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)

FTSE Constituents Data

I can see on the FTSE 100 Index page that there is a list of the constituents. FTSE_100_Index#Current_constituents

However if I visit the FTSE Group's website where they publish the data it says: "All information is your information and personal use only. To reproduce or publish any information provided on or accessed from this site, you will require a licence from FTSE." http://www.ftse.com/Indices/UK_Indices/Constituents.jsp

Does this mean Wikipedia needs a license to reproduce the list of constituents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uptodateinfo (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That list doesn't seem to be copyrightable in the United States, which is what matters for English Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons also needs files to be free in the source country, which in this case is the United Kingdom. The list might not be copyrightable in the United Kingdom either because of a recent ruling in an EU court, see Commons:COM:VPC#EU court rejects Sweat of the Brow in Britain. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That link is here if you were trying to find it. It's about the recent court case on the copyrighting of football fixtures. Secretlondon (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So US copyright is what counts for English Wikipedia. Thanks for explaining that. But why would this not be copyrightable under US law. Surely FTSE makes up its mind on what is in the FTSE100, thus there is original work. Or is it that anyone could copy their rules, apply it to the companies listed on the UK stock exchange and always come up with an identical list? Uptodateinfo (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Because facts are not copyrightable under US law. That the FTSE 100 list is composed of these elements in this order is a fact. What one cannot do is create a similar, competing list and use the FTSE 100 as a basis for it, or pass off the FTSE 100 list as their own. —howcheng {chat} 21:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting the right copyright option when uploading images

It doesn't seem like I have had an aswer to my question I put yesterday.

I am trying to upload images to add to the article that I am writing about my grandfather (Giorgio Matteo Aicardi) since he was an Italian painter. Me and my mother jointly own his remaining collection which we have took pictures of apart from 1 ( file:Autoritratto del pittore con la sua famiglia (1939).jpg ) which is owned by a private collectionist who has given us permission to use the photo that we took on our website and on wikipedia.

The following pictures are from artwork that we own, and pictures that we took :

• file:Olivi (1942).jpg
• file:Baptismal Font in St. Peter, Rome (1915).jpg
• file:Winter In Piemonte (1960).jpg

What else do I have to do to avoid auto-deletion for the pictures listed above? ( including file:Autoritratto del pittore con la sua famiglia (1939).jpg )

Maximo98 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Send an email as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, explaining that as the legal heir of Giorgio Matteo Aicardi you own the copyright on his paintings (including "Autoritratto del pittore con la sua famiglia" (ownership of the actual painting does not confer copyright)) and that you license the small photos of them (citing the file names) under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. —teb728 t c 04:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What other options have I got as we do not really wish to release the art for anyone to use it commercially for example. Is there any other copyright we can choose? Thanks.

Maximo98 (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, that would not be possible, as the whole point of Wikipedia is to create a repository of knowledge that anyone can use for any purpose. Under U.S. copyright laws and our own non-free content policy, we may be able to include one or two of the pieces in the article, but not really any more than that. —howcheng {chat} 21:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Maximo, I don't understand: didn't you tag them {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}? You would be releasing only the small photos under free license--not full resolution images of the paintings. —teb728 t c 06:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Too "like" Facebook

Template:like: Like Template:dislike:  Dislike

I saw one of the above templates in action. Every one step in it is pretty minor - the graphic File:Facebook like thumb.png is copied from Facebook with the claim that it is too simple to copyright, the template marks it up with simple line drawing and the choice of just the right font from the user's computer to look like Facebook. And each insertion is one small talk page comment. But taken together, it seems like we may be appropriating their graphic and indeed even trading using their name with the image title, with not the slightest pretense of Fair Use. Before I saw this template:like had already survived two deletion discussions, but nobody mentioned copyright issues there. I think that in the interests of prudence someone here should draw our own damn thumbs-up and thumbs-down icons, before Facebook seizes on it as a way to set a legal precedent that they own the very idea of thumbs-up and thumbs-down forever. What do you think? Wnt (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28#Template:Dislike.--ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm not looking to reopen the deletion question; I think anyone (even I) could redraw the hand graphic from scratch, perhaps choosing a different ethnicity in the process for the sake of diversity; likewise the font or box could be changed readily. And I'm only proposing to do that if copyright is a concern here, in the opinion of those experienced with the issue. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole "like" template appears to violate FB's trademarks, which I know they are very protective of. —howcheng {chat} 20:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

