uploader says that this is a photograph taken by them of a "portrait" created in 1987 on the subject's 70th birthday. The original which the user photographed is apparently on view at a museum in honour of Mahatma Ghandi in Patna, India. That museum's website is copyrighted but the uploader insists that the derivative work is free of copyright and that the museum exists for "educative purpose". Further, that the museum permits photography (although it does not say so on its website). The uploader also says that this image has never been published before but I think what is meant by that is his/her photo of it has never been published before. It actually looks like the sort of photo one would see in a newspaper or magazine and certainly is not what I would call a portrait in the formal sense of the word.

I have explained to the uploader that I think WP needs to receive permission from the museum in order to use the thing but that I would ask someone to review the conversation as I may be wrong. Can someone please do that? I have the feeling that there are other images uploaded by this person which will have the same potential issue. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Complex explanation aside: A photograph of a copyrighted photograph is not free use, the copyright of the original photograph is inherited. Sorry, but this needs to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I understand that, but the uploader says that the original is not copyrighted. Hence I advised that WP would need to see proof of that from the museum. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• No worries. I see that it has been deleted now. I suspect the same problem exists with other photos s/he has uploaded. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• In my experiences, many people don't understand copyright, and think that because it is online or because it is on a wall and can be photographed, it must be free. However, an image created in 1987 would have to have been expressly released into the public domain, and it looks very much like that was not the case. I am not familiar with Indian copyright, so I don't know if some works are automatically released into the public domain (in the U.S., many government works are released into the public domain). Nothing I saw indicated that the image in question was released as such. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Indian copyright is, apparently, 60 years but texts of laws etc is free right from the start. I'm just quoting what the uploader told me about this + what s/he has used as an explanation of permission on some other pics. I'd like to see some sort of proof for this but somehow I think the uploader is going to be a little unhappy with me right now. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• The uploader claimed on his talk page that the photo should be treated the same as a statue on public display. I left him a message about freedom of panorama. —teb728 t c 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I meant to go back to that point. I wanted to keep things focussed at the time and so used the WP:OSE argument, otherwise I could have been dealing with an awful lot of images from an awful lot of uploaders before I knew what was happening to me. And I'm not hot on copyright issues. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with backlog file

File page. According to its FUR, a copyright search was done and it was not renewed. This appears to then be a PD not renewed free file. Can we re-license as such? Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I confirmed this book copyright not renewed, the author did renew one other work though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! We hope (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploaded photos from same permission (source)

I have uploaded two photos: File:Cassidy_Rae.jpg; and File:Rutherford_Cravens_as_Ben_Franklin.jpg; that all come from the same source (Paige-Brace Cinema) with their permission which has already been received by Wikipedia. They have actually given permission for a significant number of their photos. However, not all of course, are usable.

I loaded the two photos in entries absent of photos but where Wickipedia was looking; e.g. - For actor Cassidy Rae at [10]

...and for character actor, Rutherford Cravens at: [[11]

I though that I'd copied all the correct tags from prior loadings. If I need to get addition permissions from the source, I can.

Many thinks, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that whoever added the OTRS ticket did not confirm the copyright tag agreed by the copyright holder. I suggest you ask VernoWhitney, Moonriddengirl or any other en OTRS volunteer listed here to review the ticket and fix it or find out what the issue is. ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Images downloaded by me

I confirm having loaded all the images till date on every article edited by me only. I also confirm here that not even a single image have been taken or copied from internet. All these images are created by me using Nokia 2700 classic. The record of each and every image has been saved by mende in my personal computer.There is no violation of copyright at all.Since I have been in the independent research process since 1985 and I know how to cooperate with a team work. If you can help me in improving the quality of image it will be your obligation unto me. But for God's shake I may be excused for my limited sources. I am a person who left the honourable for my mission in this field.This is what I am to say. Your's Krantmlverma (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your photos have several problems:

