Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/May

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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/January 2015#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)

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 [1] 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)

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)

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)

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 [2]. 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)

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)

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)

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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SR-wonder (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get the images from? If you did not take the photos yourself you must verify the permission by having the copyright holder follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. If they are your own images, you need to select the appropriate copyright tag and add a fully filled in {{information}} template. However, based on what I see of your uploads, it appears that one of your images was taken from the TV program, so you can't use that without permission and the other one can be found on several websites, so likely is also not free. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So how would I upload an album or band photo? Aren't they in the public domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SR-wonder (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If the band is current then you will have to get a freely licenced image or find on somewhere, such as Flickr. You can't claim fair-use because it would fail the first requirement of WP:NFCC#1 because it is considered replaceable, i.e., someone can take a new image and release it freely. Album covers may be used under our fair-use policy but only in an article about the album in question, such as this album cover used in this album article. Hope that helps. BTW, please sign your posts by adding four tildes to the end of your post, ~~~~ like this. ww2censor (talk) 04:52, 7 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: [3]
• Trademark: [4]

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 [5] 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)

It seems that the Asuna logo is back online: [6]. If you still get an error, try this gallery page and click the Asuna image. It is in fact a design too simple to be copyrighted so combining the two files will result in an out-of-copyright textlogo. De728631 (talk) 18:04, 7 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)

Thank you Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of own websites

I want to create a Wikipedia Page about a mathematical simulation model which was developed and is worked with at the Institute I am working for. On the Institutes homepage you can already find some information about it. My mistake was, that I copied some sentences of the website, which is a copyright issue - so the page was deleted. The thing is that I have the permission of the website owner/developer to copy those sentences (I am part of the Institute). Is there any possibility to make this clear to the reviewers?? Do I really have to change every sentence, to not violate any copyright criteria?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffffaul (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If we're talking a few (one or two) sentences out of many, you can use a quote from the website (bracketed in "quotes") followed by a citation to include that text directly. --MASEM (t) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If the passage is suitably short, put it in quotes with a reference. If it is longer than that, and you can get permission to copy it (keeping in mind that permission cannot be limited to Wikipedia), you can have the copyright holder send in evidence of permission. See WP:CONSENT for the ideal wording.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete photo or put on "back burner" before getting correct copyright?

Hi,

new to this, so please forgive my mistakes. I've uploaded a photo File:Ria_Zmitrowicz.jpg and asked the person who I thought was relevant for the copyright info. But upon further investigation, it is fairly clear that the photo was taken by someone else. So I've emailed the correct person. The problem that I'm having working out what to do is: how to update the file description / delete it before the correct copyright info is returned from the relevant person.

All the best,

Spider23 (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider23 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You've done the right thing. The right thing is adding the OTRS pending template, so that admins will hold off deleting the file for some time. Just get it back and send it in, and it should get process.

Drop a note to me at my talk page if it doesn't get handled promptly. The backlog is long, but it is slowly coming down.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Text Copyright Question

Wikimedia received an inquiry about the copyright status of a document. I promised to check with the experts here to find out whether it can be considered pd, or if licensing is needed, exactly what steps are required.

The document is a 165 page memoir of WW II Experiences

It was written in 1966, with no indications of copyright, and the author passed away in 1967.

My understanding of copyright is that currently, all materials are automatically subject to copyright unless licensed otherwise, but this has not always been true. If I read correctly, with a 1966 creation date (prior to 1989), the material is not considered copywritten unless the author uses a copyright notice.

I also recently learned that publication date is different than creation date and can be relevant. This material was never published.

The material is in the control of a relative, who presumably has the authority to provide a license if that is what is needed.

The material was originally added to a Wikipedia article along with some images, but all were removed because copyright issues were not clear. I've resolved the copyright issues on the images, but now want to address the status of the text.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Claim of copyright is required on publication, not creation; see Wikipedia:Public domain and especially Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works. So, yes, it is very relevant. :) Is the relative in question the heir of the author? If so, he or she should have rights to license the content. See [7], question "Can I register a diary I found in my grandmother's attic?" (And please read the question that follows it, just because it proves that government employees can have a sense of humor.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very helpful. The person in question is an heir, so I've provided the next steps. (and yes, the subsequent entry gave me a chuckle.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:49, 7 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)

@Masem: Just to clarify, do you mean use of rationale-provided image is ok on film's article (ofcourse if its needed) but not on Biographical article? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It may not be appropriate there either; again, the non-free image has to add something of significant value over text and other free imagery. But I would still believe that given an image of a actor, in character, from a scene from a film where that character and/or scene has been specifically praised will have a better chance of being accepted on the film's page than the same image used on the actor's page. But it's not a 100% chance. --MASEM (t) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Image - NOT pd, and NOT only wiki

After purchasing a software product, I have been granted the right to use its characterisation in any means I see fit, INCLUDING its associated pictures. Only I myself (as the purchaser) and others purchasing the same software package are permitted its use. However,my understanding is that, as I may use it in any way I wish, I can upload it here so long as I include details stating that only owners of the same package may use it. I could not find a relevant wiki-license - the closest I saw under "free" use (which I would be claiming as I am permitted to freely use it) was that I am permitted to use it on Wikipedia. This is not what the license I have permits. It permits me to use it ANYWHERE, but that wiki-license appears to fall under the public domain catagory... which the image isn't.

