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)

School hymn copyright question

The people at help desk pointed me to here. The question is at WP:Help desk#School hymn copyright. Moray An Par (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be getting an answer at WP:Help desk. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

For countries, such as the Philippines, which doesn't have freedom of panorama, does it extend to the interior of the building? Say the facade of the opera house cannot be uploaded here as a free image due to lack of FOP, but can a photo took by myself of a musical performance inside the opera house itself be free? Moray An Par (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the photo show an (architectural or other) creative work? Freedom of panorama is an exeption to copyright protection, but there is no such exception in the Philippines. But do I guess correctly that the musical performance is a performace of an opera? If so, the performance would be copyrighted by the opera company and/or the designers and performers. I would say that such a performance would be protected even in a country with freedom of panorama? —teb728 t c 09:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That was just hypothetical. Actually, this is the image itself. A prominent Filipino senator speaking before a student body. The auditorium is fairly new (completed in 2006). I was planning to include it to a university article's student life section since the auditorium is the venue of many plays and musical performances. I am still in the process of convincing the uploader to release the image in a CC license. That's why I asked here if this would be covered by copyright protection due to the lack of FOP. Thanks. Moray An Par (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the image only includes a small part of the interior, and it is just incidental to the photo, it would be hard for someone to claim a copyright infringement on that picture. However the picture is unsuitable because of the watermark. It is also not a good photo of Miriam Defensor Santiago as you only see her back. So what educational value does the image bring? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I plan on cropping it to remove the sig. It shows what the auditorium looks like from the inside (since showing it from the outside would be impossible because of FOP). Santiago is not the subject anyways. Moray An Par (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That image is itself copyrighted (look in the bottom right hand corner of the page, where it says "(c) All Rights Reserved". That means that even if you crop the image, Wikipedia still can't use it, as it would be a non-free image of a living person. Sorry, Sven Manguard Wha? 20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy of a copy question

A book has a photo of an old painting in it. If I was to scan just the photo of the painting, what sort of copyright issues arise and what tags would be appropriate? I'm assuming that the artist is no longer alive but presumably the author/puiblisher of the book might have some copyright on the image. I presume that "worst case" would under fair use provided a satisfactory fair use claim could be made. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well it sounds like the book is not adding to the copyright, so a scan of the picture of the painting is the same as for the painting. You should look for a picture credit, or find out the creator of the original painting so as to work out if it is really public domain or not. We cannot use it just because it may be old. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought it might be something like that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Personality rights question

An IP user recently removed File:Labret phallic coddling.jpg from the article Point of view pornography and expressed concerns about a) the age of the person depicted, and b) the consent of the person depicted. Regarding the age of the one performing, it seems borderline (although other opinions would be welcome). However, is the person depicted's explicit permission necessary for a use of the file, or should we keep using it (as long as the person depicted is of legal age) per WP:NOTCENSORED? Sorry if this is the wrong forum; I am not sure where to go; User:Fetchcomms suggested I go here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If the person(s) can be identified then consent from them is required if picture is taken in a private place. see commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. commons:Commons:Nudity covers what it suggests, and commons:Commons:What Commons is not describes things that should not be here. The age of the people involved could affect if the image is legal or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't consider it identifiable due to the poor angle, but somebody, somewhere would consider the person "personally identifiable" (at the very least the author could identify her). Okay, I'll keep it out of the article for now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

email site (permissions-commonswikimedia.org) not working

I am attempting to have permissions sent of several images used in two articles but the company forward the permissions states that the permission address (permissions-commonswikimedia.org) fails to go through - always returning an "error" message. I tried with an email and also received an error message.

Is there an alternate email site that they may use? If so, I will forward it to them.

Thanks, Sinclairindex (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Email addresses require an @ symbol, so try permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ww2censor,

She (the production company) said that did it.

Many thanks,

Sinclairindex (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright licensing, can you help me with that?

