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)

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)

Qualifying as fair use is necessary, but not sufficient, to meet Wikipedia's nonfree content requirements. WMF policy requires that content be suitable, whenever possible, for off-Wikipedia reuse, and press agency images fail that standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 1 May 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)

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)

Thx for the response Stefan. At first it confused me because I thought that Wikipedia automatically qualifies for NC (being an encyclopedia) and the BY and ND conditions would nmot pose a problem, but after reading up on WP:NFCC and WP:NFC I understand why these photos are considered 'non-free'. FYI I did send an email to the Boston Public Library asking them if the Leslie Jones Collection photos can be placed on Wikipedia / Wikimedia (with proper attribution) and received a positive reply. Does that change the situation? Also note that the photos are from the 1917 - 1934 period so most tennis players shown are likely no longer alive.--Wolbo (talk) 17:15, 1 May 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 [1] 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 [2] [3]. --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)

The iPad greys out the upload button.. However if you do indeed own copyright on the image, you can email it to me and I will upload it and then you edit the file page to confirm your copyright license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:37, 2 May 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)

It's OK, many "Wikipedians" have so called userboxes on their user page. They is nothing to say against as long as the image are free (not copyrighted) and/or they are not attacking anybody. mabdul 21:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The MS logo is surely copyrighted and a trademark. Maybe the users of Ubuntu will plaster its logo on their pages. But to repeat, my main problem is with the fact it is advertising. The same use also mentions s/he uses gmail. What is the relevance of this with respect to contributions to WP? Moreover, if it is OK to advertise a MS product why stop there? Is it OK for me to mention the CPU in my machine? (Watch out for the AMD fan.) Why not mention the browser I use and watch an explosion of IE and Firefox logos on user pages. I have been supporting WP for years financially to keep it ad-free. If advertising is allowed in via the back door I have to reevaluate if I still want to send money (of the precious little I have to live on) to WP.Gatorinvancouver (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said: Many people have userboxes, some promote their browsers, other their religion, and again other their politics and other stuff. Click on the images in the userboxes and you will see that the logos are used are not copyrighteable because they are ineligible or free (e.g. open source software). mabdul 14:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

FFU: Smoke on the Water riff

Hi there, we have a request at WP:FFU requesting uploading a SVG version of the existing File:Smoke on the Water riff.jpg, see also Wikipedia:Files for upload#Smoke on the Water riff. Can we simply replace the file (upload the svg, deleting the jpg) or do we have to care any copyright problems by the creator of the SVG? mabdul 21:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this is used under fair use, it does not matter so much. If the .svg looks identical to the .jpg file, then there has been no creative work and the file is just considered a copy of the other one. However the source is still important so that we know the genuineness of the item. So whoever made the .svg should be mentioned along with how they created it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SVG's contain code (and in principle can embed arbitrary text). Because of this, copyright can attach not only to the rendered image, but also to the code doing the rendering. When an SVG is created by a simple mechanical process (e.g. an automated trace program), the resulting instructions probably don't involve enough creativity to warrant a new copyright. However, if the SVG is generated by hand (e.g. someone manually recreating an existing figure), then I would aruge that the underlying code in the SVG file would often qualify for a separate copyright and we should ensure that there is a copyleft release (or similar) from the SVG author as well. The logic here is similar to what the US courts have done with scalable fonts, i.e. treating the instructions for rendering such fonts as a separate entity for copyright purposes from the graphical representation of the font itself. Dragons flight (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the comparison to scalable fonts helps clarify what had been one of the corners of copyright law that had been confusing to me. The SVG code is machine generated, but I did write the ABC code it came from by hand. I'll edit the comments in the ABC file to reflect this understanding (and welcome guidance here as to how I should phrase it). I did copy four lines of Postscript and eight (trivial) lines of ABC from one of the sample files distributed with abcm2ps, but (a) I don't think that's significant here and (b) I'll email the author of abcm2ps to request explicit permission if that's needed. Is there a preference for CC-BY-SA over public domain or vice-versa? (Can I release a derivative work like this into the public domain, or would that usurp rights of the folks from whom my work was derived?) Ichthanthrope (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To summarize the entire current situation, in the hope that putting the info in one place will make a correct and useful answer obvious to someone who understands the issues better than I do: the SVG file was created by running abcm2ps on an ABC file that I created by copying another Wikipedia user's notation from a JPEG into ABC notation ... of about six seconds worth (four bars) of a tune by Deep Purple. I'll happily put whatever licensing information I legitimately can into the comments at the top of the ABC file (or, for that matter, add comments to the SVG file by hand) that'll make the file kosher for Wikipedia to use, if I get guidance here on what's valid and useful. The four lines of Postscript that I copied came from a sample file distributed with a GPL'd program (abcm2ps), if that makes any difference. URLs for both the SVG file and the ABC source are included in the entry on the files for upload page. Ichthanthrope (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The copyright on fonts