I figured I would leave the wiki-licence blank and explain in the text as best I could WHY I left it blank, and typically, I have now been requested to fill in the wiki-license. I am a bit stumped as to which I should use. The one that lays out that I am permitted to upload it (even though it incorrectly says I can only do it on wiki) or the one that suggests it's public-domain and free for anyone to use (which is also incorrect because it is not public domain). Any suggestions welcomed! MrZoolook (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If only you and others who have purchased the product have rights to the image (which would need to be confirmed by reading the relevant license), the image is not free enough for use on Wikipedia. It is possible that it may fall under the non-free use criteria, but that's a different question.--ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the basic missions and editorial principles of the Wikimedia projects is to use contents that are freely reusable by anyone. (With the exception of the NFCC mentioned above). If "only owners of the same package may use" an image, then it is not freely reusable by anyone and it does not meet the policy. In accordance with the mission of Wikimedia, the license tags that are available on the Wikimedia projects are for free contents. There is no license tag available for the case you mention because those images are not free for everybody and as such they do not meet Wikimedia's mission. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

K. 54 theme

Did I use the correct license on File:K. 54 theme.png? Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to {{PD-US-1923-abroad|1862}}. Consider uploading free images to Commons in the future. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Manliness2006.jpg

Is this image copyrigtable? To me it looks simple, but it is a book cover. --George Ho (talk) 10:27, 11 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)

I must say that I don't understand it, or at least it doesn't make sense to me. I want to make things that people can see for free. But I don't want someone to use something I provide for free to make money for themselves and neither do I want someone mucking up a copy of it (both clauses of the CC license). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly free to do that. And we are free to delete it from Wikipedia because we 'do want to allow other people to make money off of the text and images that are on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 12 May 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)

Bumped this from the archive as the question is still open. Any guidance on what to do with CC-BY-NC-ND tennis photos but with written permission to use them on Wikipedia? Thx! --Wolbo (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You can only use them if the library freely licences the images. Get them to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. BTW, the photographer only died in 1967, so his work is most likely still copyright, depending on whether it was published or not, and it is up to his heirs, or the library if they were given the copyright along with the possession of the image, to decide the copyright licence until such time as they fall into the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thx. The written (email) permission I had was fairly generic and only stated that the photos could be used for Wikipedia. Since I can't be 100% sure the library was aware of Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license, and particularly that others can make derivatives and commercial use of Wikipedia info, I will ask them again using the WP:CONSENT text you mentioned. --Wolbo (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the best way because the OTRS Team will clarify any misunderstandings they may have and make sure the licence provided is appropriately free. ww2censor (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that a very common problem is getting permission "for use on Wikipedia". We have to reject such requests for permission, and ask for the Consent text. As an easier alternative, if they are willing to accept the cc-by-sa-3.0 license for used on Wikipedia, presumably they are fine with a cc-by-sa-3.0 license, and they could change the license on Flickr. Then they would not have to fill out and send in the Consent form.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Loren Wiseman

On Talk:Loren Wiseman, there is an accusation of a fraudulent ownership claim.

At File:Loren Wiseman.jpg the ownership appears to be correct (Probably as a result of the OTRS ticket which I cannot access).

Would it be OK for me to post a note at Talk:Loren Wiseman that the issue has been resolved? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The comment is so outdated that it hardly seems necessary unless you have some concerns that the OTRS ticket has been falsely applied, in which case you should ask one of the OTRS Team to check it out. ww2censor (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status?

Opinions requested on the copyright status of File:King Sejong - from Commons.jpg.

Despite the title, it isn't on Commons, but Wikipedia. If I read the history correctly, it was on Commons but deleted there.

According to Freedom of Panorama - South Korea:

Although Article 35.(2) of the Republic of Korea: Copyright, Act of 1957 (Law No. 432, as last amended by Law No. 9625 of April 22, 2009) permits any reproduction of works permanently installed in "open places", 35.(2).4 specifically states that the rule does not apply "where reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Reproduction is defined in Section 2.(22) as "...the fixation or the reproduction in a tangible medium by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording, or other means." Selling reproduction of artistic works in public place is not allowed, for examples, selling postcard, calendar, collection of photos in which the artistic works have major part is not allowed.

The open places appears to apply. The problem is whether the caveat effectively makes it an NC license, and therefore ineligible.

One argument is that the "purpose" of the photograph was for use in Wikipedia, and while it is a necessary requirement that commercial use be permitted, that doesn't change the purpose of the photo. I suspect that argument is not solid enough, as it could be abused.

If the photo doesn't match the license, then my understanding is that it may still be hosted on Wikipedia if an adequate FUR is provided, but I do not see one.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any South Korean 3D artworks being discussed on English Wikipedia, but I have personally taken several Japanese and Armenian 3D artworks to PUF which has lead to deletion (unless the photos comply with WP:NFCC). This photo is definitely not free enough to be on Wikipedia without a fair use rationale. This one should be deleted as it fails WP:NFCC#1 (File:Sejong of Joseon.jpg could be used instead). It was speedily deleted on Commons, so I'll propose it for deletion here and ask the Commons user for a date of the statue. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 May 12#File:King Sejong - from Commons.jpg (and question to the copyvio tagger here). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Malheur Bell.png

Does this logo meet U.S. threshold of originality? --George Ho (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Arguably no, as the phone icon is rather simple, but that's not 100% assurance. --MASEM (t) 17:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does wiki make it so over-complicated? Why not just allow a simple link??