File:Shia-labeouf-mugshot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Um, yeah, Shia LaBeouf's mug shot will be deleted in a matter of days, and I don't know how to get the license, I mean, I got the picture from Google, so if that helps tell me. So contact me as soon as possible about all this and hit me back as soon as you can. Thanks.RoadHouse (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. As I see it, the image looksto be copyrighted by the website it is listed on, or at least, there is no evidence the image has been released under a license compatible with Wikipedia. While in some instances copyrighted images can be used on wikipedia, as this is an article about a living person, copyrighted images of the person , unless being used to demonstrate some of their work (e.g, an image of Daniel Radcliffe portraying Harry Potter) cannot be used in a Wikipedia article. Sorry. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) What makes you think it is a mug shot? (It doesn't look like one.) And what makes you think that Wikipedia has any right to use it? (We have no right to use most stuff you find on the internet.) —teb728 t c 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The Smoking Gun attributes the photo to the Chicago Police Department as a "mugshot" but there is no copyright status, so without that it should be deleted. TMZ Credits The Smoking Gun for acquisition of the mugshot from the Chicago PD. ww2censor (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputing the accuracy of a document's copyright

I've seen the following document spread in many articles in many languages, however, my most concern is that a large number of internet websites refer to this document on Wikipedia as an accurate source. Wikipedia's reputation is all of our first priority, and I don't see any details about the source of the document. Any fatwa always contains examples and references, so I highly consider this document manipulated; as such a large Scholarly university never made such a claim. Can anyone please verify its copyright! ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks dubious to me, unless Orientalist at de.wikipedia is Abdullah al-Mishadd, there would be no right to release it as CC or GFDL. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Totally logical, but what action am I able to take? This is totally not al-Mishadd's fatwa, as this is his normal style: giving explanations and references.

Of course Orientalist is not al-Mishadd for two simple reasons: (1) al-Mishadd is an Arabic scholar living in Egypt while Orientalist is in Germany, only using de.wikipedia; (2) How can a head-of-scholars of the largest Islamic University, Al-Azhr, solely contributes anti-Islamic edits on Wikipedia?!

I'm not sure why has this document been stable since 2005, and online websites everywhere are using it: trusting the credibility of Wikipedia. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

THe next step would be to nominate it for deletion on commons. Explain the reasoning there, it is either a copyright violation or a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The scan was nominated for deletion in 2007 at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rechtsgutachten betr Apostasie im Islam.jpg and kept on the rationale: The original document is PD as an official document of the Egyptian government, and the free licenses apply to the scan, which is copyrightable under German law (though not under US law). If you want to pursue your question of legitimacy, you should contact al-Azhr. (If it were fake, however, I expect it would have been exposed as such long ago.) As for Wikipedia’s reputation—Wikipedia regards itself as not a reliable source. —teb728 t c 23:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that you should be making personal assumptions, "it would have been exposed"! Arabs aren't really connected with the western media nor articles. So, I can fabricate any fatwa I want and just claim I have the original and add it to Wikipedia? I'm not disputing it's copyright, but the document itself. I did contact someone in their electronic archive and he told me that they have NOOO fatwas without a reference number. Also, you can realize that any fatwa in the world has citations and explanations, not just death. I think that an editor need to prove a document to upload it to Wikipedia, not prove how to disprove it (as you're suggesting)! I showed here an example of the same scholar's fatwa on smokers on who.int, and the writing and style is nothing alike. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a deletion nomination would be fruitful after the failer of the previous nomination. Any advice :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Chandra Shekhar Azad/Daredevil's Death

File:Pistol of Azad2699.jpeg Please let me know under what licensing re-use I can upload this file.Krantmlverma (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC) The person died in 1931 his pistol in kept in the Allahabad Museum. I have taken it's image from a photo published in some of the book published long ago. It's author Ram Krishna khatri had presented this book to me. That book is in my own library.Krantmlverma (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the pistol is a useful object who owned it or designed it is irrelevant, but the person taking the picture for the book is. THe book should have a picture credit and it may be that Ram Krishna khatri owns the copyright. In any case you owning the book does not grant you any kind of copyright on the book or pictures in it. It will be important to know when and where the book was published to tell when it becomes public domain. But I suspect that copyright will still apply and that we cannot use the picture freely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Copying text from a Wikipedia article to be paste on a fan-based wiki?