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm really confused about font copyrights. According to Arial, Arial is a proprietary font, whose copyrights are owned by Monotype Imaging. I heard from a professor that Arial was a free alternative to Helvetica, which itself was a copyrighted font (so I guess he's wrong). But when I see fonts used in logos and images, like at File:Nirvana_album_cover.svg, they almost always have a "does not meet threshold of originality" tag (I say almost because there may be fonts that do meet this threshold, but I have yet to see it). So fonts can be copyrighted... but can't be? In regards to simple geometric shapes and fonts, then why is this ("Conan" logo) considered copyrighted? Is the hair shape that original? Thanks so much. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In the US, typography is not copyrightable. Fonts may be copyrighted in other nations, but not in the US. (True Type files and the type, on the other hand, are computer programs and are copyrightable.) The Conan logo is considered copyrightable because the hair is not a simple geometric shape. The threshold for copyrightability in the US is pretty low.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that clears things up a bit. The TrueType thing confuses me—e.g., Futura font is non-copyrightable, but Futura TrueType font is?—but for all intents and purposes, you've answered my question. Thanks so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The font as a file that you install on your computer is copyrighted. But the print using that font does not attract any copyright of the font. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the extra explanation! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Film screenshots in actor BLPs

Is this strictly forbidden, even when accompanied by critical commentary of an important role in their career? BollyJeff || talk 11:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally, WP:NFCC#1 makes images of living people replaceable. However, in some cases, #1 from WP:NFC#UUI says that earliest visual appearance of retired person is recommended with strong commentary and rationale. What is the article specifically? --George Ho (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Only legitimate under the following conditions: (a) there must be significant, non-trivial commentary, of a kind that is independently motivated in the context of the article (i.e. not just commentary put in in order for having a pretext for inserting the image). (b) The image must be necessary for making the commentary understood in a way that its absence would seriously hamper that understanding. Such a case may often be hard to make if, for instance, it's just a simple headshot in some generic kind of situation and the visual appearance of the actor in the movie doesn't differ much from their normal appearance off-stage. (c) Such a non-free image should normally not be used in an infobox, but further down in the text, near the text it is supposed to support; in the infobox, the reader expects a simple portrait that just shows what the actor looks like, and for that purpose the sceenshot would always be replaceable. (d) The illustration should not duplicate a point that is already made and possibly also illustrated in the main article about the movie itself, because that will normally be the principal place where analytical commentary about the movie is expected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So what I am hearing is no screenshots of an actress in character; even if it was her most important role, that she won awards for, was the turning point of her career, etc. The only thing allowed is a free picture in the infobox and maybe some more free pictures from work outside of films, correct? If this is the case, I could go on a deletion spree. For example, see Aishwarya Rai. BollyJeff || talk 12:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There are limited exceptions if the visual appearance of the actor's role is considered by third-party/secondary sources to be the most critical part of the actor's career. I know there exists a canonical example that is slipping my mind of an actress where a non-free still from one of her early films (a 1960s one) has been well-accessed due to the strength of the NFCC#8 rationale. But that also is working alongside the fact that the free image of said actress is of her recently and her youth/beauty that she was noted for was no longer present. I am sure there are a handful of other cases of similar nature where this can work where the visual appearance of the actor today is far different for the period they were recognized notably in.

