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)

RSS logo

This logo is used in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. According to the image file, its purpose is "to identify the organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." Is that considered sufficient as a rationale? It sounds generic to me - the same could be said about any logo used in the article about the logo's organization.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It took me a while to get your point. This is the default purpose text for {{logo fur|Use = Org}}, in other words when the logo is used the body of an article away from the top, which apparently is sometimes OK. If the parameter were Use = Infobox, the purpose would be better: "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey." —teb728 t c 05:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you had trouble with my explanation. I'm just trying to understand if we can always use logos in the infoboxes of the logo-organization articles or whether further justification is required. WP:LOGO is fairly long and, in my view, unnecessarily complex because at the end of the day it appears that the answer is yes. Is that right? If so, I'll stop fighting the use of the logo in the article, even though I disagree with the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a widely accepted consensus that the use of one image in the infobox to visually identify the subject of the article satisfies NFCC #8. Of course it still has to satisfy the other 9 criteria, including #1 and #3. And it actually has to visually identify the subject (which most logos, including this one, would do, as would most portraits for a bio); I have seen screenshot deleted at FfD, however, because they did little to identify the subject TV episode. I agree with the consensus, but it has the unfortunate effect of making some people think that an image is acceptable for merely illustrating a mention of something. —teb728 t c 05:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright information and tags.

Hi, I'm adding an Image to Andrew Scheer, the Speaker of the House of Commons Canada. I'm having trouble correctly editing the tags and what not to completely enter in the copyright information. It seems a bit confusing and tedious. Do you have any recommendations as to how to edit it (or what to add to it the image page so it is not deleted?) I found out where it belongs to (public domain Canadian govt.) Image page File:SpeakerScheer.jpg Thanks.Ahutf (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a PD tag for Canada government works except for {{PD-Canada}}, which is for expired Crown copyright. This seems to be in the belief that all Canada government works are under Crown copyright for 50 years. What makes you think this protrait is not under Crown copyright? If it is indeed under Crown copyright, then I am afraid that it cannot be used here because it would be a replaceable non-free image. Sorry. —teb728 t c 07:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see that, however what is more confusing is there is no claim on the website or any in that matter as who indeed the photographer is. He would be contracted by the office, which makes it available for public use and distribution. I was given the Green light to use the picture, by asking the Member himself. Even though the Government is "under the crown" it would not necessarily mean that the picture is a crown copyright. A crown copyright is Canada-Post for instance, a government corp. There is no "royal seal" kind of picture that I used, however you can indirectly state that the Speaker and the Government work on behalf of the Crown, so really it's a big Farce. It can be more than 1 or 2 copyrights in total.Ahutf (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the member owned the copyright in the picture in order to grant permission? And did they grant a free license in writing? If the answer to either question is no, then we cannot use it here, and if answers are both yes then it needs proving. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Also you say the Member gave permission to use the picture: Does that mean he gave permission to use the picture only on Wikipedia? As I understand it, that would be in accord with Crown copyright since Wikipedia is non-profit. But it would not make the picture free use, which is what Wikipedia requires. —teb728 t c 08:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe when I asked, I had to get authorization of the person in question as well, (since he is the subject of the picture) and the photographer is not unknown but not listed on the site. Similar pictures appear on his riding (constituency office) site that were free for the public to access and use, provided a they do not take it to sell it in which it would definitely be in violation. While it may be crown copyright it may fall in another category which I was looking at originally. I believe it was the Licenses that I was trying to get down as well, to be more clear.Ahutf (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

If it can't be sold then we almost certainly can't use it. Why? Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content; so we give strong preference to free content, i.e. content that can be reused by anyone for anything, including commercial use. To the extent we use a picture with a commercial restriction, it hampers the ability to reuse the article for commercial purposes. So there is a policy: Non-freecontent is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. As a result of this policy pictures of people still alive are almost never allowed, since it is almost always possible to take a new free picture as a replacement. Sorry. —teb728 t c 04:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why my file is not matching with MIME type