I am helping to make a wiki all about "Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective". I am thinking about copying the article about "Sissel (Ghost Trick)" and pasting it into the "Sissel" article on the Ghost Trick Wiki. My question is "Is this action okay for me to do?" Please answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiiGuy999 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You are permitted to use the content subject to the conditions of the cc-by-sa-3.0 or GFDL license. The simplest way is to apply a credit of your quote with a hyperlink back to the article and the license, but the full explanation is at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Haley Reinhart

Hi there! I was just wandering if I can put an image of Haley Reinhart for her profile on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philiponi (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have one that you took yourself or which is licensed under a free license? —teb728 t c 23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

My own picture

Hi there, I made a page a few years ago for Mathias Anderle...adding a photograph that I took of him which was removed because I didn't do it right or whatever. I am trying to figure out how to add another photo and it's very confusing to me. I just uploaded a more recent photo to the "commons" but I don't know how to tag it as a picture that I took and am willing to share with the world. I saw something earlier about that but after spending about an hour looking for the instructions I cannot find them again. If someone can help I would appreciate it. I am not computer/internet savvy so please explain it in kindergarten terms if you can.

Thanks,

Martha (gohuskies77) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohuskies77 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your current {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} tagging of File:Mathias1.jpg looks good. But the photo has a lot of white space that should be cropped off. —teb728 t c 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I cropped it for you. —teb728 t c 02:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing the licensing of an image (TV logo)

Hi, Hopefully, I'm asking my question in the right section. I'm the author and designer of the TV logo File:Sidewalks-logo.png and I gave permission for the logo to be used on Wiki. When I did it back in 2006, I listed the image as "public domain." I would like to change it to a copyright tag or some other copyright tag that could be used for a TV logo. Can anybody help me with this? I don't want to change the copyright on my own.

Tvdir (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Once you release it to the public domain, it always stays public domain, and cannot be recinded. A TV logo can certainly be public domain, and so this image can be used for that TV logo purpose. Since you created it you are allowed to grant other licenses to others as well under different conditions If it is a trademark as well you can add the {{trademark}} template.. Another option is to attempt a {{speedydelete|delete requested by author}} tagging. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

copyright attribution on images I uploaded

Can you check my uploaded images now to be sure they have enough copyright info as to not be deleted? The wikipedia entry I wrote is for Maurice Bebb and I uploaded 3 images there. I received a bot message and went back to add the copyright line "copyright The Estate of MR Bebb" Is this enough info now? thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Printmkr (talk • contribs) 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your files are listed at Special:ListFiles/Printmkr. There are four, and none of them has a tag indicating what license the Estate of MR Bebb grants for Wikipedia and everyone else to use them. None of them has an information block giving a description, source, date, and artist. I will give them information giving my guess at the information. But the license tags are absolutely essential, and only you would know what the licenses are. —teb728 t c 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you grant a {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} license by adding that text? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good choice if he represents (or is) the copyright owner. —teb728 t c 09:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Which licensing tag should be used to claim fair use for an image of a fictional character from a work of prose?

Simply put, I want to upload an image from a 1948 issue of Astounding Stories to illustrate the article on "The Mule", an important character in Asimov's Foundation series. The article is currently illustrated by a 1960s paperback book cover, which bears little similarity to the character as actually described by the author (and probably lacks an appropriate rationale for use in this article). The "non-free character" template does not apply, because that covers only characters from visual media. The character's physical appearance is discussed in the article, and is (in-universe) a significant plot point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is no specialized template, there is always {{non-free fair use in|article}}. Or you might check if the copyright on that issue was renewed in 1976. —teb728 t c 07:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If the prose work was originally published without illustrations, there is no need for a character illustration at all. A fictional character from a prose work exists entirely in the medium of text and has no visual existence beyond that, except in the reader's imagination. It's not supposed to. Any later illustration is only secondary and cannot possibly have any significant relevance for the analysis and interpretation of the original work – and it would be replaceable with any arbitrary self-made illustration too. A prose text can and should be adequately discussed without recourse to such images. If lack of illustration didn't impede understanding the original work of literature, it can't impede our critical discussion of it either. The only exception would be if the later illustrations are historically so important that they become an object of encyclopedic discussion in their own right, for instance in a "reception" section that traces the images of a character through different stages of its publication history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's from the original publication, and has a real-life model, as discussed in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I still think you're pushing the boundaries of fair use pretty strongly there. Campbell may have approved the use of that illustration, but that doesn't mean that Asimov did so. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In terms of fair use, how is it different from the image currently in the article, or the image at Arkady Darell? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the other one, as not fair use. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

use of a copyright cast photo

I am thinking that there is not sufficient justification for the use of the copyright cast photo in this cast listing section, correct? Kristine_(TV_series)#Cast_and_Characters Active Banana (^bananaphone 03:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally Owned Photographic Portrait of Deceased Ancestor