This is the only website where I can't simply link an image from another image hosting website. Why? It would be a link. You know, "link". Outside of that, is there a place I'm supposed to look on the web for a license free image. A search I'm supposed to perform? Let's say I want a photo of, oh I donno, Julia Roberts?--XB70Valyrie (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:HOTLINK. De728631 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 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)

the logo in question belongs to Microsoft and advertising gmail without specifying the user's email address is questionableGatorinvancouver (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Both the Windows Vista and the gmail icon are hosted on Commons so if at all you should raise copyright questions over there. That gmail icon is actually part of the KDE Linux desktop suite and is thus free to use. And advertising is something entirely different. As long as there is no direct call for other users to buy any specific software displaying your favourite OS or mail service is totally ok. De728631 (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Isolation tank image

Hi! I noticed this image in the article "Isolation tank", and was somewhat concerned by the fact that a company's copyright was in the bottom corner. Is there an issue here? Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a commons image so need to be dealt with there but it certainly appears there is no evidence of permission. The uploader uses the company name, which is a disallowed as a username. We really require an OTRS ticket to verify the licence applied. The highest resolution image I can find on this website credits the company for the image and one of the company's own webpages shows the image though at a lower resolution. However there is no evidence the image is freely licenced. I'll nominate it for deletion on this basis. ww2censor (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted on Commons as a copyright violation. Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

File:PeacePark.jpg

I have obtained permission to use this image under the GNU Free Documentation License. I have uploaded the image to Commons with the appropriate license and added a copy of the FlickrMail to the discussion page. Is this the correct procedure? Do I need to do anything else e.g. to confirm permission from the creator? Nirvana2013 (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It is moi84, the author of the image, who needs to confirm the license by sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, or you could forward the original mail as you received it. Please understand that simply copying the text is not sufficient since we need proof that it was written by moi84. When either you or moi84 have contacted the permissions team, please put {{OTRS pending}} on the file page to notify others of this process. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Will forwarding a screen print of moi84's FlickrMail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org be OK? I have moi84's permission via FlickrMail not email. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that works, just try it. If anything else is needed, the OTRS team will let you know. De728631 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, email with attachments has been sent to the OTRS team. Nirvana2013 (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File:GIJoeRetaliationColton.jpg

I have a question about the image File:GIJoeRetaliationColton.jpg. It was removed from the article General Joseph Colton by Drmies, before the article was permanently protected from editing. When I requested the image to be re-added, in order to specifically identify this character in the movie G.I. Joe: Retaliation, I was told that it does not seem to meet WP:NFCC. However, similar images have been added for other characters from the movie, such as Jinx, Roadblock and Storm Shadow, to identify the movie versions of those characters. Could someone please re-add the image to the infobox under the "G.I. Joe Retaliation" section of the General Joseph Colton article, before the image is deleted on Wednesday, 16 May 2012? And if the image cannot be used, please let me know what aspect of the image would need to change, in order for it to be acceptable. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to argue that the image should be added just because similar article have it. Arguably, Drmies is right that an image of a live action human character of a comic/cartoon adaption that looks pretty much like the actor him or herself is going to fail WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 in that it doesn't help the reader any more than the existing comic/cartoon art, and that the image of said character can be easily replaced with a free image of the actor to show who is playing that. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the three images from the articles above, since they are clearcut violations of our fair-use restrictions. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:BellSouth logo.svg

Is this image eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the artwork component, I would certainly say so. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use without consent

Is a fair use claim valid if the source says no reproduction without consent?

FYI current files at issue:

1. File:Portrait of Madame Cézanne.jpg
2. File:Roto Broil.jpg
3. File:Torpedo...Los!.jpg
4. File:Yellow and Green Brushstrokes.jpg
5. In fact, every work at {{Roy Lichtenstein}} may be in question.

In some cases in the past for other artworks, I have claimed wikipedia counts as an educational use. The Lichtenstein Foundation website claims that their contents are for personal and eductional uses only. Does WP count as an acceptable educational use under fair use for Lichtenstein images?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

US Copyright law does not prevent people from using copyrighted material under fair use regulations regardless what "license" the publisher attempts to put down. The images are , of course, going to have to be non-free, but as long as the rest of NFC is met, it will be appropriate under fair use law. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture of a person

I want to add an image to an existing article. I googled the persons name and a page of images came up. How do I know which ones I can use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash177 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have information that clearly establishes that they have either been released into the public domain or licensed under one of the broad licenses that we accept, you can't. Few images found by a websearch are going to qualify. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Brainthatwouldntdie.jpg

Uploaded as fair use. There is a file on Commons from the movie Commons:File:Brainthatwouldntdie.jpg with the license {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Would that also apply to this poster? --MGA73 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that it was renewed or that it wasn't renewed? The text shows some copyright record but also suggests that it wasn't renewed. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't necessarily apply to the poster; you'd have to do a separate renewal check on it. The odds that it was renewed are minimal, but there's not an inherent connection between the movie and the poster.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Images use

How are the copyrights to images found? Concerning a few articles on films and persons, I see photos which have been reproduced all over the net; every website yields the info that "This website does not supply ownership information". But I can't find any original photos, or ownership info.

So, then, how are copyrights to stock images found?

If no copyright info is available, does that mean the oft-repeated photo is in the public domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.thomas-j (talk • contribs) 19:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary: if you can't find evidence that it has been released into the public domain, you must assume that it is under copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the correct way to make copyrighted images available to WP?