File:UnclopediaOnWP.JPG

thumb Um, as far as I know, Uncyclopedia's not a copyrighted web site. In fact, they rarely even care if they're responsible for copyright infringement. So I was confused when I saw the notice claiming that the image was copyrighted. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In US copyright law, if you publish something, you are given full copyright protection regardless if you file for it or not. The claim that "Uncyclopedia's not a copyrighted web site" is false - it is copyrighted. Now, there are things that you can reduce and allow reuse of your content: in the case of Wikipedia, all content is under the GFDL/CC-BY-SA licenses that grant the user explicit permission to reuse freely with attribution. If Uncyclopedia has a similar license, then that's ok, but without it, we have to assume the work is copyrighted even if there's no explicit message as such. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia uses CC-BY-NC-SA for its texts. This image has no licence statement at Uncyclopedia, so it might be CC-BY-NC-SA, "all rights reserved" or anything else. It is safer to assume that it is unfree. Wikipedia considers CC-BY-NC-SA to be unfree. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright for a ticket stub?

In regards to this file: File:Chicago Cubs at SF Giants 2010-08-10 ticket.jpg. I'm fairly certain that the uploader of the file in question does not own the copyright on this ticket and, as such, has no standing to release it under the GNU FDL or a Creative Commons License (both of which are applied to the file). Given that the work has, apparently, no sufficient changes to grant a new/different copyright, but that there may be a legitimate purpose under Fair Use claims for this particular image, what is the proper license to be indicated for a ticket stub such as this? Sliver7 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The photograph of the stadium throws the the ticket stub into copyrighted territory (since we have no idea whom the photographer is and therefore that's at least 1 copyrighted element in play). I am doubtful there is a legitimate fair use for the image when we consider it non-free, since it's just a ticket stub with nothing notable about it. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe there is a potential legitimate use for this image (e.g., in the "Ticket (admission)" article), but the licensing/copyright issue definitely needs to be resolved before it can be used there (looks like it's in use on French Wikipedia site already). Sliver7 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ticket stubs are usually PD-text, too simple to be copyrighted, unless like what Masem said there's a background image in which the copyright is unknown. Secret ^account 18:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yea, if we're trying to illustrate "Ticket", there's plenty of tickets that use no copyrightable imagery, and thus should be used instead. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Image help

How do I add a jpg photo to an exsisting page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenFulbright (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. —howcheng {chat} 20:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo license

Hello there.

I'm using my own photo for my user page. How can I properly tag it so that I am in compliance with Wikipedia?

Best,

Rudy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.151.132 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

See the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

uploaded an image with consent of the copyright holders

I uploaded an image with consent of the copyright holders. How can I tell wikipedia that I have got the permission to share it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khiladi 2010 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

By having the copyright holder verify their permission to the OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How to copyright tag images that have been uploaded

Hi, I've uploaded this image:

and am trying to sort out the copyright situation. It is a copyrighted company logo so what tag should I use? If so, where do I put this tag? The company have given me permission to use the logo for the wikipedia article, how do I make that clear so that the picture is not deleted?

thanks OliverCP (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

{{Non-free logo}} seems to be the best option. This is already what you're using. Permission for Wikipedia is only useful for WP:NFCC#2 claims, but this doesn't seem relevant for a company logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Controversial "Daisy" ad

The famous "Daisy (advertisement)" video (1964) has been uploaded to the Internet Archive as public domain [1]. Can we use it here as free? – Lionel ^(talk) 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Since it's public domain, we could definitely use it. Chris857 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 13:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded and added it to the article. Chris857 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic Wreck

Hi there,

I uploaded image of my oil painting "Titanic Wreck" to my Wikipedia page but it seems it has a copyright problem. It says:

"This file does not have information on its copyright and licensing status. Unless the copyright and licensing status is provided, the image will be deleted after Tuesday, 1 May 2012. Please remove this template if a correct copyright license tag has been added."