• So far as I can tell, none of your photos identifies the subject that you photographed. And most if not all of the subjects seem to be the creative works of someone else. You must identify subject of each underlying work and the person who created it—not only so we know what it shows but also so we can determine if the creator has a copyright on the underlying work.
• So far as I can tell, none of your photos has an image copyright tag; all photos hosted on Wikipedia must have such a tag. Depending on the copyright status of the photo, the tag identifies reason the photo is in the public domain, the specific free license which permits Wikipedia to use the photo, or the reason why Wikipedia can use the photo under fair use.
• Several of your photos are so blurry to be of little encyclopedic value. —teb728 t c 09:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Uploding Picture

How i upload a picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.75.66 (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

See Help:Files —teb728 t c 07:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-1978 public domain and scans from magazines

I have seen the {{PD-Pre1978}} used with a number of magazine adverts e.g. File:1972 Chevrolet Vega Ad.jpg. Pictures are taken from magazines published before 1978. Although the advert (as scanned) has no copyright claim on it, the magazine itself will have clear statements in the small print section (where you find the usual publisher, ISSN, contact details etc.). Does that statement of copyright by the publisher apply to only the editorial content or to every page in the magazine? If it is the latter, then this is not a valid licence to use on magazine advert scans. (I also posted this same question at Wikimedia Commons [12], but this seems a better place to ask. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add that I have tagged a number of images for deletion today - Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 April 27‎‎ - which are not taken from magazines (as in my first question) but from corporate brochures. I contend that a selective scan of a piece of corporate publicity can be done in a way that will hide any copyright claim. I cannot believe that, in these cases, an automobile manufacturer like GM would publish brochures without asserting copyright in some form. The pre-1978 public domain tag only applies where the publisher has failed to assert copyright. Without clear proof from the uploader that there is indeed no such claim I believe we should err on the side of caution and delete all those images. In fact the uploader in this post on my talk page actually acknowledges that the images were copyright by GM/Chevrolet (presumably he has the actual brochures) and is therefore misunderstanding the PD claim - thus the images should be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Many magazines, especially free ones (Playbill for example) did not have a copyright statement back then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think you are over doing this one. I recall a long issue with Vegavairbob, now Barnstarbob's uploads a few years ago when Quadell, a very experienced copyright admin who is now retired, was involved. Vegavairbob was well admonished and blocked for his disruptive uploads, some, if not all of which, are the same ones being tagged for deletion now. It appears most of the images you now nominated were those, Quadell, I and others, worked with him on back in 2009 and I have no reason to renominate them now, so think your nominations are appropriate. Quadell's response confirms that such ads in magazine are public domain if there is no specific notice on the ad, as also are publicity material without notices. A magazine copyright does not cover such provide material, per this FFD and this userpage post. You may well suggest that cropping brochures can hide a copyright notice but you should also WP:AGF as I would now but not then until things were explained to him. I think he learnt his lesson two years ago and appears to me to be pretty much on the straight and narrow uploadwise. ww2censor (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It did seem pretty clear cut to me, but I was asking here because others know better. I wasn't aware until after I posted all the pics for deletion that they had been deleted/restored before - but to me that shows that others had the same doubts. Quadell may have restored them but that doesn't mean he was correct, just that he made a decision on the balance of probability. If it can be proven beyond doubt that there is absolutely no copyright assertion made in these magazines or brochures then fine, but until then the doubt still exists and in my opinion that means that the images should be deleted. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at pre-1978 magazines on Google books you will see the most ads don't have a copyright notice. Tobacco companies were an exception; they put notices in their ads. My field is vintage electronics and semiconductors; 90% of the ads don’t have a notice. Texas Instruments always uses a notice. If you assume bad faith on a General Motors ad, go check a few contemporary online magazines.
You would be surprised by the amount of brochures and flyers that were published without a copyright notice. I always upload the complete brochure so you can check for a copyright notice. Microsoft Windows 1.0 Motorola Microcomputer Products 1978 -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, advertisements published in collective works (magazines and newspapers) are not covered by the copyright notice for the entire collective work. Pre-1978 advertisements without a copyright notice are public domain and are allowed on Commons. Explanation from Image Casebook.