I am trying 2 upload an image of Shakira's Whenever,wherever but its saying that the "file does not match the MIME type".it is an screenshot of her music video Whenever,wherever and suerte.I have many images to upload but not a single is uploading.What i do now??Pls help me frinds.Adi21124 (talk2me —Preceding undated comment added 10:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

This means the name of the file does not match the content. For example if a .jpg was named with .gif on the end you would get this kind of error. You should be able to rename the file before or at the time you upload to correct this, if you know the type of the file. On the copyright side of things we do not want a lot of screenshots from the same video as they would be non-free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

To see what the file really is you can cat or more the file in a command window and see what the characters are near the beginning: GIF89a = .gif ; JFIF = .jpg ; PNG = .png ; BM = .bmp.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I was saying that i have many images 2 upload but not in that single one article whenever wherever but in many articles u got me wrong dude.now i m going 3 try what u said thanks 4 ur opinion..Adi21124 (talk2me —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

ariel ortega

Ariel‑Ortega‑2.jpg am i aloud this. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh2211 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no file of that name here or on the commons, so you need to provide a complete wikilink or URL before we can help you. ww2censor (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Photograph taken in 1981

I found the the statement below in one of the Wikipedia articles about image copyrights:

Copyright notices are not needed any more when published in the U.S., without a copyright notice:

• From 1923 to 1977: in the public domain
• From 1978 to March 1, 1989: only in the public domain if not registered since

I want to include a cropped version of a photograph that was taken in 1981 and never copyrighted (LWPortrait cropped2.png). What copyright tag(s) should I use?

Thank you, M343r (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-US-1989}} is the tag. But was it published in 1981 without a copyright? If it was not published then copyright still applies. You will also have to say where the original picture came from and when and where it was published so that others can confirm the copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This table File:PD-US table.svg is very useful for determining what copyright applies to US works. ww2censor (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

image for Big Band Reflections fo Cole Porter

Thanks for the feedback, I need to go over the tags and how to get the image page to work the right way. I am confused at this point and will probably have questions at as to what to use, let me try to do this first and not waste anyones time. I am still slow with some of the functions, it was my first use of it for a CD cover.

Jcooper1 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For File:ALBUM COVER, Big Band Reflections of Cole Porter.jpg you will need to use {{Template:Non-free album cover}}. Also take a look at template:information/doc for how to make an information template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2 requests concerning copyright

I largely created the article Battle of Cunaxa and am now having problems with the proper copyright stuff. I believe I've done all the right stuff, and Im requesting that it be deleted, but before it is I'm wondering if someone will go in and check on the pictures for themselves and make sure they are all copyrighted (so to speak) correctly. I believe they are, but I'm not sure.SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

the license tags and information look to be reasonable now. However what is the relationship with "Alexander: a history of the origin and growth of the art of war from the earliest times to the battle of Ipsus, B.C. 301, with a detailed account of the campaigns of the great Macedonian"? Does the link mean that you based your diagram on information from this book? If so that could be made clearer in the description. Also at an earlier point you said public domain. This is also a valid possibility. The date in the information template should be the date that you drew the picture. The warning tags can now be removed. What are you asking to be deleted? The article was a joint effort, and so should not be deleted just on your request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Their is information in that book that is pertinent to the battle of cunaxa. Ok, I can do that. Secondly, I was asking if the removal of the photos could be deleted, so that they wouldn't get deleted. Unless their still some work to be done...SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you fix the date and clarify that you used information from the book, you can remove the two warning notices. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How? It says only administrators can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMooreSmith3 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Where? It didn't say that either in the warnings on the file page or in the messages on your talk page. The only thing it said about administrators was that administrators could delete the files if license tags were not added. Once the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license tags were added, anyone could delete the warning tags. —teb728 t c 06:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you have not done it, I have removed the tags. For pending deletes like this you can remove the tags if you have fixed the problem. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Headshots in Belldandy