What shall I do? I created this painting. Please help me out. Can you make changes for me?

Thank You.

File:Titanic Wreck.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeljkoArtist (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you have now tagged it cc-by-sa-3.0. That's a good tag. —teb728 t c 02:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Book cover

I'm having trouble finding any information on whether I can upload an image of a book cover. I'm trying to update an article about a novel that came out last year. Can someone point me in the right direction? What do I need to do to get the cover uploaded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.172.183 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images help?--ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The book cover can be useful to aid in identification of the book the article is about. However articles do not normally need more than one cover. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding Reuters photo of Aaron Spelling

I have requested permission toward Reuters to use the photo of Aaron Spelling (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/13464007/ns/today-entertainment/t/tv-innovator-aaron-spelling-dies/). Reuters said that this such usage in Wikipedia is fair use, which counts as permission from Reuters, despite #7 of the WP:NFC#UUI. However, I wonder if this such use is all right. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's non-free use policy is intentionally more restrictive than fair use law. For example, the ban on using replaceable non-free content has no counterpart fair use law. —teb728 t c 06:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

But he's currently deceased. How is any photo of him replaceable? --George Ho (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That was simply an example (perhaps an unfortunate example) of how non-free use policy is more restrictive than fair use law. —teb728 t c 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, that image is replaceable? --George Ho (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that TEB728's comment just was an explanation that Wikipedia's WP:NFCC is more restrictive than required by US law and not a claim that this particular photo is replaceable. Other projects may have either more or less restrictive fair use rules. For example, French Wikipedia only allows fair use of recent buildings, logos and currency, while Swedish Wikipedia doesn't allow any fair use at all. The person is dead and in such cases it is usually reasonable to assume that no free replacements exist unless free replacements are known to exist. The man was born in 1923 and it is entirely possible that there might be photos of his childhood which are in the public domain because of age, but such photos would not be very useful as people are more used to seeing him as an adult and so I would say that a recent photo isn't replaceable by a photo of him as a child. It says that he has been active since 1954 and it is entirely possible that there might be advertisements, publicity shots or similar documents which may have been published without complying with US formalities (thus placing them in the public domain), but unless you know of any such document, I would say that it sounds reasonable to assume that no such document exists and that the photo is irreplaceable by a free photo. Of course, if a replacement is discovered at some point, the photo would probably have to be deleted.

The permission you have received from Reuters sounds like something which might remove WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7 issues for this photo, but it would be nice if someone else could comment that. If someone thinks that there may be concerns, it's maybe safer to find a different non-free photo of him. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I uploade this photo to Wikipedia right now? I cannot hold on any longer. I haven't contacted Soundvisions1 yet because he is occasionally or seldom active. --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no deadline, so no, I would wait.

As for the NFCC issues, while Spelling is deceased, we don't require a free photo. However, we still need to respect the issue of press agency photos. There appear to be other photos of Spelling that aren't connected to press agencies that can be used that would be more acceptable under NFCC than the one pointed to presently. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree; there is a deadline. Seven days after this message, without replies, this thread would be archived. --George Ho (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

