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)

How do I tag an image?

How do I tag a photo that was sent to me to add to a Biographical page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madegray (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The chances are that you cannot use it. If the person who sent it owns the copyright, and gave written permission to release it freely then use the procedure at WP:Permit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal photos of commercial products.

Can personal photos taken of commercial products, such as this one of a bottle of hot sauce, be uploaded to Wikipedia using "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication"? I'm not sure if simply taking the photo using one's own camera means that the trademark (or copyright) of the subject matter no longer needs to be taken into account. Would such photos be considered non-free images or derivative works instead? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for reference, I'm not sure if uploading such an image to Commons would be acceptable per c:COM:PACKAGING since the label appears to be an artistic work that is not incidental and not simple enough to exclude it from copyright protection. So, if this image is unacceptable for upload to as Public Domain then maybe that means it also shouldn't have been uploaded to Wikipedia as such. Not sure, which is why I am asking here. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You have it basically right - the labeling on the package is copyrightable (the sun logo at minimum) so a photo of it, with the label clearly part of the focus of the picture, makes this photo a derivative work of the copyrighted art and is thus considered non-free. It would only be allowed to be uploaded here at en.wiki and would need to meet rigorous non-free requirements, which at first glance I doubt it would. A counterexample would be something like this File:Punched_beer_can.jpg where the wordmark logo is non-copyrightable (too simple) and thus the freely-taken photo can be licensed to the PD or a CC license. --MASEM (t) 02:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Masem. Any suggestions on how best to proceed? The image is currently being only used in a draft and was uploaded by someone new to Wikipedia who probably is not too familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policy. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Checking the draft page, I'm not seeing where the indicated would fall within NFC - there's the logo of the company that makes that product which is used to identify the brand, which is fine per NFC, but the bottle becomes unnecessary, and thus fails NFC due to the nature of the copyright of the logo in the photo. The image should probably be deleted because it fails NFCC. --MASEM (t) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the image was uploaded as "public domain" and not as an NFCI . Does that mean it should be tagged for CSD per WP:F3 or is there another more appropriate way to proceed? - Marchjuly (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If there was a question whether it was PD or not, Possibly unfree files would be the venue for that. What we are looking at here is an image that doesn't immediately fail any of the CSD rules, and should thus be send to WP:FFD for deletion that way, noting that the PD tag is incorrect for this image (per this discussion) and as non-free it fails NFCC (particularly NFCC#1/#3 with the brand logo already there). --MASEM (t) 05:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. Does it make a difference who nominates it for FFD? Would you care to? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated the file for deletion using WP:FFD. All are welcomed to comment at its entry page. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete the file at your earliest convenience. The legal risk of including product shots in Wikipedia hot sauce articles far outweighs any utility they might have. --Xyzerb (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image scanned from a vehicle brochure

Is it ok if I scan & post a vehicle image (Long-discontinued model/s from 1990s) from a brochure, as an accurate & instructive part of a post? Naturally, I would intend it to be for informative 'free content', relating to specific detailing of the vehicle/s. I do not see any copyright infringement in this respect, but need some confirmation / guidance.

Webcor (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That would still be a copyright infringement, as the photographer or brochure creator would own the copyright. Since someone could still take a photo of a 1990s car part it would not be fair use either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem being that the vehicles are rare. Therefore, finding one in original state and photographing particular 'detailing' of it would be difficult. I don't fancy touring the length of the country, or the world for that matter, to find one.
Obviously, an original brochure shows an unsullied model, in the 'best light' and as the manufacturer intended.