This is not the case for Aishwarya Rai, given that we're only 10-some years out from her films, since outside of costume her visual appearance is still there in the free images from her non-free ones. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I deleted a few and referenced this discussion. Let's see what happens. Thank you. BollyJeff || talk 15:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it unacceptable to remove it from certain articles where no other image depicts the high amount of critical commentary for the acting, like Shahrukh Khan, Kareena Kapoor and Farhan Akhtar. Clearly, it has been said "there must be significant, non-trivial commentary, of a kind that is independently motivated in the context of the article". Secret of success (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

But at the same time, for modern actors who are still in their prime with careers less than 20 years (roughly), their visual appearance within the films they have performed does not significantly vary from a free image that can be taken today, and ergo, it is duplicative per WP:NFCC#1, even if their role in a film is well-documented and highly critically acclaimed. There may be arguments for cases where augmentation by makeup to the point of being unrecognizable (we don't use it here, but I'm thinking of Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker in the Dark Knight), but this needs to be really strong. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Critics praise or criticize actors for their acting, not for their looks. How does a free image depict their acting? Secret of success (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes critics do comment directly about looks. Its good to have non-free image there.(Eg maybe Ledger's case) Sometimes critics comment indirectly about looks. We should be able to have non-free image there too. (Eg may be Amitabh Bachchan's role in Paa.) So even if critics don't directly praise the looks and we can clearly see that the actor's looks were different than the other normal roles, we should be able to have non-free images in such cases. Such cases can be discussed on individual talk pages and decided or in the deletion discussion of the image. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The looks should be attributed only to the make-up artists and costume designers. The acting is attributed to the actors. But that is not the issue here. I fail to see valid reasons to justify removal of screenshots in cases where critical commentary, which is significant, cannot be demonstrated by any other means. Secret of success (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well.... as you said, any type of image wont depict their "acting". So in most of the cases howsoever critical and significant the commentary is, it cant be demonstrated. (You would either need a video or a long strip of images like a comic-book.) But what we can do is to choose more appropriate images. A role of "angry young man" can be demonstrated from an image where the actor actually is seen angry. An image where he is calmly sitting on a chair (though the scene is famous) doesn't justify the commentary. The commentary of being "gloriously bitchy" and "crocodile in a chiffon saree" is fairly demonstrated in this image. Currently seeing the images used on Indian bios i feel that we just need to be more strict and critical in choosing images to demonstrate the comments appropriately. However in my opinion, although the credit for creating a look goes to other artists, a picture that shows different look should also be allowed if that role holds importance in the actor's career. (even if the commentary is not justified by the image.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As noted, stills are notoriously poor for demonstrating acting skills and hence why we generally don't have such non-free images on actor pages, because if its not for their appearance, their still is typically unhelpful. Take your example of File:Dimplelbc.jpg, which is described as a look of being "gloriously bitchy", yet on seeing the still only, I get the impression of "dull surprise". There's not a significant visual difference from her current infobox picture and that one. Ergo, it is an inappropriate image for the article.