DEADLINE doesn't apply to discussions. Just because a discussion goes stale doesn't mean you shouldn't wait to get better confirmation or a better photo to check and re-start a new discussion when found. But your line "I cannot hold on any longer" is against the principle of DEADLINE. --MASEM (t) 00:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an uncommon case. It's always been my impression that most of the large commercial image providers would be rather unwilling to recognize our use of their material as legitimate fair use. In some cases, I believe we have rather explicit statements from them to this effect (don't remember if that was from Getty or some other similar company). For that reason, such a statement encouraging us to invoke fair use on their stuff would be rather surprising. I'd certainly want to see the exact correspondence before I can comment further. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

From David Pillinger, Picture Sales Specialist of Reuters: "It appears this usage would be fair use so please proceed and credit the image to Reuters." --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Public domain or not

Regarding OTRS Ticket#: 2012020310008399, this image is licensed {PD-US-no renewal}, as it was taken in 1962 and the tag asserts that its copyright was not renewed. The claimed owner of the photograph and its copyrights asserts, "That is not correct. The image of Marilyn Monroe is copyrighted by George Barris 1962-2012. The copyright certificate is TX 2 020 584." I have no idea what procedure or process is for resolving that type of dispute, here or on Commons. Can you help, please? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

this document makes reference to that renewal. although I don't know whether that will shed light or raise more questions. In light of the fact that it is a legal document, my first inclination would be to turn it over to the lawyers.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that didn't turn into a link- maybe because it is a .doc, but if you drop it into a browser, it should bring up the legal dispute about that image.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Needed the http:// which I added for you.--ukexpat (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a seemingly authoritative discussion of it here: [2], in the second bolded section: George Barris vs Richard Hamilton, Madison Avenue Bookshop, Monacelli Press Inc., Anthony D’Offay Gallery Inc. and Tate Gallery Productions, Inc., Hacker Art Books, Inc. and the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles USDC SDNY (5-14-1999) ¤ 51 USPQ 2d 1191, CCH 27,932. This makes it sound like they missed renewal. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)A relevant excerpt: " The court also granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's copyright infringement claim since plaintiff's copyright protection expired."

(Also noted in the link you found)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status pf photographs prior to 1923

There's an interesting collection of photographs now available. See this for information. The actual gallery is overwhelmed at the moment, but see this for some examples.

According to this, the photographs can only be used for personal use, obviating the possibility of use in Wikipedia. I understand how this can apply to more recent photographs, but how does it apply to say, one of the 1890 photographs? From Copyright:

In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain

Am I missing something, or are they providing general guidance, because most of the photographs are more recent than 1923?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The distinction here is between when the photo was taken, and when it was published! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I distinction I hadn't fully appreciated. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

And for unpublished works, the rule is that the photographer must have died at least 70 years ago (i.e. before 1942). If anonymous or a work for hire, the copyright instead lasts for 120 years since the photo was taken. If you suspect that a photo is unpublished, you only need to prove that it has never been published before 2003 since later publications are irrelevant for determining the copyright status of ancient photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that contradict the requirements to provide reliable sources for images before 1923? For instance, File:AlanHaleSr.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was created before 1923, but I tagged it for deletion because there were no sources to prove that it was published before 1923. --George Ho (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, without proof of publication, I must treat an image of Alan Hale, Sr., as unpublished and copyrighted as unpublished until after 120 years of creation. --George Ho (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There are times that we have to make our best guesses. Taking the Alan Hale example - we know that he was born in 1892, thus making nearly any photo of him in the adult under 120 years. As long as the photo's taken is not known, we thus assume the worst case - that is a non-free image by anonymous person and knowing under 120 years from publication, meaning that the licence tag {{Non-free historic image}}. If it came out later that it was photographed by a person that died in 1920 (for example), then we can change the licence to a PD one, but without that, we put in the most restrictive license to be on the safe side. It is okay to be wrong in marking what really is a PD image as non-free, but can be harmful if we mark a non-free as PD. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the authorship, if Eugene de Salignac, the photographer, is a freelancer, then this makes him an author of this photo; therefore, the photo will be PD in 2014, after 70 years of his death. However, if he shot this photo for the company under employee agreements, then this photo is copyrighted until 2029, after 120 years of creation, like other works-for-hire, which went first before publication. [3] If it were published first in 2002, then copyrighted until the end of 2047. --George Ho (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation?