Perhaps I shall write to the manufacturer and ask permission. It would surely be beneficial to them that their past marque was given positive attention...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webcor (talk • contribs) 13:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

We understand the problem with tracking down some things, but it does not matter how difficult it is to obtain a freely licenced image so long as it is possible, someday, somehow somewhere, then a non-free image will not be allowed. Sometimes getting a free image of a person is far more difficult then an object of which there are at least a few examples. Asking the manufacturer is certainly an option but don't hold out much hope they will freely licence the image, which means that anyone can use it for anything, but if you don't ask you can't be told yes. ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal photo upload

I took a photo of a book cover ("Cartucho," by Nellie Campobello). Am I able to upload this image I took personally to a Wikipedia page? Or must I first submit it to a public domain database or elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrroyals (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You can upload it here as long as it meets the fair use criteria unless the image on the book cover is out of copyright (it probably isn't). You don't have any rights to the image even though you took the photograph so you should not, for example, list yourself as the author. You must apply and fill in the fair use template otherwise the image will be deleted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarity, we do not actually accept images under the US legal term fair use but use a much stricter non-free content policy. So any copyright image you upload must comply with all 10 non-fee content policy guidelines. That being said, book covers are normally only allowable in an article about that specific book and not in the author's article, unless of course it is a freely licenced image. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, of course. I shouldn't use "shorthand" in these circumstances. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

question about photos provided

I made an article about a living academic, Kevin Schürer. The university he works for released his photo along with other images in a press release ("Images of family trees and Professor Kevin Schürer are available here") Is it OK for fair use, just for his biography, so long as the university is credited? —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Wikimandia: If a person is living, it is assumed that a freely licensed photo of them can be reasonably obtained - so unfortunately, no, we can't claim fair use on that. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That being said, assuming the university owns the images, it may be worth trying to reach out to the university and seeing if they'd be willing to donate a photo by freely licensing it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SuperHamster I'll do that! I'm sure they'd be willing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone claiming that they own the copyright to an image uploaded here

I got an e-mail from someone I don't know saying that a company is claiming ownership of File:Herpetotheres_cachinnans2.jpg, an image that was uploaded here and I moved to Commons. The e-mail says the company is threatening legal action against people who use the image on their Web pages. Is there someone who addresses situations of this type? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As the image is now on Commons I believe you need to address the issue there. The image is visually identical to this one, not that this proves copyright ownership as it could just as easily have been copied from Commons. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've raised it as a deletion proposal at Commons so the experts can consider it rather than just a straight copyio. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What kind of tag/license do I need for a figure taken from American Psychologist?

Hi there,

May I please ask you: what kind of tag/license do I need for a figure taken from American Psychologist?

The image is taken from Jyotsna Vaid, Allan Paivio, Robert C. Gardner, and Fred Genesee. "Wallace E. Lambert (1922–2009)." American Psychologist. 65(4), (2010), 290-291, though it looks like it may belong to the Canadian Psychological Association: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/74373526/Dr-Wallace-Lambert-CPA-Gold-medal-Award-for-Distinguished

Reproduction is allowed under the guidelines of the American Psychological Association.

The following citation is taken from the APA website http://apa.org/about/contact/copyright/index.aspx#required:

"3. Permission is Not Required for the Following:

    [1] A maximum of three figures or tables from a journal article or book chapter, 
    [2] Single text extracts of less than 400 words, 
    [3] Series of text extracts that total less than 800 words

No formal requests to APA or the author are required for the items in this clause."

Please advise and thanks ever so much for your time!!

Montreal8888 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hello! That permission grant appears to be intended for re-use in other scholarly publications. They have a section #6 on permissions for electronic reproductions which includes "APA does not generally grant permission for any use of APA scholarly content on the public Internet or in electronic mailing list". Our license not only allows content to be used on Wikipedia, but further used and re-used by pretty much anyone anywhere for any purpose, which this prohibition would seem to preclude. Crow^Caw 22:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for replying! So it seems I may be out of luck then. But I have noticed that the photo used in the APA article actually seems to come from the CPA here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/74373526/Dr-Wallace-Lambert-CPA-Gold-medal-Award-for-Distinguished. Does that mean that the CPA owns the photo? Or does the APA own the photo? And does this help me at all? Please let me know and thanks again! Montreal8888 (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Paper permission

I recently submitted a wikipedia article about a significant historical event -- this was a copy of an article that I had previously published in a college online newspaper. The editors of that paper have given me written permission to reuse the content in a wikipedia article, and confirmed that I retained the copyright to the material. I included that information in a note to the wikipedia address for donating copyright, sent the note from my gmail address associated with the original article, and included the appropriate tag in my article's talk file to indicate that I had sent the note. After hearing nothing in response for over a week, I want ahead and submitted my article for review, along with a few photos, and suddenly got hammer letters about copyright violations and pending deletion of my submissions. I would appreciate a note from someone, accepting my donation of the copyright so I can reuse my old material. I realize I should rewrite it to use the correct tone, and I can do that in the next week or so. As someone who has worked in the technical publishing industry for 30+ years, I was really surprised at the summary rejection of work by a new volunteer contributor, and the tags flagging me before that, for possible plagerism and self-promotion...