Am I able to grant free use to Wikipedia for a photograph of my deceased grandfather?

To the best of my knowledge and belief, said photo was taken by an unknown professional photographer for my grandfather's personal use circa 1945. If so, what category should I use when uploading that photo as an image? The original was in his Estate, and passed to me long ago as personal property.

Thank you for your help with this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Toll Jr (talk • contribs) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the article involved, it could depend on whether you have any siblings who might jointly own the intellectual property involved. The photo sounds like a work-for-hire job, so the photographer wouldn't have any rights. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I have already spoken to all siblings about this and gained their consent for use on Wikipedia.

Could you suggest the proper Creative Commons (or other) category to select for a photo such as this?

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Toll Jr (talk • contribs) 05:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I recommend {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} with an attribution. But if you don't want any attribution, you can use {{CC-zero}}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking this is an American photo we're discussing? If not, some of the above advice might not necessarily apply. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons: How much "remixing" allowed

CC-BY(-SA) allows for remixing and adapting, two words used by CC in their license ([1]), but I haven't been able to find what kind of remixing is allowed. In fact, the word "remix" kind of confuses me. Is there a point where images can be too altered? Anyway, my question is this: if there is an image of a currently-living celebrity and their eyes are looking in a ridiculous direction, but otherwise the portrait is fine—and were the image licensed as CC-BY and uploaded to Commons—would I be in my right to "move" the eyes and have them looking in a more natural position, like at the camera? I'm curious if this is allowed within CC (and even BLP) jurisdiction. Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly allowed to make such a derivative under the CC license. Whether it is suitable for Wikipedia will depend on whether the result is realistic, and encyclopedic. Hopefully you are not misrepresenting the important facts in the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I would make sure the result was realistic and non-misrepresenting. The author of the image in question hasn't responded to my email, so it most likely won't ever happen, but I was definitely interested in knowing. It would actually help represent the artist a lot more (one of those moments when someone rolls their eyes and the picture is taken at the worst possible moment.) Thanks! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Coin" combining two PD elements

When the Eisenhower dollar was under consideration in 1969, Krause Publications (they do hobby newspapers) made a mockup of what it might look like, to be found here. They combined the portrait from the Eisenhower presidential medal struck by the Mint, unquestionably PD, with the lettering from the Franklin half dollar also undoubtedly PD, and tweaked the date slightly (probably used the first three digits from a 1960 to 1963 half's date with a "9" taken from a 1949 or 1959 half). Is the resultant work in the public domain? Keep in mind it is not three dimensional, as this "coin" was never struck, they just did the 1969 version of Photoshop.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe not, because this is a derivative work in which Krause would retain copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be under copyright. Public Domain Sherpa notes that derivative works of Public Domain works can still be copyrighted.

"... If the already existing work is in the public domain ... then only the new material that’s been added to it is entitled to copyright protection. The original work remains in the public domain. Just remember that the new material added by the derivative author is not in the public domain."

So, in my humble opinion, the combination of the two as published in the newspaper may be copyrighted. However, if you were to do something similar (i.e. "take inspiration from" the work and create your own, not "copy") it might be acceptable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though the caption could be interesting ... thank you both for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I upload this?

Can I upload screen captures from the video and PDF from this site: http://www.amisom-au.org/article-84 It says "RESTRICTIONS: NONE" Hamza-nor (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't assume that is a copyright license release. It should be more clearly stated than "None". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that AMISOM has copyrighted that work. At the bottom of the page it says (C) AMISOM 2011, and their pictures on Flickr are all copyrighted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use: can a vintage advertisement be used to illustrate historical language usage?