I'd like to contact the owners of a couple of images that have previously been used in WP under a claim of Fair Use, and request them to make the images available in a form acceptable to WP for use in any article. I have reason to believe such a request would be honored, if I knew exactly what to ask for. What is the right request to make (such that WP would allow the images to be used) and is there a proper technique for directing the grant of license (or whatever other form it needs to take) to WP?

Thanks! RossPatterson (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it free-to-share intent (good for Commons) or just {{non-free with permission}}? Either way, ask if the image would be used as either free-to-share in Wikimedia Commons or only non-free in English Wikipedia and other Wikipedia languages. --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see the images be available for whatever use Wikipedia might put them to, including sharing them beyond Wikipedia. But since I expect to have only one opportunity to ask, I want to ask specifically for whatever permission or license is needed. RossPatterson (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Ask them to license the images as cc-by-sa-3.0, see the terms [8]. If that doesn't work, the alternatives are here:free licenses. (That link may be more than you want to share with them, just because it is overwhelming if you aren't familiar with licensing.)

2. Ask them to provide a release using the standard wording at:

Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

3. I often fill it out for them, so they don't have to worry about the multiple options.

4. Ask them to email it to you, and you can forward it to OTRS at permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org (remembering to replace "(at)" with "@") --SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Images from ABC, Disney, and ESPN

I'm reading terms and conditions. Does this apply to images used in Wikipedia, such as ones in Kendall Hart? --George Ho (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, T&Cs on use of material cannot prevent you from using them under US Fair Use law, so they can be used here, as long as they follow NFCC requirements. --MASEM (t) 13:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

File:7Q5.jpg

I strongly recommend to review the license of this file (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:7Q5.jpg) due to the incompatibility with the observation Observation from the English Wikipedia: This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years. Original Photograph from "The First New Testament" by David Estrada & William White, Jr. Photograph by David Rubinger, 1972. Photograph used with permission of Thomas Nelson, Inc. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 03:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the image is public domain due to age, over 1000 years old. The photograph is just a faithful reproduction. Albeiror24 is making a false claim of copy here, all this editors achievement was, was to crop the scale off the earlier image. The bits about the book are still worth recording as it reveals the source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Edfirstwedding.jpg

This image appears in the Getty Images website. However, this image was uploaded to Wikipedia in 2008, while it was uploaded to Getty in 2009. What does this mean? --George Ho (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably means that abc released it via getty then. It is under fair use and small, so no need to get stressed about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of photos (non-close-up), Photos (close-up) and artistic recreations

An editor is filing permission for images of officers wearing badges, and closeups of the badges themselves.

See Victoria Transit Patrol. I'm thinking that the photos in the gallery are fine, as the badges are a minor element of the photo, but the images in the info box may need explicit permission of the designer, unless they are PD.

The page also includes the various levels of insignia, but these are no photos, they are not photos, they are artistic reproductions

I'm appreciate feedback on the copyright status of each of the three types of elements.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

well the badge close up is under fair use so its copyright does not matter much, but it is likely owned by the organisation. It would be a crown copyright expiring 50 years after being made public. The photos are fine. The recreations of the Epaulette are also either public domain due to simplicity, or contain too little original work. In fact they look very similar to other police Epaulettes in Commonwealth countries, and may be public domain in their original form due to age. Otherwise crown copyright with 50 year expiry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that the close-up was used as fair use, that make me feel better.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Cypher of Queen Elizabeth II

Would File:Royal Cypher of Queen Elizabeth II.svg be public domain in the UK (due to crown copyright)? If so, is it also PD in the US? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You will see that File:Royal-Cypher-Eliz-2-Gold.svg has the appropriate licencing applied and the image you linked should be the same. ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Huh? That's not properly licensed. Yes, the first image needs an emblem tag, but neither image has the copyright status of the base image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hum, you are right!! Actually crown copyright which is 50 years from publication should apply to all the versions and I would presume the design was created at the time of her coronation or sometime around 1952. Being commons images it should really be discussed there is editors think there is a problem. ww2censor (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Assignee?

There are images that I'd like to use from website of paintings by an artist, deceased 70+ years (1931). I believe these would be PD, however the images are tagged with: "Artwork images are copyright of the artist or assignee." -- Not sure what it meant by "assignee", or whether or not that can be ignored.
Re: AskART images of paintings ~Thanks, Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Paintings first published in Germany after 1923 by an artist who died in 1931 are still in copyright in the US. Works first published before 1923 are the major group of works that are out of copyright in the US. Those paintings published before 1923 are acceptable, and are the only one's acceptable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Written permission to use symbol

I have got written (emailed) permission from Ari Ne'eman to use the ASAN symbol on Wikipedia to represent the Autism rights movement. I want to use it in a userbox for same. Since the symbol is not a licensed image, does that mean it's public domain? Beyond Mr. Ne'eman's email, do I need anything else? --Bluejay Young (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If the owner of the image has released the picture into the public domain, or under one of the free licenses listed here, then an email confirming this is all you will need. Note that the owner must do so for anyone to use, not just Wikipedia. We also can't upload images that are approved for non-commercial use only.