I may be wrong, but I believe that the copyright of this image: File:US 51-star alternate flag.svg, does not belong to the uploader and that the image of this flag is in violation of copyright laws. The flag represented in this image is owned and was proposed by the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico. As a matter of fact [Puerto Rico - Political Flags - Part II] states that the flag was designed by Andy Weir in January 11, 2001. I certainly hope that copyright laws have not been violated and if so, I hope that someone here takes action in the matter and nominate the image for a speedy deletion. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, flagspot states that he doesn't know who designed the flag, only that that particular .gif was created by Weir. My thought is that 14 rectangles and a very geometric arrangement of pentagrams is probably not copyrightable. Chris857 (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting observation. In other words, I can mass produce T-Shirts with the mentioned above image with let's say an inscribtion "Puerto Rico, the 51st State" and not have to pay the original designer of the image any royalties because I would not be violating any copyright laws? That is good to know. From my understanding you actually acquire a copyright for your sketches or drawings the instant your pen hits paper. For copyright purposes, visual arts are original pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, which include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art. Isn't impossible for the uploader to claim on July 9, 2006 that he designed the same exact flag {drawing) that someone else claimed to have designed on January 11, 2001? Tony the Marine (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

See Threshold of originality for the relevant legal concept. Some things are so simple they can't be copyrighted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Using a Copyrighted photograph

Hello my name is Clinton and I am currently creating a page for a plant species. I had contacted the author and asked permission to use his photograph. He replied yes, however i just have to put "copyrights to M. Fagg, with permission." is this acceptable on wiki? If so how do i upload it in such a fashion people will know it has been copyrighted? Thank you for your time.

Sincerely Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwizelius (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No that will not do. Because you did not take the photo yourself you need to get the copyright holder verify their permission by emailing our OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper images

I have images of newspapers that contain articles about me. Can I use these photographs of newspapers in the Wikipedia page that describes my own career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koshihikari (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The first thing you need to be aware of is that any editing you do to an article about yourself is a conflict of interest and you should read WP:COI to understand the topic. Generally images of newspapers are only used in articles about those newspapers because they are copyright to the newspaper and in that use we allow non-free image but not in the instance you mention. Perhaps you mean image that have appeared in newspapers; in that case you must get permission from the copyright holder. See the previous post above. Surely you can supply freely licenced image of yourself for which you hold the copyright and can licence it for us. Come back if you have more questions. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tennis photo from Boston Public Library

Hi, I would like to use a tennis image from Boston Public Library's Flickr account on Wikipedia. In the license section it mentions 'Some rights reserved' with a Creative Commons license and conditions BY-NC-ND 2.0. Do I interpret this correctly as meaning that I'm allowed to use this image (and others with the same CC conditions) on Wikipedia/Wikimedia as long as I A) make the proper attribution "(Courtesy of the Boston Public Library, Leslie Jones Collection.)" and B) don't alter it? If this is the case, how strict is the 'No Derivative Works' condition? Can I remove a small black border from the image to make it better suitable for a Wikipedia article or do I have to use it 'as is'? Finally, should I upload this to Wikipedia (en) or Wikimedia (or both) and what is the difference? Haven't uploaded an image here before and want to make sure I get this right (and don't end up in Guantanamo). Thx. --Wolbo (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Files licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND can only be used for non-commercial purposes and can't be modified. Wikipedia considers such files as unfree, so they may only be used under the very limited conditions of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC and must have a fair use rationale each time the file is used. Due to the limitations of WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, files licensed as CC-BY-NC-ND are almost never allowed here. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed for NFCC#1

WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created. . ." seems to be extremely broad and thereby too easily used to remove a photo. A small image I uploaded, File:Pete Fornatale2.jpg was immediately tagged and commented by a few editors for reasons relying on speculations, ie. implying a requirement to contact Flickr users first, or first trying to find "some advertisement from that time with a photo of him but without a copyright notice." Any clarification about whether NFCC #1 can be based on such rationales would be useful. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a standard usage of WP:NFCC#1. Images of living people are inherently replaceable, and copyrighted images can't be used to illustrate them.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, to be fair, in the present case (I'm the person who nominated it), the subject died, though only yesterday. The issue is whether the habitual NFCC1 exemption for deceased person should be invoked immediately and as an automatic entitlement, or whether uploaders should be exepected to first exhaust reasonable avenues of acquiring free alternatives by, for instance, trying to get free releases for images that exist but aren't free yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that a good-faith search is reasonable, but I suspect others will argue that the search was presumably performed unsuccessfully during the subject's lifetime.—Kww(talk) 19:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Dalius Cekuolis Portrait.jpg Fair Use Dispute

Please help me understand why this file File:Dalius Cekuolis Portrait.jpg is not allowed under fair use if the United Nations has granted us permission under their UN Photo Guidelines. UN photos cannot be altered, sold, redistributed or used to create derivative works. Written permission is, however, not required for reproduction of photo material as allowed by statutory exemptions (e.g. UN-affiliated non-governmental organizations and United Nations Associations, UN system organizations, including Specialized Agencies) or Fair Use. (Fair Use applies solely to scholarly, academic, non-profit, or journalistic use of properly credited UN photos.) Thanks! WheresTristan 22:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, WP:NFC#UUI §1 and the explanation at File talk:Dalius Cekuolis Portrait.jpg. Fair use images of people who are still alive are almost never allowed because it is possible to take a free replacement photo of them. Take a photo of the person yourself and license it under a licence complying with the terms here, or ask someone else to take such a photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Artwork that isn't 2D enough to be public domain

This is about a file on Commons that isn't used any WP articles, but I'm not as familiar with the inner workings of Commons and I fear I didn't receive correct advice the last time I consulted a Commons noticeboard.

This is a photo of the almost two-dimensional top portion of the Metternich Stela (a slightly different perspective on it, showing more clearly why it's a problem, is here). I took the photo from the Web, cropping it to remove the obviously three-dimensional parts of the stela. Before uploading the image to Commons, I asked if an image of that upper portion would be two-dimensional enough to count as public domain. The people who posted there said it probably would, but since then I've read that even coins count as three-dimensional for legal purposes. Is the photo usable, or should I tag it for deletion on Commons?

I have a feeling that I'll be told to delete it. There's an article where I'd like to use that image, so if anybody is going to the Metropolitan Museum of Art soon, I'm hereby pleading with him or her to take a camera to the Metternich Stela. A. Parrot (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? The Metternich stela was created in the 4th century BC. You could take a photograph of it if it was in four dimensions and upload it to Commons. Just crop the shot to take out anything in the background.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear—I'm nowhere near New York, nor will I be anytime soon. I can't photograph it myself, much as I would like to. A. Parrot (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't take the photograph, it is still copyright to the photographer, regardless of whether the Metternich stela is in six dimensions or seven. You are getting two things confused here - you can't take a free picture of a copyright 3d object (in the US, you can in the UK), and you can't upload someone else's photograph to Commons without their CC-BY-SA release. And you can't upload a non-free image of that object to Wikipedia either, because someone could go and take a free picture of it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Now with the first of your two images, you may be OK. May. Nothing to do with it being pan-dimensional. Just that the photograph only shows the object, and Commons is of the opinion (supported by US law but opposed elsewhere) that you cannot take a copyright photograph that only shown a non-copyright object, because there is no creative input. The second image should would be deleted if you did not take it, as there is creating input in the angle of shot, lighting etc, so the photographer will have a copyright. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh… we're sort of talking at cross-purposes. The relevant Commons policy here specifies that the work of art must be two-dimensional. Otherwise, photographs of it are not public domain. "Anything that could cast a shadow is excluded", the policy says. The first image I linked is the one I uploaded; it's on Commons now. I asked on the Commons noticeboard about that image before uploading it, and the Commons users who responded said it probably wouldn't count as three-dimensional, so I uploaded.