Now, there is a factor here in that when we're talking about the character or the film itself (which would be linked from the actor article), the use of non-free is a little (not a lot) less stressed. An image of the actor in character would likely pass on a character page, while stills from critically acclaimed scenes may be suited for a film. Because we know we can use these images there, there is no need to load them up on the actor article. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Some editors think that this is a discussion that is not over, and are reverting my image deletions. Is this an ongoing discussion, or have administrators already given their final answer to the question? BollyJeff || talk 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this is over, though I've made my statement. Those reverting without discussing it should be pointed to here to inform them/get their opinions. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

They are here, thanks. BollyJeff || talk 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish to make my stance clear with my lot of reasons. I never said that "any type of image wont depict their "acting"". The expression of an actor or actress in an iconic scene is indeed shown in a screenshot containing their role from a film. An actor or actress shows a kind of expression repeatedly in the film, and the critics interpret it in various ways. Some may praise it, while others may ridicule or criticize it. The screenshot will tell the reader how the actor did act and the critical response will tell him how critics reacted to it. Based on that, it is upto the reader to interpret it. Secret of success (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do agree on the fact that if a much more better-quality or appropriate image is found, it can be replaced, but if it cannot, we should keep the present one and not delete it. To elaborate on the example Animesh has given, the image shows him sitting in the chair. Whether or not, he satisfies what the critics actually say is not for us to interpret. Period. Again, we should be strict in deciding what screenshots to put. The best option would be the most popular ones, and the most iconic. For actors who experiment a lot with different roles, Kamal Haasan being a classic example, I do not think there is any actor who is more fond of experimenting. He has received countless amount of critical acclaim and all sorts of appreciation till date. In such a case, how will you depict the roles without the screenshots? Also, I completely concur with Animesh's last point: "a picture that shows different look should also be allowed if that role holds importance in the actor's career". Let me know if I have to be more explicit. With regards, Secret of success (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't. There's lots of modern actors that have received praise for very specific roles but we do not flood their articles with pictures of the actor in the various roles, because for acting, stills rarely provide enough information to judge the actor's performance in a role. Furthermore, the Foundation is very explicit that non-frees of living persons are nearly never appropriate since we can replace or use free imagery to show what the actor looks like. With non-free images, we cannot "keep and replace"; the Foundation mandates removal while a replacement if such exists can be found. --12:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not contest the fact that images should be deleted if replacement can be found. But of course, whether or not we can find a good replacement is exactly what is at debate here.Now, if we were to upload a still from a specific scene, regarding which the critics have commented, containing the subject in question, it would show the expression he has. The expressions are depictions of his acting. I fail to understand how they do not provide a good understanding of the acting and I would be pleased if you could elaborate specifically on that. Regards, Secret of success (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Take the example given above File:Dimplelbc.jpg. The critics claim this shows a certain aggressiveness as part of that role, but all I see is a dull look. What this basically comes down to is that it can be very difficult to read emotions and as a result the performance of a role from a still; in general, critics are looking at the overall performance, something not easily captured by one still. Add that the Foundation strongly discurages the use of non-free photos for illustrating articles on living persons due to their replaceability, and thus the argument that an actor's role was critically praised as justification for a non-free photo fails.

This is not an absolute, but the exceptions are going to be few and far between. This is not the canonical example I know exists of a BLP, but Katharine Hepburn has only one non-free movie still, that from her last film where her aged appearance far differs from her past screen presence and is critically commented on. Of course we can't get any more free images of her, but the concept is still true, that the rationale for its use is strongly justified by not only the critical commentary but the fact there is a visual distinction in that image. That is not true for many of these articles (in general, what looks like Bollywood actors) which are young and thus appear similar in their films as they do in real life, so the visual distinction argument doesn't work here. --MASEM (t) 15:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask a raise a doubt here. I feel that the screenshot of Vidya Balan in the film, The Dirty Picture needs to be incorporated in her article. Isn't that why a non-free image is for? To represent a completely different look of an actor; and nothing can be as "different" as Vidya Balan playing portraying the character of the provocative and sensual Silk Smitha, which is something she has never done in her past career. Smarojit (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please answer before this gets archived? BollyJeff || talk 00:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Both the Foundation and our policy (NFCC#1 and #8) frowns on the use of non-free media on pages about living persons because we can assume they can always be replaced by free imagery of said person. You have to have a strong reason that is backed by many sources to assert that the look of an actor in a non-free image is necessary and sufficient to understand the article about that article. If the appearance is not that far from the actual free image we can take or have, its pretty much not going to happen since the free image is a fair replacement. There's a better chance of using the non-free of the character on the film's page if the character stood out, but even then that's less than likely assurance. --MASEM (t) 01:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then where are the rules for what pics can be used on film pages? BollyJeff || talk 01:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The key rule once you're talking about films drops to just WP:NFCC#8, Significance. The picture must aid the reader in understanding the article discussion, and that the article's understanding is hampered by the lack of said picture. In general, this means that secondary sources really must talk about the visual appearance of a character's role that can't be otherwise expressed in words. Some examples can be found on the page for The Dark Knight (film) specifically the fact that Heath Ledger's role as Joker, described in detail with its influences and themes it created and its critical reception. Another way to judge is to review films that have been passed as Featured Articles, as such images are discussed in depth before passing as such. It will be subjective, and generally we don't find such images appropriate, but there are definite allowances in rare cases. --MASEM (t) 02:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Cemeteries and privacy rights