In the case of my two photos, if someone could just show me how to add the right tag to my file, I think the problems could be easily solved. I took both those photos myself, with my own camera - what tag and text do I need to insert to indicate that?

Thanks, Paul (Kor) Gorgen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgenkor (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

This is in the wrong place I think Paul---I think you have to ask a separate question. Right now you are in the answering field of my question, which is still awaiting a response. Click on "Click here to ask your question" which is toward the top of the page and include a subject heading Montreal8888 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a section header to separate this section and the one above; if you'd like a different section title, Paul, you're free to change it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Gorgenkor: Sorry for the frustration - dealing with copyright here can be a bit confusing. The problem here is that, while you did email Wikimedia with evidence showing that the content is freely licensed, the editor who reviewed your draft has no idea that the email was sent. An OTRS volunteer (i.e. someone who has access to Wikimedia's email system) has to mark the draft as having proper permission. For future reference, you'll need to mark texts or images with {{OTRS pending}} to show other editors that an OTRS volunteer has yet to get to it. I've gone ahead and done that for you.

I'm looking at your email right now (I have access) and it looks good; if you could, however, also forward the email you received from the paper giving you the copyright of the text, that'd be great. Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. As for the images, you'll need to add an acceptable free license to them (see this list for a few options). You should also add Template:Information, with the fields filled out. For the source field, simply put {{own}}. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Have permission to use image from owner, but want to make sure that I cover all requirements before uploading

I contacted the marketing representative of Yellowbird Sauce via email and she gave me permission to use the following image in the Yellowbird Habanero Condiment article (currently draft): https://yellowbirdsauce.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/19oz_yb_hab_front1.jpg

She also gave me permission to remove the white background if needed. I don't want to uploading it without satisfying all of the requirements for inclusion in an article.

What should my next steps be? Thank you. --Xyzerb (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You should get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Xyzerb (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Guidance on artworks to illustrate modern and contemporary Arab art

Hi - I am hoping someone well versed in non-free use can advise me on using images of artworks in the Barjeel Art Foundation wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barjeel_Art_Foundation The collection is specific to modern and contemporary Arab art (and is one of the best in the world!). My understanding is that it would be fair use to show artworks as they illustrate not a school of art but an equally relevant classification and one that is typically under-represented online so educational value is high. If someone has time I would really appreciate if you look at my fair use rationale and let me know what I am doing wrong or if it is even possible to allow these onto wikipedia. I think if the article were about modern and contemporary arab art rather than the foundation's collection of them it may be more simple? …or maybe not. Cmclean74 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I doubt whether the non-free use mavens will like all these! The first one File:Mahmoud Said painting-Recto-Village.jpg looks to me to be out of copyright (by a couple of months!) in Egypt because the artist died in 1964 and Copyright law of Egypt protects for 50 years after death. However, the USA will have restored copyright in the USA in 1996. See Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Number two, File:Standing Figure and Child painting by Khalil Gibran.jpg, is now free because its 50-year copyright expired in 1981[1] and so it will not have gone into extended copyright in the USA in 1996. If you remove the non-free rationales for ones that are actually free then there is a better chance for what is left. Thincat (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Thincat. I will amend the artworks you have specified. …just one question (for you or anyone else reading) - do I need to re-upload the images and apply the new license and rationals or can I do it on the existing? I'm not entirely sure how to do it on the existing without the guidance of the upload wizard options. …maybe I am being daft here but how do I know the correct tag id? For example I've been searching for what to apply for the Egyptian copyright but not seeing anything. Sorry if this is a silly question! Cmclean74 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You are certainly allowed to edit the licensing information in the file description and you do not need to upload again. I have no idea how people are expected to learn how to do this. I have just picked things up over the years by searching around and looking at how other images have been tagged. And, of course, asking here can also sometimes get help. I'll have a look... Thincat (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have revamped File:Standing Figure and Child painting by Khalil Gibran.jpg as best I can. It would be nice to record the date when the work was created and when it was first put on display but I think it isn't crucial in this case because the copyright term depended on the date the artist died. {{PD-Art}} says your photography does not attract copyright in the US, {{PD-Lebanon}} says it is PD in its source country and so is allowed to be on Commons, {{PD-URAA}} says its home copyright expired before 1996 so it is PD in the US and {{PD-old-70}} says the artist died more than 70 years ago and so will be PD in many countries in the world. Thincat (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding a list article waiting for approval