From the US Copyright Office Circular 3. Page 3, Contributions to Collective Works. (A magazine is a "collective work.")

A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. These advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement.

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

@Biker Biker: if you really want to verify each image, then it will be necessary for the uploader to supply full scans of all pages in any brochure from which an image or promotional material is taken. I doubt this can really fall within the terms of WP:AGF but if you really insist on getting this, then it is more a policy type decision that requires wider community input. IMHO, there are many more images that are blatant copyright violations that need our attention rather then focusing on these ones which appear to be proper. BTW I regard promotional material and advertising as falling within the same category of material generally produced by advertising agencies, so the pre-1978 PD applies to all. ww2censor (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Swtpc6800 for the Commons:Image casebook link, which clearly answers my question on magazine adverts. The brochures are another matter, but as the whole brochure hasn't been uploaded we can't tell if it was published with a copyright notice - however this set of scans on Flickr of a 1975 Chevrolet brochure do not have an copyright claims so perhaps it is safe to assume that other Chevrolet brochures of the same era are the same. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

More than likely it does not, BB. I've used that exception, as I've said for images from Playbills, and I mention on the image page that I've looked through the item and there is no copyright notice. I've also had good fortune with political brochures, even those sold at nominal cost (see for example this image (that sold for one dollar though I expect in practice most were given away). If an editor says he's looked through it and it's clean, we have to AGF unless there is a good reason not to.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyvios - Second opinion wanted

I came across several images in User:Multichill/Free uploads/2011-04-26 that are very likely not the property of the uploader, but were released PD-self. Can someone take a look at all three images at C.S.I Ellis Memorial Church;

• File:CSI Ellis Memorial Church.jpg
• File:REV.J.J.Ellis & Family.jpeg
• File:Gospel.JPG

Among the things that concern me are the lack of metadata, the discrepency in filetype tags, and that these are clearly scans but the source is "Own work by uploader".

Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ant images for new article

Hello! I'm a student at Rice University and the final project for my biology class is to create a new Wikipedia article on an insect of our choice. I've written an article on Leptanilla japonica but the majority of my images are taken from the research papers I used as references. The papers are open to the public on antbase.org and can be used if properly referenced. But what about the images? Here's a link to a paper with many of the images I'd like to use: http://antbase.org/ants/publications/4434/4434.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akt2 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even though there is a Creative Commons licence at the bottom of several pages of the antbase website, it is a non-commercial licence {{cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}} that is not free enough for us to use. Did you search Wikimedia Commons commons:Category:Formicidae for suitable freely licenced images you can use? ww2censor (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Scan of a Thai driving licence

What is the copyright or FUR to be used for this document to be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article about drivers license? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can read Thai, this might have some information on the copyright status of the image. Sorry that I can't be any more helpful than that.-RHM22 (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Honolulu Advertiser renewal

Can someone check my work on this? I was looking at File:Obama birth announcement.jpg, which is currently used under WP:NFCC. Curious if the August 1961 paper was renewed, I checked the online catalog at the Copyright Office [13] for a renewal entry in 1989 or 1990. I could not find any indication of a renewal. Thus, I'm planning on retagging as Template:PD-US-not renewed, but I wanted someone else to check to make sure I'm not missing anything as to why copyright would still be valid despite the apparent lack of renewal. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As a suggestion, you might want to see if other newspapers show up in the index for their daily editions, or not.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

JNTO Photo Library

I would appreciate an expert's opinion on these type of images. Basically my questions are:

1. Can we use these images on wikipedia?
2. Can these images be uploaded to Commons or only to English Wikipedia?
3. What licence should be used when uploading?

Thanks. bamse (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to upload an image relating to the article EcoBot, which is my own research work, but cannot find an appropriate licencing agreement from the drop down menu. The images that I uploaded in the past, have been released to the "public domain", but I cannot find this description anywhere on the upload page for the new file. Any suggestions?IAIeropoulos (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)