Looking at other images of the stela has given me doubts. The second link I posted leads to somebody's photo on Flickr; I don't claim the right to use it for anything. I only linked it to show how the Metternich Stela, even the shallow relief on the upper portion, can cast shadows on its own surface—it's a three-dimensional work of art. So I think now that the image needs to be deleted, much to my regret. A. Parrot (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

We have been at crossed purposes I agree. The Bridgeman principal, upon which commons is relying, is "a photograph which is no more than a copy of a work of another as exact as science and technology permits lacks originality. That is not to say that such a feat is trivial, simply not original". No part of the Metternich stela is two dimensional - it's carved in stone even the top part (see Bas relief). When we started, I have to admit I did not realise that you had not taken the photograph. You have a few choices - you can contact the chap at museumssyndicate and ask if he has released the image. He seems to want to establish a free resource - if he took it, he may have released it. You might contact one of the Flikr uploaders [4] and ask if one of them will release an image. You could request a photo - Wikipedia has enough editors in New York, surely one of them would be prepared to pop into the museum with a camera. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

See also Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. I'm inclined to say that the stone seems to be at least as much 3D as a coin. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

VOA

Looking at this page, the photograph is only credited "file". Does that mean it is created by Voice Of America and thus free, or is it from AP/another agency and thus not? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's credited elsewhere to Yonhap News, a Korean news agency [5] [6]. --dave pape (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, I can't find that on the VOA site. So if it says "file" I should assume it belongs to someone else? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be my assumption; I think they usually mark their own photos "VOA" (or something other than "file", anyways). --dave pape (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Image of Matt Gunther

Image from FalconStudios.com. Is a use in Wikipedia against terms? --George Ho (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Fully copyrighted, all rights reserved, licenses are purely for personal use, explicitly excluding re-publishing or other forms of public display ("use them for any public display"). BTW, a not-safe-for-work warning would have been appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've requested permission, and I may wait for a while. --George Ho (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

 Update: I got permission because they said: use of this image in Wikipedia is fair use. Any issues dealing with WP:NFC and WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a living person, there's still the NFCC#1 failure (replaceability). Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the article; this image is 15-20 years old. This person is diagnosed with HIV. Some claimed that he died in 1997, but his death is unverifiable, so I removed his death. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If we can't even figure out if he's alive or dead, we shouldn't have an article about him in the first place, let alone an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not nominating it as AFD then if you are concerned? --George Ho (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:PQ 1950.jpg

Hello editors, I recently purchased a photograph made in June, 1950, of the Paganini Quartet members. It was offered on eBay, where it had been posted on the internet, and was sold by Historic Images. See File:PQ 1950.jpg I have no way of knowing who the photographer was, though he/she evidently worked for some periodical's music page. It is very unlikely that that person is still alive, and I have no way of contacting his/her estate, if any. I am the executor of the estate of Henri Temianka, who was the founder and first violinist of the Paganini Quartet. I can vouch for the authenticity of the photograph and the identities of the persons depicted. Your assistance in guiding me to the appropriate copyright designation would be very greatly appreciated. Thank you.DtemiankaHT (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello DtemiankaHT. If the image was actually published between 1923 and 1978 it depends on whether there was an appropriate copyright mark on the first publication date. Images not properly marked as copyrighted or registered with the US Copyright Office during that time are in the Public Domain and should be tagged with {{PD-US-1996}}. According to your description though there is no way to be sure about the publication and its formalities. So I would advise you to rather not upload the image at all. De728631 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Facebook photo

Hi,

I'm trying to notate the copyright data for a photo that I've uploaded ( the main article is within my private contributions - I was hoping to get it right before releasing it for online editing. I thought that the picture may be here too :-) ). The problem is that it is a picture that was uploaded to Facebook. I have asked the author ( presumably ) if it was okay to use it on the wikipedia page and they agreed. But does it still come within Facebook, and if so, what licence(?) does it need?