Although I've been editing for some time I have rarely dealt with copyvio issues so let me give the background to my question. The article Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century used to include a list of the 100 horses with links to their wikiarticles. Then last June this thread on the talk page Talk:Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century#Copyright violation took place and the list was removed. Today I came across this new article The Great Movies and, to my eye, it looks to contain lists that were like the ones removed from the Blood-Horse article so I wanted to get input on it ASAP. If the lists are okay then that is great and my apologies for taking up your time but if they aren't I wanted Fireflyfanboy, who put in all of the work to create the article, to know about it as quickly as possible. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 22:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD brings up a very good question. Just looking at the citations for the Great Movies list article, almost everyone of which is to a Roger Ebert source, I'd say that the list itself is most probably a copyright violation, as the assemblage of lists is' a sufficiently creative act to qualify for copyright under U.S. law. However, I would also say that it is not a copyright violation for any particular film article to note that the film has been listed by Ebert as a "Great Movie". So I would advise that the article be deleted, but that the information that Firefly has added to film articles can stay, but with the Wikilinks removed, of course. BMK (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a reason to allow a copyright violation. I reviewed the history of Blood-Horse magazine List of the Top 100 U.S. Racehorses of the 20th Century and its talk page and see that back in June 2014 Moonriddengirl removed the copyright notice and her summary stated: "copyright problem removed. PLEASE DO NOT RESTORE. See talk.". She is well versed in copyright and we have discussed some more difficult copyright situation previously. So her views are extremely solid. Such lists that are created specifically by a magazine have required creative input and copying such a list into an article is clearly a copyright violation. However, lists that are based on common knowledge cannot be copyrighted but I'm sorry to say that is not the case in this instance. ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the list. I really hate that we have to do this, but it's based on attorney advise. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text_2 notes that we cannot recreate or partially recreate top 100 or similar lists that are based on creative assessment, and while a "greats" list doesn't rank, it does choose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you BMK, Ww2censor and Moonriddengirl for taking the time to look into this and for your responses. Your input is appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 14:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple enough logo?

Looking for a second opinion on this: would this logo be simple enough to qualify for {{PD-logo}} ? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In the US I think the answer is yes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to SuperHamster's request for a copy of my copyright permission note - sent it to permissions-en@wikipedia.org

I just forwarded the note I'd received from the publisher of my original article, saying that I maintained the copyright and that they had no problem with me duplicating the material in a Wikipedia article. Sent it to permissions-en@wikipedia.org just now to permissions-en@wikipedia.org. Thanks, Paul Kor Gorgen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgenkor (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gorgenkor: Received; I've updated your draft according, thanks! For future reference, no need to start a new section. You may either respond in the original section above, or leave me a message on my talk page. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Question about posting a photo