I'd like a second opinion on the headshots in Belldandy. I think that there are an excessive number of them, especially the color ones, where three look almost completely identical. Should I go ahead and remove some of the headshots? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah too many get rid of at least 5 out of 7. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why in particular? Their intent was to show different art styles in different works, and evolving art style in the the main work. I don't see a real probem with reducing the number of colour ones, although they do serve a role, but the black and white ones show a clear progression in artistic style. - Bilby (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The color ones were the ones I was most concerned over. I'm no expert, so from a layperson's perspective I can't really see a difference between 1, 3, and 4 in the color ones. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Although with the colour ones, each comes from a different series, so I guess there is some interest in the fact that they do use a consistent style. I'm more interested in the black-and-white, because of the clear progression in style. You wouldn't recoignise the later version of the character based on the earlier ones. - Bilby (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well we would need to have commentary on each drawing to show that it contributes to understanding. Galleries are normally oulawed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How?SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Two aspects, in the article, it should be made clear what the image is showing. So there should be text saying when and where the picture was made, and what is changing over time. The fair use rationale has to explain why this image adds meaning. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In a Lonely Place (1950 film)

The images used in the article In a Lonely Place were taken from the trailer. But I recently noticed that the film itself didn't seem to have any copyright notice on it either. A check at the Library of Congress didn't seem to turn up any motion picture results, only soundtrack-related. Is this entire film in the public domain? More specifically, would I be able to upload images from the actual film, not the trailer? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A copyright notice may have appeared elsewhere on the film, eg the canister, so do not assume is is uncopyrighted because you saw no notice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

License information for Public Library's holding

I have not indicated the license status of an uploaded image because I am not sure which copyright tag to choose. The image is not copyright protected and is the property of the Oak Lawn Public Library, where I work. The images are a scanned copy of a photograph and a postcard that were both given to the library with the former owners' rights relinquished. I have uploaded the images a few times each. As of today, there is a version of each image that is labeled as "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain." I would like these to be the images set in the Oak Lawn, Illinois page.

Here are the image links:

Unless your donor was the photographer who took those two pictures, they had no right or power to release those images into the public domain. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Question on File:PatrickMcGoohan2.jpg

Does File:PatrickMcGoohan2.jpg look kosher? It looks like an autographed headshot, and the uploader has given no indication that they actually took the photo, rather than just uploading it. --Jayron32 14:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to WP:AGF and all that, there is no way I can believe that this is the uploader's own work. That's a classic studio-provided, professionally-taken photo, suitable for autograph sessions. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree it looks like a studio shot - the same image (or part of it) appears at http://www.screenrush.co.uk/stars/star-1036/ and is captioned © Collection Christophe L. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also this may be of interest http://uk.gamespot.com/users/GusF/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-24545518 may not be a reliable source but indicated as Orangemike says an image used by the artist when he send out autographs, it mentions it comes with a "certificate of authenticity" - suggest nominate it for deletion at commons as there is reasonable doubt about the provenance. MilborneOne (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

While this image is currently hosted on the commons, there does not appear to be any confirmation the uploader is the author; he only made that one upload to the commons. Because McGoohan is dead we can likely move the image over here, before it gets deleted, and justify its use here with a properly written fair-use rationale unless we can find a freely licenced image of him. ww2censor (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a perfectly fine solution. I am fine with any solution that brings the image into compliance with policy, deletion is not the only option. I just wanted to confirm my suspicion that it wasn't up to snuff currently. --Jayron32 23:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of good order, I have nominated it for deletion from Commons, but there is still time for it to be moved here per WP:NFCC. – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Newfoundland images

Does anyone know the status of pre-entry into Confederation (1949) Newfoundland images?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Copyright Act 1911 article the Dominion of Newfoundland adopted and enacted that act as the Newfoundland Copyright Act 1912. The original term of copyright is available here and shows a general term of 50 years pma. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

who is the author of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.150.101 (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No article yet, I generally write one article on a major Canadian political figure a year, or, rather, take the existing article and improve it to FA standards. I was asked to consider Joey Smallwood as the 2012 possibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of two scientific papers

I own copies of two scientific papers related to number theory.