Specifically, File:Nigger and pink cardigan in UK magazine advert circa 1948.jpg in the article Nigger. I added the image to the article to illustrate a British usage of that word which appears to have been considered quite acceptable at the time but obviously would not be nowadays. Another editor reverted and said that the fair use rationale does not cover that use of that image. I would contend that it does because it is the advertisement itself and its use of that word which is the subject of commentary, and for the reasons explained in the fair use rationale, but since this unusual case could be something of a grey area which is not described in current guidelines I would appreciate some additional opinions on the matter. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of the full image would almost certainly not be allowable. A cropped portion showing only what you wish to illustrate might be allowable under "fair use" as not impacting the value of the copyright, where a full image might be a violation. IANAL, but had to deal with copyright issues at CompuServe. Collect (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it falls under fair use I do not believe the image can be copped for the purpose of illustrating the acceptable use of the word nigger. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is almost certainly not complying with our criteria as a free alternative could easily be found, (copyright expired) and it could be explained in text too. So it would not be needed to aid understanding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment. It is rather difficult to make the case here that an image of published text is necessary to explain the meaning or significance of the text. This use appears to be intended more to demonstrate verifiability, which is neither required by WP:V, which is satisfied by a simple citation, or generally allowed under the NFCC. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, advertisements published in a collective works (magazine, newspaper, etc) are not covered by the collective works copyright and need an explicit copyright notice in the ad. See Commons Image casebook. Most US advertisements before 1989 are public domain. I don't know the UK rules. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. In the UK, a separate copyright notice in the ad itself is not required for it to be copyright: however, if no creator is identified the copyright expires 70 years after publication (as opposed to 70 years after their death if the photographer and/or designer(s) were identified), so it seems I can't use this till 2019. In the meantime I'll put a mention in the article with a citation, though it would work better with the picture so I'll put a note in my diary for 1st January 2019 :-) Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hashim Khan Life

Hashkjldfafhnjsghksdfbvgkerhtfklsfdhgjsklgs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.7.77 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You are probably asking something about Hashim Khan, but I can't tell what coding you are using for your post. I can't even tell if it is in Urdu, Pashto or what. —teb728 t c 06:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Najatuallah Siddiqui.jpg

Dear sir I have tried to add the photo to the article 'Mohammad Najatuallah Siddiqui', but the same has not been added.It is because of copyright. I have personally talked to the economist in this regard and he has no objection to add the photo in the article. If you still have any objection in this regard, the economist (Najatuallah Siddiqui ) told me to contact him on "(email removed fro privacy)". As we do not no HTML well, so it becomes difficult for us to add the photo in right way. Thanking you one again Sana_commerce28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sana commerce28 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You have already made a request to upload this image at the FFU page, actually twice, so let them deal with it there. We don't contact people for you; it is your job to get them to give their WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Film trailers from prior to 1964 and public domain

I recently (boldly) uploaded this picture to the Commons. It is a Photoshopped combination (i.e. derived work) of two screenshots from The Seven Year Itch's trailer, which seems to be in public domain because it was released prior to 1964 and never copyrighted separately; therefore, the chance to register it for copyright has expired (1955 + 28 = 1983). I am basing my reasoning off of a couple other The Seven Year Itch uploads by other editors and this site. Could you take a look and let me know what you think about the status of the trailer? Should it be on Commons? Thanks. This was copied and pasted here from User:Moonriddengirl's talk page per her suggestion Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps most importantly, is there a case or something definitive that we can use? The file is being considered for use with the article White dress of Marilyn Monroe on DYK, so a quick response would be much appreciated. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

More details of this question are at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Public domain and movie trailers. --Orlady (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use Rules