Sorry if this is slightly away from a copyright question; if you have a better place for me to ask I'd be happy to. Regarding OTRS ticket 2012042710010061, which I will generally and anonymously describe here, there is a case where photos from a private cemetery--including headstones and other personally identifying details--are being objected to on privacy grounds. The photographs were taken freely, but violated the cemetery's privacy policy which explicitly prohibits unauthorized photography. Is there any reason we would not take down these photographs; do we have any legal or policy right to keep using them? The files are hosted on Commons but used in articles on Wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It would probably depend on the laws of the jurisdiction where the graves are, as to whether the content of the gravestones are copyrightable. As to the rest: if and only if there is encyclopedic value to the images, I don't see why the cemetery's non-enforceable policies would trump our goals of presentation of information. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot

Hello, I'm uploading a screenshot of a bug in the WP:AfC script. It is a free image made by me, but it has both the Wikipedia logo and the Firefox logo visible on it. Can I upload it? Should I blur the logos first? Thanks! --Nathan2055^talk 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If the logos are not important to the shot, I'd say blur them. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Blurring logos! Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 20:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Old German photos are perpetual copyright?

Can someone explain the copyright status of this image:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Heinkel/Aero57G4.htm

It was taken in 1939 (its on the day of the flight of the He 178, 12 August 1939). Reading the article on German photography here on the Wiki, it appears that the term is infinite, which seems suspect.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

URAA protects old foreign photos, like this one, since 1996, so it is still copyrighted here, unless the proof of U.S. publication prior to first non-U.S. publication or within 30 days after that exists. For Germany, on the other hand, if anonymous, probably expired after 70 years of creation (proof of publication is... I don't know). By the way, Wikimedia Commons nominated works protected by URAA for deletion, and there was no consensus to delete. Nevertheless, I don't know what to say about German copyrights. --George Ho (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a perpetual copyright. Wikipedia only cares about the United States copyright term, but other projects, such as Wikimedia Commons, also care about the German copyright term.

If the photographer died before 1941, the photo is in the public domain in Germany. If the name of the photographer never has been revealed anywhere, the copyright expired 70 years after publication, or 70 years after creation if not published before that point.