• Meissner, W. (1913), "Über die Teilbarkeit von 2^p − 2 durch das Quadrat der Primzahl p=1093", Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Zweiter Halbband. Juli bis Dezember, Berlin: 663–667
• Beeger, N. G. W. H. (1922), "On a new case of the congruence 2^{p − 1} ≡ 1 (mod p²)", Messenger of Mathematics, 51: 149–150

These two papers are cited in the article Wieferich prime. The copy of the Meissner paper I own is a direct photocopy of the paper that I received from the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities on request. The copy of the Beeger paper is a PDF file that was available online for some time from http://ia301527.us.archive.org/1/items/messengerofmathe5051cambuoft/messengerofmathe5051cambuoft.pdf for download.

Now my question is, are these two papers still protected by copyright? If not, is it possible to upload them to some Wikimedia project? (In case of the Meissner paper this means I would have to scan (digitize) it first.) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It will be important to know which country the papers were published in. The first one looks to be Prussia, which no longer exists, but perhaps German law applies, may be 70 years after death of author to go public domain. Messenger of Mathematics looks to be published in UK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Should it be OK to upload them (and I don't know if it is or it isn't, I'll leave it to others to decide how to answer that part of your question), the correct place to upload them would be Wikisource. --Jayron32 14:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I have been unable to determine when Waldemar Meissner died, I will assume that the work is still copyrighted. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia palagiarised - what to do?

HI

I have a little problem. Do we do anything when Wikitext is taken and put onto a page which then claims it as their copyright and "all rights reserved?" Chaosdruid (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• One option is to handly it yourself using the steps described here: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process. Wikipedia's strong "DIY ethic" applies to policing its policies, which includes dealing with reusing content outside of Wikipedia (i.e. if you see a problem, you are encouraged to address it yourself rather then expect any "official" response from The Foundation). If you wish to bring something to the attention of the Foundation on the off chance they will deal with it, see this page, though I do not guarantee that the Foundation will act on this matter, rather you are more likely to get results if you follow the "Non-compliance process" I describe above. --Jayron32 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheers :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So basically anyone is allowed to use, host, modify, or sell Wikipedia content, so long as they give credit, correct? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Under the terms of CC-BY-SA, any redistribution must be release under an equivalently free license, hence the "ShareAlike" bit. While this doesn't specifically bar anyone from selling Wikipedia content, it does bar them from claiming Copyright. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Aeroman facility night time.jpg

Hello! I've just uploaded this photograph and I received a message on my usertalk since I didn't put a license status of the image. I just added it. Can anyone tell me if it is ok? Thank you Alfred ban (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, it is not. We need to have some sort of proof that the website from which this image came is OK with the license placed on the page; unless they explicitly state they release the image under that license, then the image remains under non-free copyright, and Wikipedia can't house it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words we must assume it is copyrighted unless we have evidence to the contrary, such as an explicit release on the website or a permission communicated per the WP:IOWN process. – ukexpat (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

this is my own picture....

I took the photo and I am letting anyone use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANSUB AHMED SIDDIQUI (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Where??? We don't see no photo. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of image

File http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Feathers_and_wedges_2.svg/250px-Feathers_and_wedges_2.svg.png

I am writing a local history book and would like to use the above image as I think it would be ideal to illustrate what feathers and wedges are and how they work. Do I need, and if so can I get, permission for this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.45.16 (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The actual image page says it all File:Feathers_and_wedges_2.svg "I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." - X201 (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ozgu Namal

• http://www.cabadak.com/hanimin-ciftligine-ceza-geldi

Can I, and if I can, then how upload this photo? Alex ^discussion 10:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No, all the content of that site is covered by the copyright notice at the bottom (© 2011 Güncel Bilgi Paylaşım Sitesi). – ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

University of Western Sydney

Does this file met the threshold of originality? I ask because I think it does, but there is a file on Commons, which claims it doesn't. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the Commons file info page. (My internal test is that if I (the least artistic person that I know) could have come up with it, then it doesn't meet the threshold.) – ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Lycanthropus