If these conditions are met, and you have an email that verifies this, follow the instructions on this page on Wikimedia Commons, which is where freely licensed pictures should be uploaded, to upload the image and submit the email containing permission to the proper address. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 18:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I would think it might be seen as promotion - does any other Autism rights organisation use the symbol? Secretlondon (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, we have these similar images: File:Penrose octagon.svg, File:Penrose hexagon.svg Chris857 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

However, even with permission I would say that the logo does not pass the threshold of creativity and should be ok to upload using the {{PD-textlogo}} template together with a {{trademark}} tag. ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but Mr. Ne'eman does not have this image trademarked that I know of. Wouldn't he have a little "tm" next to it if he did? --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily AFAIK. Trademark and copyright are different issues and the logo may or may not be trademarked and adding the {{trademark}} tag is really a courtesy to copyright holder. Read the {{trademark}} tag and you will see reads: "This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions" so adding it may not a definitive notice that it is trademarked. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

File:KCBS-TV Logo.png

C3F2k (talk · contribs) said that this image is too glossy to be in the public domain. Is this image still eligible for copyrights due to its "glossiness"? --George Ho (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this is beyond plain text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Still eligible then? --George Ho (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can't tell if an image is copyrightable or not, just apply Commons:COM:PRP and assume that it is copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Photograph of Saya Aye Rejected for Attachment to the Wikipedia Article of Saya Aye and Question

Dear Editors,

I have a very old photograph of Saya Aye (1872-1930), the Burmese painter, which I would like to add to the Wikipedia article on Saya Aye. I tried twice to upload it but both times it was rejected.

The owner (or possessor) of the photograph was U Min Naing, a Burmese art scholar, who gave it to me before his death in 2004 for use in my book "Burmese Painting" (published by Silkworm Books, Thailand, 2009; distributed by the University of Washington Press, USA) and for other educational purposes as I saw fit. I did use it in my book. The author of the photograph is unknown and it almost inconceivable that any copyright is attached to it. Here are the various reasons why:

1) It is obvious from the rough nature of the photograph that it was not taken by a professional photographer. It was clearly taken by an amatuer and almost certainly a Burmese, as Saya Aye was only known as a painter of worth among Burmese, not British colonials during his life time.

2) Saya Aye died in 1930 at the age of 58. According to the Wiki terms I read, this (non-USA) photograph should have been taken prior to 1926 in order to be used. In the photograph, Saya Aye looks like a man of about 35-40 years-old so it was probably taken about 1915 or perhaps earlier. Saya Aye had achieved fame among Burmese by the early 1900s. It may date as early as that.

3) The image in this photograph has been widely disseminated in Burma in various publications. I know that it appeared at least as early as 1967-68 in a book by the Burmese art writer G. Hla Maung entitled "On International and Burmese Painting". It also appeared, apparantly as a scan, in the New Treasure Art Gallery publicaton "Selected Masters, Past and Present" in 1995. It appeared again in U Nyan Shein's Volume 1 of "On Burmese Painters, Sculptors and Architects" in 1998 although it is unclear whether this was a reproduction of the actual photograph which U Min Naing held or a scan from an ealier publication. No one has every raised a copyright issue regarding the photograph as it is clearly regarded as belonging in the Public Domain in Burma inasmuch as no one has any idea who took it. In this case, it is treated like many other old photographs by anonymous photographers in Burma and freely used. Lastly, regarding the current possessor of the photograph, that may be said to be me as U Min Naing passed it on to me. Thus, my question is essentially this: May I use the photo for the Saya Aye article? It is the only photograph of Saya Aye that exists. Hsaya (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly you can use it under fair use on Wikipedia. I would have to know the law of copyright in Burma to be able to say whether it really is public domain, but it likely has to be in public domain before 1996 to be available for use in USA freely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

this section on Burmese copyright law on Commons states that photographs are in the public domain "50 years after the date of the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived." Based on your claims regarding the subject's lifespan, I would say this image qualifies for PD in Burma. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 05:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will try to proceed. Hsaya (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sports statistics and copyright

I posted this question on the Reference Desk, and was directed here. Essentially, I'm wondering if taking NFL stats from websites/books/etc, compiling them into my own custom-built-and-designed database, then posting said database on a revenue-generating website would be a copyright violation. I've been told that stats are simply facts and cannot be copyrighted, but the "manifestation" of facts can be. Any direction to relevant copyright law and/or court cases would be appreciated. 198.185.18.207 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding of US copyright law, you would be OK. This is similar to the facts in Feist v. Rural. Facts themselves cannot be copyrighted, but compilations of facts may be, depending on how much creativity there was in the selection of which facts to present. For example, a recipe cannot be copyrighted because those are just instructions, but a cookbook is copyrightable because the author of the book made the selection of which recipes to include and the order in which they appear. So in your case, if you just have statistics, you're fine, but let's say one of your sources groups game stats in interesting ways, like "here are stats for games where the home team scored X more points than the away team". Now you can have the same grouping, but if you end up using exactly the same (or even a subset of) games as your source, now you have a problem. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and these statements should be relied upon for legal advice. It is strongly recommended that you consult a legal professional before you begin your commercial venture. —howcheng {chat} 23:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Message about lack of permission

I did not understand a message that I received a couple of days ago about an image that I uploaded a couple of months ago. The image was File:Bromley War Memorial 2.jpg. The information that I uploaded indicated the source and the link to the source. The source confirms the license and matches the license that I selected. I just started occasionally uploading images in March and I don't understand what special permission would be required other than the license. Thank you. Anne (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The tagging was incorrect, and I have removed it. The tagger made a mistake. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Colombia — status of works of federal government