Most German photos taken since 1926 are copyrighted in the United States, so this photo is most likely copyrighted in the United States. If published before 1978, it is copyrighted for 95 years since publication. If not published at all, the United States copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer, or 120 years after the death of the photographer if the photographer is anonymous or if it is a work for hire. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if created in 1939 and then published in the U.S. between 1978 and 2002, it may be copyrighted until 2047. What does this passage from [4] mean: "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047"? --George Ho (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to simplify things a bit above by using words such as "most" and "most likely" and so on. There are a few special cases which could apply and this is one of them. A photo is typically either not published at all or published shortly after it was taken, so the 1978-2002 special case is unlikely to apply. Anyway, for German photos, assume that "taken in 1926 or later" means "copyrighted in the United States". The copyright will expire at some point, depending on various things. This photo is must likely copyrighted in the United States for the moment. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to "the article on German photography here on the Wiki" where you read something about an infinite copyright? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Let's try this: can I post this photo or not, and if I can, how do I tag it? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's analyze WP:NFCC. Is this photo used for primarily commercial purposes by others? How able does this image increase understanding of an intended topic? How replaceable is this image? That's all I can ask. --George Ho (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, in order: no, it shows him on the most important day of his life, he's dead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, so is Aaron Spelling. I tried to have Reuters photo of Spelling approved, which I got permission from Reuters, by Wikipedians. Unfortunately, WMF policy found Reuters photo not suitable, even if I got permission. At least this photo is not used commercially, I hope. As for the photo itself, I wonder if the most historic day is implied by this photo. The photo was men toasting for something, but it may be that someone's wife was pregnant at that time, or it may be a celebration of Nazi invasion. However, the date of photo creation must be proven by source to verify what the photo meant.... unless I'm wrong. However, it still identifies Heinkel and von Ohain. I'm not sure if it's good for English Wikipedia, but you can still upload this photo in German one because its copyright in Germany might expire if photographer is not yet identified. --George Ho (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This speculation does not seem to help me make a decision. Can anyone else weight in? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Brenda Dixon Gottschild

I received this image directly from the person who owns the image (Brenda Dixon Gottschild). I inserted the photo credit (Lonnie Graham) but I do not have copyright information. Is copyright information still necessary if the image is from the owner and if so how do I go about getting the information for copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heidiliu8 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Ask the photographer (or the photographer's heir if the photographer is dead) to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

PDF sent to me

I have received a PDF from the organization Braille Without Borders, containing the basics of the Tibetan braille standard. The document "TIBETAN BRAILLE SCRIPT.pdf" restrictions are Printing, Content Copying, Copying for Accessibility, Page Extraction, and Filling of Form fields all allowed; Document Assembly, Commenting, Signing, and Creation of Template Pages not allowed. It has no other copyright, restriction, or other pertinent document tagging. This document is not posted anywhere on the internet, nor is its information otherwise known to be available. It is the only document I was able to cite for the article Tibetan braille. My question: Is this document acceptable for upload, either in its native PDF format, or as a low-res screen capture? The citation questions I will take to the RS board. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 06:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You do not have to upload a document in order to cite it. There are numerous citations on Wikipedia of reliable sources that are not even online elsewhere. Verifiability does not require something to be available at a mouseclick.

But as to copyright restrictions, in order to upload the document it can't have restrictions such as "X not allowed" which would prevent full commercial re-use and creation of derivatives. Therefore you cannot upload it. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was less concerned about the validity of the citation, rather than the verifiability of the article, and the format of a citation to a file only available as a WP upload. Thanks for the info on upload criteria for PDFs. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 11:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

List of UN numbers

The articles linked from List of UN numbers appear to exclusively contain material from UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which is copyright 2001 United Nations Publications and has no apparent public license. The only reason I didn't immediately mass nominate these articles for deletion was to inquire here. Does this appear to be copyright violation or fair use? What is the best course of action? --beefyt (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It is presented in a different way with not everything included. The use of the same descriptions I think is fair enough, as otherwise there will be inaccuracies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with Copyright Tags

Hello,

I have just uploaded three images to the Miss United States page: File:missuslogo.jpg, File:missus11.jpg, and File:missus04.jpg. These images belong to the Miss United States Organization, of which I am a member of the Board of Directors. What information should I place in the descriptions to show that I have the right to use these images? Asmit12295 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmit12295 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. --beefyt (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

hi , i am new what to do?

i am new , so just wanted to know how i can help wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimalhotra (talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Try: Help:Getting started. ww2censor (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Combining a logo and a trademark, still fair use?