All the best,

Tim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider23 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This is apparently about File:Ria Zmitrowicz.jpg and I see that you have already found out about the OTRS email team. My only concern is though that this photo was probably not taken by Ria Zmitrowicz herself but by a professional photographer. So while she may hold the rights of use she might not be the original author. Only the author can decide about licensing and reusing their works. Do you have link to the ebay item so we could view the image online? De728631 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft & Bing Maps

Recognizing that Bing Maps is a service of Microsoft, are screenshots from Bing Maps allowed on Wikipedia? I have taken a screenshot of a certain building and I was wondering if I could upload it to Wikipedia. I am not quite sure what the copyright laws are for Microsoft regarding its maps. WeirdnSmart0309 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, they are not allowed. They are copyrighted and do not meet wikipedia's non-free image use criteria because they are replaceable with freely licensed photos taken of the buildings/geographical features. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Skillet2010.jpg

I am curious about this image used as the main image of Skillet (band). My concern is based on the "wrapped face" on the banner behind the band. This image is likely copyrighted, so does FOP or de minimus apply? Also, the Marshall logos are visible on the amps, should these be photoshopped out? — GabeMc (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a commons hosted image, so your discussion should really be there, and has been nominated for deletion there at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Skillet2010.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion nomination has been removed. ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Uploading An Image

Can you instruct me on how to upload an image to wikipedia from my iPad 2. Do you guys have a mobil website where i can use the iPad 2 to upload a picture to the Peyton List article. They havent uploaded a picture to the Peyton List Article since 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The VJJ (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Using photos from BBC, old or new

I am reading Personal and Business Terms from BBC.co.uk. Many television screenshots, whether in BBC Online or not, are properties of BBC, and I wonder if BBC allows man-made television screenshots in Wikipedia. Also, I have uploaded some of their photos. Therefore, I wonder if we Wikipedians must obey either Personal or Business Terms of BBC Online. --George Ho (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

When you take a screenshot of any copyrighted show, the copyright remains with the copyright owner of the show, so any use of them here will be non-free, following US fair use law. The BBC terms can't prevent you from taking screenshots and using them under en.wiki NFC provisions. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What about photos that were taken long ago? shall they be considered publicity or commercial? --George Ho (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say without examples, but assuming they were taken by BBC to be part of their news service, they would be allowable as non-free images. --MASEM (t) 17:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What about photos of any cast member(s) from EastEnders, Are You Being Served?, and other fictional shows? --George Ho (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Photos of a cast member on a page about the cast member, assuming they are still alive - with almost no exception, never.

Photos of a cast member on a page about the cast member, assuming they have passed away, possibly, though depends on the strength of the NFCC#8 argument.

Photos of a cast member on a page about the character, maybe, if there is a strong need to visually identify the character and they look fundamentally different from the cast member directly. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

All right. Must we use Personal or Business Terms? Wikipedia is educational and non-profitable, not personal, to be clear. --George Ho (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

BBC terms have nothing to do with it. They aren't in a CC-BY license, and thus fall into non-free licensing. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So, as long as I can use a non-free photo of cast member for a character article, that's okay, right? --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Barring the strength of the rationale (which is very subjective, and outside the bounds here), then it should be okay as a non-free image. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it advertising to mention the OS on an editor's machine?

I think it is and I want to keep WP ad-free. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newbiepedian Is it even relevant? Isn't the editing done on WP's servers? Furthermore, is it OK to use a reg trademark without permission or indication of its nature by a capital R surrounded by a circle? Gatorinvancouver (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)