I've been working on a series of articles on Colómbia's programadoras, the companies that produced television programs for the public-commercial television channels there. One of these is Audiovisuales, which was an arm of the Ministerio de Comunicaciones (since renamed to Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones). I'm looking to upload a screenshot of their pre- and post-program ID (seen here) to accompany that article, but I am unsure on the legality of such a move because I don't know if in Colombia, like in the US, federal government works are in the public domain. Raymie (t • c) 02:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Commons suggests that government works are not PD and enjoy 50 year copyright status. Images can be used but they would have to meet WP:NFC criteria. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Robert Capa's works

Why Robert Capa's photographs do not fall under {PD-old-50} license?--176.241.247.17 (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos uploaded here need to be free in the United States. The {{PD-old-50}} template provides no information about the copyright status in the United States. Normally, works by him are only free in the United States if they were published before 1923 whereas works not published before 1923 are unfree in the United States. The United States does not apply a copyright term of life+50 years, so the template isn't applicable for his works. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Old poster of The Boys in the Band (play)

I found this from MoviePosterShop.com: http://images.moviepostershop.com/boys-in-the-band-the-broadway-movie-poster-1968-1020407281.jpg. Is this poster copyrighted? I don't see a copyright notice in this poster. However, it was published in only Washington, D.C. and no other cities. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• If it has a copyright notice and was published in 1968, it is still copyrighted.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What means to "attribute in manner specified by author"?

I uploaded some of my own photos under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Now it says under Attribution: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author" So, the author is me, I suppose, but ... did I specify any manner of attribution implicitly by uploading it under the said licence, or do I still have to specify something explicitly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RikSchuiling (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you do not say how you want to be attributed, then all others have to go by is your username "RikSchuiling" However you can coose to have some different kind of attribution, eg "Rik Schuiling", or "Rik Schuiling the greatest photographer in Monmouth" or even a link back to your website. The -BY bit of the license means that there has to be some kind of acknowledgement of the creator. However although you can choose text you cannot be specific about the nature of its presentation. So you cannot say, for example, it has to be in red ink 2cm high. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. So the "manner specified by the author" is simply what I filled in under "Author"? Then why doesn't it say "You must attribute the work to the author as stated under Author above", or something like that? As it is now, a potential user of the photo just sees who is the author and then goes looking for "the manner specified by author", and doesn't find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RikSchuiling (talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Signal's Logo

Hey, I uploaded this photo of Signal's Logo. I don't know if the logo is copyrighted or not, though I did take it from a copyrighted source. I tried to fill out the form the best I could, but have no idea if what I did was sufficient or necessary. Any help would be much appreciated and if you could please reply on my talk page, I'd be grateful. Xgamerms999 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

When you uploaded there should have been a logo option that would mke your life easier if you had picked it. Another template for the air use rationale is {{logo fur}}. Also your image should not be slo large, reduce it to 300 to 500 pixels wide, this is to have minimal use. And the last issue is to get the old uploads that are not used deleted. I have deleted the rotated version for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. 1) how do you change a photo's resolution & 2) Does it matter that the "company" (signal) is defunct? Xgamerms999 (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

First Motion Picture Unit logo

The upside down design on this matchbook cover [9] is an unofficial, and very cute, logo of the First Motion Picture Unit. It is public domain? Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 01:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Only if it can be verifiably shown that the creator was a US federal employee, methinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• And if not, would it fall under public domain due to publication w/out copyright notice? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems to be from the 1940s, so yes, if it carries no copyright notice, {{PD-US-no notice}} applies, but I suppose that you should check the other side of the box too in case there's a notice there. Since it is from the 1940s, it would also require a copyright renewal 28 years after publication, and this looks like the kind of things which would typically not be renewed. So probably in the public domain even if it isn't a government work. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Ajith C. S. Perera 'Free' or not?

This picture has the rather peculiar file-name "File:YET UNPUBLISHED PHOTOS PERSONALLY CREATED BY PERERA IN 1991 WITH EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP TO PERERA.jpg", which would seem to suggest that it has not been put in the 'public domain' for use on Wikipedia. Please advise, I am a novice in this area. Regards 220 of ^Borg 06:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How can the photo be of Perera and yet be created by Perera? Was he using a timer? --Orange Mike | Talk 07:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. I have come here by way of Pereras bio, and the related Idiriya (a disabled rights organisation Perera founded) which several editors seem to edit almost exclusively. Pages are rather puffy and promotional. I AGF but may be Perera himself or friends.--220 of ^Borg 07:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that asking someone to take a picture of you as a favour allows you to keep the copyright... it allowed File:Centpacrr 2012 WC.jpg to be reinstated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers cast photos

I found this from Getty Images: [10]. It proves that this image is commercial and editorial rather than anything. Would this affect File:Cheers cast photo.jpg, which we have right now? Also, does a proof of prior publication invalidates any reason to delete this image from Wikipedia? --George Ho (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Likely WP:NFCC#2 violation and it doesn't seem to pass WP:NFCC#10a either. I'll try WP:FFD since it may need a discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Prior publications don't really invalidate WP:NFCC#2 claims. The purpose of WP:NFCC#2 is to protect images with a high commercial value. If an image is sold individually through Getty Images, the image has a high commercial value: people are paying to get this exact image, and free distribution of it would mean less sales. If an image is taken as a screenshot from a film, the image normally has a low commercial value: people would not pay money just to see this image, but would instead pay money to see the whole film (which may contain millions of individual images), so distribution of just one screenshot won't affect any sales. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

How can I tell if an image is copyrighted?