I've been asked to upload a combined image of a logo and a trademark for Asüna automobiles. I believe either would be okay to upload under fair use, but can a combined image be as well, or do they have to be separate?

• Logo: [5]
• Trademark: [6]

Thanks! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That logo seems for me a candidate of {{PD-ineligible}} (with a trademark tag). mabdul 14:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. That little dragon in [7] makes the logo a complex design which is copyrighted. So a fair use rationale is in order when combining the two images. The Asüna logo however is a simple text logo that can be freely used under {{PD-textlogo}} on its own. I would also like to know what the text in the dragon image means. If that is a sort of advertising it should not be uploaded. De728631 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Complex design? A triangle with a small part replaced with a eclipse? Where is the creativity? This is a TOO logo!

"I would also like to know what the text in the dragon image means."? huch? text?

mabdul 15:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about that image (logo) which was linked above by Ocaasi. De728631 (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the first link is broken, as what the page said (in Chinese): more like 404 error. In other words, that's not the logo he was referring, right? --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, that would explain the confusion. De728631 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Charlie Brooker Hollywood Sign.jpg

This screenshot is used at Hollywood Sign, but since it does not illustrate anything substantive in the article (just a brief bullet point in the Use in popular culture section) I believe it does not qualify for fair use inclusion. Seeking a second opinion. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Popcorn-with-Frostwork.jpg

Can someone take a look at this image? It was recently upload to commons. The user admits they they are a student (see User talk:Jetulacka#Images) and that this was done as part of a school project. I suspect that they were ignorant of copyright at the time of upload and that it was merely copied from the web. The source is a NPS website [8]. On that page, the image is labelled as "NPS Photo by Paul Horsted". It might be that this image is a government image and is fine; but, I have seen other images on NPS websites that are labeled as NPS images with an artist that were copyrighted. I need someone with more experience at handling these things to take a look at it. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally, US government website will not claim an image as their own by not including an attribution to themselves and on the commons they have a template {{PD-USGov-NPS}} which appear to apply to this image per the source link you provided and is on the commons image. ww2censor (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about Creative Commons license

Creative Commons license says that the author can (1) specify that use of the item be attributed to him, (2) allow non-commercial use only, and (3) not allow derivative works. When uploading a file, it mentions #1 but not #2 and #3. How do you make those restrictions here (or in www.commons.wikimedia.org)? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't use #2 and #3 because these licences are not free enough for Wikipedia use, so are nmot permitted here. Refer to the free CC licences at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses#Creative Commons and the unfree CC licences at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Comprehensive#Non-free Creative Commons licenses. ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but how does not allowing commercial uses of it make it unsuitable for (non-commercial) Wikipedia? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is a non-commercial enterprise, the aspiration is that it should be free, not just free for all to use and edit but should only use free content per WP:TAG#Guidelines. Actually some other language wikis don't permit any non-free content. It has and I assume it will continue to provide an offline version of the encyclopaedia like (this one) in which only freely licenced images are allowed. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

But someone could take a free image from Wikipedia and use it to make money. That seems to violate the philosophy of being free. If someone wants to look at one of my images for free, that is fine with me. If they want to take something like that and make money for themselves, I don't like that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• You may want to check Gratis versus libre. Wikipedia's main goal is to be free as in "libre", not necessarily "gratis" (although it is). Having the share-alike clause ensures that any commercial uses of Wikipedia text will also be free to reuse, meaning that although reusers can make money from Wikipedia (and some do, like LLC), they cannot give it a limited license; this ensures that content from reusers can be reused freely, ad infinitum. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Without the "no derivatives" part, what is to keep someone from taking it and mucking it up (and distributing it)? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A freely licenced image means that anyone can use it for anything, even commercial use or with modification but they cannot give the image a different licence so others can still use it however they wish. If you use one of the restrictive Creative Commons licence we don't allow, your image is not truly free, even though it is free too view and use in a limited way. It is a fine line that many people don't understand. Hope that all helps. ww2censor (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Windows 1.0 logo.svg