Hello there, I have some pictures of very old monuments. Now, I want to post them on Wikimedia Commons but the very big thing this now the place from where I took pictures say-'Taking pictures are forbidden' but I got them when there was no message. So, should have these pictures with my self or post them? I have asked in Teahouse but they suggested me to go here! Thank You Komchi^✉_☆ 12:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A clear cut answer depends on a number of factors. What country are the monuments in and when did the artist die? Some countries have no freedom of panorama (also see WP:FOP) exception while countries like the USA allow such use so long as the artist has been dead for a sufficent time, which in most instances is usually 70 years pma but even that depends (see commons:COM:FOP and commons:COM:CRT). In general terms your photos are considered derivative works of the original artistic monumnent which is why the artist's death date may be important. I may be wrong but from your edits you are possibly talking about India in which case there is an FoP exception and the appropriate commons template is at commons:Template:FoP-India. The issue of being permitted to take photos or not is a contractual situation between you and the location and has no bearing on the issue of copyright. As you indicate, at the time your photos were taken there was not even a notice, so the point is moot. Please provide some more details then we can better help you. ww2censor (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor:Yes, I am talking about monuments of India. It is the City Palace, Jaipur which has a small museum. These pictures(which I have taken) are a month old. I took photos of kings and emperors from time periods of 17th-18th century and some photos of the British India (whose publishers/painters are also probably not alive). I have already read Wikimedia guidelines but because of forbidden thing I am a bit confused if I should upload or not? Komchi^✉_☆ 14:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think from the details provided it sounds like they are safe to upload. Once they are uploaded we can check the template to see if anything needs to be tweaked in the licensing. DreamGuy (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys!Komchi^✉_☆ 15:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ancient monuments will not be under copyright. For monuments, if they are on permanent display in a public place (even if you have been charged to go in) I believe your photos will not infringe the copyright of the sculptor even if the work is recent. See commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#India. "Photos of British India" are a completely different matter. If you have taken photographs of photos or paintings the museum has on display and these are 20th century photos/paintings, they may still be under copyright and there is no freedom of panorama. This is a much more difficult matter. See Copyright law of India. Thincat (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have put down the photos please check them out-

File:CityPalace,Jaipur ScenefromDurbar.JPG,

File:CityPalace,Jaipur Meeting.JPG,

File:CityPalace Jaipur ElephantProcession.JPG,

File:CityPalace,Jaipur MaharajaSawaiManSingh2withOtherRulersDuringTheSilverJubilee.JPG,

File:CityPalace,Jaipur CelebrationOfDurbar.JPG,

Komchi^✉_☆ 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I doubt anyone here will be able to tell you when they were first published (photos) or when the artist died (artworks). All we could do is add 60 years! Thincat (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides the image quality being extremely bad, you cannot claim these as your "Own work" because you did not create the photos you rephotographed. As an ex-professional photographer I really doubt these images will add anything useful to an article that could not be described in prose. You need some information about when the images were taken, even if you don't know who the original photographer was. Without that they will likely be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

3O needed on need for 2 separate NFCC rationales

3O needed on need for 2 separate NFCC rationales here. I'm editing per "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article. The name of the article the image is used in must be included in the rationale." - from the official guideline.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Writing a separate, specific rationale does not automatically mean the image meets with policy and guideline. In this case, Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #6 is quite clear; we do not include the non-free image on other articles when there is an article about that image. Instead, we include a link to the hosting article. That is why the rationale was removed from File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg; it is not a valid rationale as we would not permit the use of the image on the photographer's article due to the image already having an article about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft is right here. There's no allowance at all for the Iwo Jima image to be used other than the page about the image itself under NFCC. (It would definitely fail NFCC#2 on the photographer's page). Removal of the image and the rationale for that page is correct. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • OK. Were that that the rationale given for the deletion of the second rationale, I would have had no objection. The rationale given, "Rationale not necessary", led me in a different direction, since it's true that "A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article." We're in agreement. I re-removed the rationale since the image isn't and mustn't be used in the article on Joe. --Elvey^(t•c) 19:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Question

http://asemic.net/

I am trying to use this photo from the website above, but I do not know what the copyright law is or the license. How do I figure this out?

Thank you. Mgokhale (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That image appears to be the work of the artist Henri Michaux who died in 1984, so his work, being a French citizen, is copyright for 70 years pma. His work will be in the public domain from January 2065. ww2censor (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Quotation of small portion of text on each of numerous articles, potentially adding up to quoting the whole text

Hi! I've been on a Japanese classical-period poet-bio spurt in the last few hours. I've added quotations of Peter McMillan's 2008 translations of the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu to the articles on several of the original poets.[2][3][4][5][6] In theory, I could keep doing this for all 100 poets in the collection, but would this be a copyright violation?