While looking at File:ScreenshotCurtLowens5-1-2.png from Lycanthropus (1962), I noticed that the movie is listed at http://www.archive.org/details/Werewolf_In_A_Girls_Dormitory as public domain. AT 00:10, I see a copyright notice. Compare this with Night of the Living Dead (1968) http://www.archive.org/details/NightOfTheLivingDead1968-Restored where our article explains its copyright status being due to the copyright notice being omitted. Does anyone know why this movie is public domain? Or whether Moving Image Archive is reliable when it comes to copyright? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

creative commons 3.0 license

This, more than likely, is not a new topic but a problem I am having a hard time resolving. I am a new user of Wikipedia and I want to use it correctly. I am also writing a book and have found some pictures licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License. It appears that I can use these photos if I properly attribute them and do not indicate in any way that the photographers approve of my material. It also appears that I can use them in a commercial enterprise (which I hope my book will be). However, I have several questions: 1. What is the exact way that these pictures should be attributed - by the Wiki user name or by the photographer's correct name, which is often given when I click on the user name? It would help to see a sample attribution for a photo under this license. 2. I am assuming that using the photos under this license means that I would have to allow readers to freely copy these photos from the book, as long as they credit the original photographer. However, this would not preclude my copyrighting my material within the book. Is this correct? 3. Under fair use, I am assuming that I would be expected to treat the photos essentially "with respect" and not abuse their use in any way. Is this correct? 4. Is there any reason I need to contact the photographers to request their use for commercial enterprises? I would appreciate any help you can give me. Thank you.Redheadsheb (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Determine as best you can the name and credit wording that the author specified in connection with the photo. Sometimes he stated it explicitly in an "attribution" line in the information box and/or in an introduction line with the license tag. If not, and unless stated otherwise, you can often assume that he wants to be credited under the name he indicated in the "author" field or in any other way on the description page of the photo. You may also find useful the suggestions in the "How_do_I_properly_attribute" section of the Creative Commons abbreviated FAQ.

2. Yes.

3. Your use of the expression "under fair use" is somewhat ambiguous. I assume you're still talking about the CC license, not the fair use notion of the U.S. Copyright Act. If so, the answer to your question seems to be the terms of section 4d of the license.

4. No, not with the by-sa license if it doesn't have a "nc" clause. That is an important point of free licenses. You don't need to contact the author if you do what is allowed by the license. You would need to contact him only if you wanted a derogation to the license.

-- Asclepias (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for takedown

Several IP's have been removing a photo and adding a takedown notice on Central Pacific 173, not really sure how to deal with this one. Should I ask them to use WP:CONTACT, WP:OTRS, or is this not how it should be done? Apologies for this thread being slightly out of scope of this board, but I know the editors here will know what to do. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

While this image is hosted on the commons, you may try asking for some help from User:Centpacrr, who has a connection with cprr.org (see his user page). I suspect this claim is copyfraud, i.e., claiming copyright over an image which is in the public domain. Even unpublished works are only copyright for 95 years from creation by anon authors or 120 years for known authors, per commons:COM:L#United States, so an 1864 image would have passed into the public domain in 1959 at earliest and 1984 at the latest. Some organisations don't understand some of the nuances of copyright law and make such copyright claims mainly based on ignorance rather than US copyright law. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos taken at a sports event

I want to upload one photo I took at Wimbledon 2011 and probably more if I find something else. The conditions of entry for the event state that audiovisual material recorded in the event may not be sold or used commercially unless authorized by the All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club, which organizes the event. However, Wikipedia requests that uploaded images should be free to use commercially, which would make the posting of ANY photo taken at Wimbledon a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please reply on which license should I select or if I should not upload the image at all, which I would understand as to most probably mean that every present and future photo in Wikipedia that has been taken in Wimbledon, and in many other sports events that have a similar policy, would have to be taken down. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrevino (talk • contribs) 19:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's your neck on the block: you are the one who has entered into a contract with the All England Club, nobody else. If you make your photo available without restricting it to be NC use only, as I understand it the All England Club has no recourse in law against anyone (including WP) who might use it; but they may have recourse against you, for breaking your contract with them.

Of course if you restrict it to be NC use only, Wikipedia won't accept it, and the upload page will ask you to select a less restrictive license. Jheald (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Images keep disappearing from my page.

Hello I am Ron Schneider and have a copyright from Ethan Russell which was sent in by the person who put the page up. Here is one of the files Let the Money do the talking Is there a way to correct this so the image stays up?

thank you ron schneider