How would I find if this is copyrighted -- or can be used on Wikipedia?

[[:file: http://sitgesfilmfestival.com/scripts/phpthumb/phpThumb.php?src=http://sitgesfilmfestival.com/sitgesadmin/uploads/web_noticies_rel_img/1225478731.jpg&w=350&iar=1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ts.lin (talk • contribs) 22:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: Every modern image you find on the Internet is copyrighted with all rights reserved unless there is a statement otherwise. Certain images may be used if they comply with our non-free content policy: only if that specific image itself is the subject of discussion in an article. Examples: V-J Day in Times Square, the lead photo in Kent State shootings, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima (not that it has to be a very famous photo; just that there needs to be discussion about the photo itself, not just the events happening in the photo). So in other words, for this photograph, no, we can't use it. —howcheng {chat} 23:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) The hard reality is that most of the time you can't. You must assume an image is copyrighted and unfree unless you find positive evidence that it is not, such as a free license posted or release into the public domain by the copyright owner, or something that reliably verifies a fact from which public domain status depends, such as confirmation that a U.S.-based image was published in the U.S. before 1923. This is why the vast majority of images you just find on the internet are not suitable for upload.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could seek out the photographer or whomever holds the copyright (for example, if the photographer took the photo as part of their job, then their employer may own the copyright) and get written permission to use the image. They will complete WP's Declaration of Consent and you're good to go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT However, the image can only be uploaded if there is no fee or onerous restrictions attached - other WP users must be able to use the image, too. Wordreader (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sculpture or object?

Is this car a sculpture/painting or just a car in terms of WP:NFCC?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Considering the complexity, I'd say it's copyrighted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In other words, a copyrighted car could make this image non-free, right? {{non-free 3d art}} --George Ho (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Assuming there's an article with high enough context for it to meet the WP:FUC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, we have trimmed Roy Lichtenstein down to 4 FU artworks. If this is copyrighted, we would have to remove another image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not convinced that this is copyrighted, but let's keep the discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lichtenstein13.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Just in case, I have created File:BMW Group 5 320i Roy Lichtenstein 1977.jpg with a "cc-by-3.0" and "non-free 3d art". What are your thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I see you added the image. We now have to remove one FU image to stay at 4 FU works. Come to the talk page and help us decide.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • May I ask where the impression that 4 FU is the magic number? NFCC only requires "minimal use", but nothing else in count. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Everytime, I have had an article on review for WP:FA or WP:GA (such as Cloud Gate or Joanne Gair) the understanding is that you can get it down to 4 (that is regarded as the minimal number). I have never seen an FA or GA that allowed more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Whoever is stating that is factually wrong. NFC sets no number, and in fact encourages editors to use zero non-free images if possible. But an article - particularly one for a notable artist with a large body of works, could easily qualify for more than 4 images. That said, if there's multiple images on two nearly similar/same period works of the artist, you probably don't need to show both. Perhaps that it is the case for a visual arts who's works are primarily still under copyright that there's a defacto agreement to stay near 4 but it absolutely not any written limit or the like (even at WP:WIAFA/WP:WIAGA. (That said, I did look at the article in question and think there's not a lot of room for many non-frees to start due to the lack of commentary on works themselves.) --16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I think the is some widely agreed opinion that 4 is the max number of FU images for artists, much like 30 seconds is the longest generally accepted music sample. There is sort of a feeling that is is easiest to keep all the artists down to 4 if they go through review. That said, if you don't want to put an article under review, you can keep 8 or 10. At "Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)", I think I had to cut it to 3 FUs, IIRC. P.S. If any of you experts want to drop by and do an NFCC review on that FAC (at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3), that would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
          • It's probably a nitpick but don't get it wrong that just because an article's never set to review that it could have 8-10 images. Anyone that sees that as exceeding what the article really needs can always contest it at any time. Its just that if you are are taking an article to GA/FA, expect a microscopic-level of review of the need for each non-free image.
          • But as for the numbers, its probably fair to say 3-4 images/media is a "gentlemen's agreement" to avoid long arguments on the aspect. It should still be made aware that's not a hard limit set by NFC or the like, and it should be considered flexible in selected cases but it is a fair number to shoot for for such articles. (To clarify that the 30s is a hard limit we actually do spell out for NFC on audio samples to assure minimal work is used). --MASEM (t) 13:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair-use

Wondering what to include in my non-free use rationale for a still image from a film. I'm a little new to this. Hoping to avoid the deletion machine before it takes a pass at this photo: [File:Billy Campbell and Ryan Doucette in The Disappared.jpg]

Here's my rationale as of now. I just don't understand what each means.

• Low resolution we hope should be yes, and half the size for a tv screenshot could be OK for use in an infobox.
• Purpose could be infobox, or for recognition or to show a particular character in the film
• If replaceable is yes, then we do not need to use this fair use image. replaceable means that you can replace it with a free image.
• article has to say which article to use the image in.
• Source should tell more such as the name of the film, perhaps where in the film the screenshot is from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

see template:Non-free use rationale/doc for more. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dungeons and Dragons monster manual extracts

Recently I've noticed a series of articles which seem to be nothing more than summaries from D&D monster manuals. Here are some examples Giant bloodworm, Frost man, Rot grub. Most of these articles provide a short summary (which appears to be a précis of the text from one of the D&D manuals) along with an image which has also been scanned from one of the manuals.