The translations themselves actually make up only a tiny portion of his full text in terms of word-count (each one is less than thirty words, and the book includes about a hundred pages of introduction, notes, etc.), and I'm obviously not uploading scans of the calligraphic representations of the poems and images of the poets, etc. that decorate the pages on which the translations themselves appear.

But what does everyone else think?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is what I'm doing even appropriate? Many of the articles previously gave the Japanese text of these poems with no translation, and in Japan the majority of the poets are best-known for these individual poems (Japanese schoolchildren memorize the Hyakunin Isshu). Another option would be to quote different translations and only give a few poems from each. Each of these poems have been translated into English at least a dozen times. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is a 100 year old photo usually safe as a public domain copyright in commons?

I uploaded a pic this old. I know only one existing book uses this image, and it is out of print with a loose copyright, last renewed around 1958. I am a distant member of the family that may still get royalties to this copyright, but fairly certain the majority of this book still purchased is sold as a used edition only. A few dealers will print the book on request in a paperback form but I'm not sure if a copyright is still held. The Life Story of Abe the Newsboy with US Navy, Hero of a Thousand Fights, 1930 (First Date of Publication), Published by Abraham Hollandersky, Los Angeles. Originally Abe Hollandersky held the copyright, and held it for all the editions he published. He is a distant relative.

Anyway, thanks. I could contact Amazon, but I don't know how to determine if anyone is receiving royalties for any of the editions that are ocasionnally printed other than the printer. I've been unable to find any family members that know about if any copyright still exists.

PS: I have only the one 100 year old picture (taken in 1914) which Hollandersky freely distributed to many, many newspapers, all prior to around 1950, mostly before 1930. Thanks.

THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons can be difficult sometimes with files that obviously seem to be out of copyright (but so can Wikipedia). The question you're likely to be asked is whether the photo was actually published before 1930, without a copyright notice. If the owner of the photo copyright, Hollandersky, actually distributed the photo to newspapers, and especially if they printed it, then it is in the public domain being published before 1978 without a copyright notice. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I am in the US and there are two images I would like to use in a trailer for my victorian mystery that will be published in June (in both UK and US) I found them both on Wikipedia:

File:Sherlock Holmes I.jpg and File:Sherlock Holmes.jpg

Both give this information: Public domain This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years.

Dialog-warning.svg You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years: Mexico has 100 years, Colombia has 80 years, and Guatemala and Samoa have 75 years, Russia has 74 years for some authors. This image may not be in the public domain in these countries, which moreover do not implement the rule of the shorter term. Côte d'Ivoire has a general copyright term of 99 years and Honduras has 75 years, but they do implement the rule of the shorter term.

This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.

MY QUESTIONS: GIVEN THE LAST SENTENCE ABOVE, THAT IT IS FREE OF KNOWN RESTRICTIONS . . . DO I NEED A US PUBLIC DOMAIN TAG? IF SO, HOW TO I OBTAIN ONE? THE SOURCE FOR EACH OF THE IMAGES WAS http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8950/holmes/fh-bosc.jpg, BUT GEOCITIES HAS GONE OUT OF BUSINESS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Varadan (talk • contribs) 21:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Those two Sherlock Holmes images are on the commons and have been unquestioned for almost 9 years, so they can be used in any language wiki and you need do nothing else but add the image code to the article you want to add them to. The fact that geocities is no longer hosting images does not change the copyright status of the image which happened to be there years ago. UK law applies to the British artist per this commons webpage and none of the scenarios would make these copyright as Sidney Paget died in 1908. BTW, please sign your posts by adding four tildee like this ~~~~ as a signature to all discussions and talk pages but not to articles. ww2censor (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding a company logo to an article infobox

I am presently writing an article about a bank and would like to add the bank's logo to the infobox. I have all the necessary clearance from the bank to use the logo for the article. I believe I should upload it as non-free content but I'm checking whether I should take any additional steps to ensure full compliance with Wikipedia rules.

David Herrera 1985 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)