Can an image of a historically important dead person be used in a Wikipedia article specifically about that person if the image is low resolution and cropped? Doesn't this meet Fair Use rules covered by U.S. law and Wikipedia policy for using Fair Use images?--Orygun (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If for example, an existing free image would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, the use would fail WP:NFCC#1. An image from a commercial source might fail WP:NFCC#2. Multiple non-free images likely would fail WP:NFCC#3. If it has not been published previously, it would fail WP:NFCC#4. —teb728 t c 19:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You need to check out the non-free content criteria, which consist of 9 independent criteria that must all be met. In the case you have been disputing on FFD, the issue is with WP:NFCC#2, commercial opportunities. An image that is being actively marketed for commercial licensing by an image agency such as Reuters or Getty, we can't easily claim fair use. The only justification we'd have in such a case would be if we have a need to actually discuss the image itself as an object of encyclopedic coverage in its own right, but not if we are just using it to illustrate an article about something or someone else (i.e. on the person that the image shows). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you see if these guys can help? The image here [2] probably came from one of their alumni publications, and they may give you enough information about the source to show it might be allowed here. Or they might have one of their own, from a reunion or something. Some of these groups never throw anything away. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Using images from an out-of-country thesis

There's a useful, simple diagram that I'd like to use that's from someone's thesis in The University of Melbourne in Australia, but I'm not quite sure about the copyright policy with theses from other countries. Can I upload the picture without contacting the author or university? Is it not enough to give him credit and reference his thesis? Here's a link to his thesis: Interfacial Effects on Aqueous Sonochemistry and Sonoluminescence --Aolzick (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems you must log in to view the file. I can't open it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright applies to theses just like any other writings, so unless you can see a copyright license grant, it is not free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

how to verify copyright is ok

Hello, I would like to use this image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Concavité-kheops-photo.jpg on my website, editorial use. The image page says to verify the license is correct - I have no idea how do to this. Please help. I can see that the image is supposed to be from a book published in 1930 by a Belgian who died in 1947. Thank you for your help. Sincerely. 207.134.250.140 (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

How you prove it is to show that all the facts claimed are correct. The death date is 63 years ago, so you need to find out first where the book was published, then you can determine which country's law applies. If 1947 falls within the public domain expiry then confirm that the image was in the book, and that the author died then. The copyright notice looks to mean that the copyright holder has released the rights somehow. If the work has not entered public domain then you will have to be satisfied that whoever now has the rights to the image has released them, and I would not be persuaded by that commons notice as there is no OTRS, no statement of who released the copyright or any further evidence of this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Image of Facebook

Can image which are available on Facebook be uploaded on wikipedia ?? Are they in public domian like those on Flicker???? Pl advice.Jethwarp (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally not. If the uploader added a free license such as public domain or cc-BY-sa-3.0 or the like then we could use it. But must facebook users woulod not do that. Even of Flickr yo ahve to check that the license is a free one, and does not use -nd or -nc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Image link= parameter

This is my first time seeing this, and I believe it's against the CC-BY license of the image... At Harry potter#Origins and publishing history, there is an image of JK Rowling. I clicked on the link to check out the image information, but it instead took me to J.K. Rowling. I'm pretty sure this is "illegal" (perhaps too strong a word, but I certainly wasn't taken to any attribution of the image). Should I change the link= paramater to File:J. K. Rowling 2010.jpg? The article should be linked in the text. But... the article is a GA... so maybe I'm being stupid. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The link= should not have been there, but there was a link from the bottom of the photo. It may not have ruined the CC-BY attribution but it was close! The link to Rowling was in the caption, so not needed anyway. SO I removed it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

King Conquer(band) Picture

I have permission to use a picture for a Wikipedia page, and it's still up for speedy deletion? Could you please explain what I am supposed to do? Erikwnilsson (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to have a license for every one not just for Wikipedia. So permission for Wikipedia only is not enough. Our fair use criteria would not allow non free pictures of a band, since someone could take a free photo at a performance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

First please link to the image File:King Conquer Band Member Picture.jpg so we don't have to go rooting around for it. Anyway, the image was initially uploaded without any copyright licence and then you added a non-free copyright tag but under the non-free policy we don't accept images that are replaceable with free ones. King Conquer are still an active band so the image is replaceable. If you can get the permission of the copyright holder to release the image under a free licence, not just Wikipedia use as Graeme states, we will be able to keep it. Ask them to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT, otherwise it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Image which is personal property

File:Moe Jaffe.png I don't see any category on the list of possible tags for images which fit. I chose Public Domain because that came closest. This image is personal property, taken of my father at our house about 55+ years ago. It was never copyrighted.