In addition to the somewhat suspect notability of these articles, I'm wondering if we are pushing fair-use beyond what is reasonable. I'd understand if we were selecting a few images to illustrate some of the most notable creatures in the D&D fictional universe, however we appear to be significantly replicating parts of a copyrighted work. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If they are exact word-for-word copy from the manuals, presumably more than a short quote with citation, the advice at WP:COPYVIO needs to be followed - removing the copied text without prejudice. --MASEM (t) 10:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Copying quoted text on talk pages as reference

I've occasionally pasted blocks of text from books or other sources on talk pages (always fully attributed) as a reference in content discussions. I did this earlier today here[11], and only later wondered whether this kind of thing is a breach of copyright policies. Help? Homunculus (duihua) 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Abiding by minimal use, you should only have what is needed there, and then remove it when the discussion is over. If the material is online you can just link to it instead of pasting a slab of text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Images in Home Is the Sailor (Cheers)

I have added File:KirstieAlley1994-close.jpg as part of the Production section and a free equivalent to other non-free images. Lihaas and I discussed what else to add to help readers understand the episode. As far as I am concerned, I have two options: either a free-to-use-and-to-share image of Alley in 1994 or a non-free image of Alley's first minute of appearance in that episode. Since I used the free image for critical commentary, I wonder if a non-free image of Kirstie Alley from that episode is irreplaceable. --George Ho (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I be;lieve a screen capture from an episode is considered okey, but correct me if im wrongLihaas (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that would likely fail NFCC#8. To show the idea that this was Alley's first appearance on the show, a non-free screenshot adds nothing. The current use of a free image of Alley is completely appropriate and actually an example of a common approach to illustrate production sections in TV episode articles, using a free image of an actor or the like to show their importance to the episode. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What about an idea of primarily identifying an episode? A non-free screenshot could help, but I have come up with a few ideas: a scene of men drinking and spitting out Screaming Viking or a scene of making a Screaming Viking. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no allowance for an image for episode identification. There is one for cover art because first, there's only a single cover image (or sometimes alternative ones, but the point remains), and that that image was selected to be the means to market and brand the work. For an episode, there is no similar "branding" image short of title cards, so the allowance that cover art has cannot apply to episode screenshots. An identifying image may be appropriate if it otherwise passes all of NFCC; specifically the specific screen must be discussed by sources in detail in the body of the work. This would not be such a case. --MASEM (t) 13:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Rebecca Howe.jpg

This non-free image is too dubious to use because it does not explicitly or implicitly represent a true character of Rebecca Howe, who was at first ruthless but then became a mess. I have contacted the uploader about this, but I'm still waiting for his response. Then I have added File:KirstieAlley1994.jpg as part of the Casting section. What shall be done for this non-free image? --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is not being used anywhere else, a bot will tag it as orphan and an admin will review and delete it in 7 days. If it does become contested, you can use WP:FFD to nominate it for deletion. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It is still used in Rebecca Howe, and I don't want to delete it yet. --George Ho (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have put it under non-free review, so you can review the image if you want. --George Ho (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please Help About Photos

hi there, i've uploaded a picture with no information on where i got it from and about the copyright information. this is the only information that i have on this image.

This is a PR photo. WENN does not claim any Copyright or License in the attached material. Fees charged by WENN are for WENN's services only, and do not, nor are they intended to, convey to the user any ownership of Copyright or License in the material. By publishing this material, the user expressly agrees to indemnify and to hold WENN harmless from any claims, demands, or causes of action arising out of or connected in any way with user's publication of the material. Supplied by WENN

I found the image on http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaydeepooh/4213582179/.

Is this enough information to satisfy wiki in order for it to remain.

thank you so much for your time and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJKingofMusic (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No unfortunately not. This Flickr user appears to be uploading only copyright images that belong to other sources and he does not appear to have taken any of the images himself. The image you are talking about also has an "all rights reserved" tag attached. We take copyright status very seriously and unless you can positively demonstrate the image as being freely licenced we cannot use it here. I don't know that you can really trust whatever has been written. Tineye finds numerous copies and versions of the image and here it is attributed to WENN but with "All rights reserved". This really looks like it cannot be used here. ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3

Can someone come by and do an WP:NFCC review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

File:1923 Chorley champions.jpg

This is a photograph from 1923, but currently has a tag saying published prior to January 1, 1923, and was uploaded with GFDL but with no evidence of permission. Should it be tagged with a different licence (maybe a combination of Template:PD-URAA and Template:PD-UK-unknown) or is more information needed to confirm its status? Peter E. James (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the ago of the image, might {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} not be more suitable? ww2censor (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

book reviews and copyright

I am interested in starting a blog dedicated to reviewing art books. After researching copying regulations, I found the rules surrounding the use of images in critical reviews to be ambiguous. In the case of audio, video or text it is quite simple: the reviewer is only permitted to use snippets of the original work. Image-heavy/art books present a different case, because from an artist's perspective, each individual image is a work in itself. For a song one can use a clip of up to 30 seconds; however, you can't really do this for an image without making the original unintelligible. Does anyone know how to legally use images from books in the context of review (must the image be altered in some way? Is there a certain number/percentage of unaltered images that may be reproduced from each publication?) Any advice you can pass along is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.62.52 (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We cannot offer you legal advise here. You should consult a intellectual property attorney. Images and other files that are hosted here and on the commons under free licences may be used so long as the requirements of each licence, such as attribution, are complied with. You can consult Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for more information. ww2censor (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)