Is this logo still copyrighted or ineligible? --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably ineligible for copyright in the United States: it only consists of two words in a standard font and four rectangles. Several of the examples at Commons:COM:TOO#United States, such as Best Western, Nikken and Arrows, look more complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Stefan2, this is too simple to be copyrighted. {{PD-textlogo}} is correct in this case. Nevertheless it's a registered trademark. De728631 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows logos

File:Windows logo.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:Windows Vista logo.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The above files have the text and windows logo. Are they eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes, they are eligible for copyright because the shading in the logo makes it more complex than one with simple geometrical shapes. That's probably also why the images are being used under the fair use clause. De728631 (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Windows 3.0 logo.svg

Is this file eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd say yes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Free image of a possibly copyrighted design on a van

I am working on an article for the company peace coffee with another editor and I would like to reference the company's bio-diesel van. If I found a free image (or took one myself) of this van, can I use it or is it still copyrighted because of the design on the van? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming the art on the van is copyrighted, the photo of the van would be a derivative work of that art, and thus non-free, though of course you can seek permission from the company to allow such imagery to be used on WP in a free manner. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hallmark logos

File:Hallmark logo.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

File:HallOfFame.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Are these above logos eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The crown icon pushes it past the threshold of originality. Non-free. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I found out the crown icon was created in 1949: http://books.google.com/books?id=Vl7qqiM0MLEC&lpg=PA24&ots=w9owkUozv_&dq=Andrew%20Szoeke%20hallmark&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=logo&f=false. I tried finding copyright registration of the current logo from 1977, 28 years after first publication, as well as copyright.gov under "visual materials". However, I found copyrights of only greeting cards. Does the logo count as part of greeting cards? --George Ho (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I also tried "Szoeke, Andrew", the creator of crown icon, but I found no copyright renewal registration. --George Ho (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Masem, while the crown itself does meet TOO, the fact that it wasn't properly registered for a copyright in its era means it is a PD, but trademarked, image. Buffs (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

May I change copyright status to PD then? --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but use {{PD-Pre1978}} Buffs (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

 I have changed both descriptions. --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have done the same thing in File:Hallmark Channel.svg and File:Hallmark Movie Channel.svg. --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

National Science Foundation

An editor obtained a photograph from this site:

http://nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm?med_id=64599&from=img

uploaded it as: File:ScalopusAquaticus.jpg

with the license: {{PD-USGov}}

However, I do not believe the National Science Foundation is considered part of the US Government for this purpose.

Can someone confirm or deny?

The photographer has contacted Wikimedia and I want to make sure of my facts before responding.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

According to http://nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm?med_id=64599&from=img, "All media in the gallery are intended for personal, educational and nonprofit/non-commercial use only" - that would not appear to be free enough for Commons as it has a nonprofit/non-commercial use restriction. --ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

National Science Foundation images created by their employees in the course of their duties are public domain, but this image appears to be credited to someone who is not a government employee so it is not PD. January (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. Now I just have to see if I can persuade the photographer to license it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Patents

Is everything in a US patient copyrighted? How can information in a US patient be incorporated into a Wikipedia article? 157.22.42.3 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Referring to how commons works:

US patents are generally not copyrighted here: "Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s) , the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions".

Where this can be copyrighted is if specific language is present in the patent, outlined here and here. --MASEM (t) 02:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

How do I add copyright information to the image description page?

I've uploaded some photos which I'd like to add to a band page called coldrain. I was confused on how to add the source as Wikipedia keeps telling me that the images are missing copyright status or source. How do I add this information to the image description page?

Thanks!

How do I add copyright information to the image description page?

I've uploaded some photos which I'd like to add to a band page called coldrain. I was confused on how to add the source as Wikipedia keeps telling me that the images are missing copyright status or source. How do I add this information to the image description page?

Thanks!