Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Emmet1994 (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 6 July 2009 (→‎Ultimate Driver Fanstite Logo.png). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

Skip to the bottom


    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

    How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
      • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
      • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
      • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
    3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
    Note for those replying to posted questions

    If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

    Click here to start a new discussion

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


    How will recover my copyright?

    I am in a permanent block in ruwiki. On the personal pages in enwiki write the rough copies of articles about mountain-skiers and about the hero of Russia. When will find a help for translation of these articles into English language, then will carry them in basic space of enwiki.

    An anonymous user published some of my rough copies in the ruwiki. In description to the first corrections such pointers were done to the my rough copies: «Author and license here: User:Udacha/Кедрин, Максим Николаевич, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Анастасия Николаевна, User:Udacha/Кедрина, Людмила Владимировна, User:Udacha/Artsybycheva, User:Udacha/Макеев, Владимир Иванович, User:Udacha/Перец». Such requirement of license GFDL.

    Discovered today, that all these first corrections are remote: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. My authorship is hidden from readers.

    I suppose, that users which in a block, must not be deprived their copyrights.

    I ask for a help from authoritative users.

    Thank you.

    I presume you're talking about File:ChevalierStGeorges 1.gif, which was deleted some time ago because it lacked any information on its copyright status. Can you clarify where the image came from originally (i.e. who created it and when)? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Smithsonian Institution

    I was about to start downloading this recent picture of the Star Spangled Banner Flag from the Smithsonian Institution when I noticed a copyright claim at this page. How can the Smithsonian claim copyright when it's part of the US federal government? Or is it like the USPS, federal but not officially? Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, the Smithsonian is not actually an arm of the federal government. It is largely dependent on federal funding, but it raises its own funds and it is technically a trust. Thus as you say it is much like the Post Office or the Federal Reserve. It can, as it asserts, hold copyrights. Cool3 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some employees of the Smithsonian are federal employees, and some are not. Works created by the federal employees are in the public domain, works created by the non-federal employees are the property of the Smithsonian. — Walloon (talk) 09:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    UK sound recordings

    I have asked this question before, and was told that I was probably thinking of crown copyright and that it didn't apply to other sounds, and I went away quite happily.

    However, I was recently looking up copyright law for a school assignment, and found the following passage:

    (2) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), copyright expires—

    (a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or
    (b) if during that period the recording is published, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first published, or
    (c)if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

    but in determining whether a sound recording has been published, played in public or communicated to the public, no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.

    (see [7])

    Therefore, does the copyright in British sound not expire after just over 50 years? I may have read it wrong, but that ios what it implies to me.

    Therefore, since the US implements the rule of the shorter term, would it not be possible to upload—for example—"Move It" (first released in the UK in 1958) to Commons (or at least Wikipedia)?

    As I say, I am probably entirely wrong, but I would be interested in knowing exactly what points I am wrong about.

    Thank you, Dendodge T\C 15:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not positive myself, since I am out of my element, but I suspect that, while the sound itself may pass into the public domain after fifty years, the underlying writing does not, so if the song was not written by somebody who died more than seventy years ago, all recordings of it will remain under copyright. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The US actually doesn't follow the rule of the shorter term. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right! I suppose, even if they are PD in the UK, I'll still have to wait before I can upload them here. Shame. I was really looking forward to uploading "Love Me Do" in 4 years' time... Oh, well. Dendodge T\C 16:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the anomalies of the URAA is that many works are protected under U.S. copyright law longer than they are in their countries of origin. British sound recordings that were under British copyright as of 1 January 1996 will be under U.S. copyright for 95 years from publication; even beyond that, they will be under state statutory or state common law copyright until 2067. — Walloon (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Am I Do Right?

    Hai,

    I need help. Please check on this site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Estherfc. Am i do right?? can anybody help me to do something more creative on this my site. And one more thing..how to change my title from user:Estherfc to Esther Applunius?

    Thanks & regards, Admin of Estherfc@OIAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estherfc (talk • contribs) 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I think what you've wanted to happen has happened. Please let me know if that is not the case. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Section of a previous image - is this right?

    Sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but I don't upload many images. I created File:A mari usque ad mare.png by pulling off File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and basically cropping it to show only the motto. Did I do the fair-use and licensing thing correctly on the file page? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Essentially correct; I've made a couple of additions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I get an explanation in English?

    I hae uploaded the file "File:PaintingChix.JPG". It's a picture I took myself with my own camera on my own free time and I have had two different people tell me they are going to delete the file because I have violated my own copyright. One of them also keeps vandalizing the page I added the image to.

    I have no idea why they would think that I am violating my own copyright. Can someone please explain, in English, how I can stop being pestered by these busybodies? They have had me in tears for days by accusing me of stealing my own property. I'm sick and tired of it. Fryede (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently they were not aware that you created the photograph. I added this to the image description page: "The uploader is the photographer and copyright holder." That should fix it. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep; I had just been concerned about the sourcing. It looks good now. My apologies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Martyn Jones

    I have now uploaded jpeg image to Wikimedia Commons 'Martyn Jones in his studio'. I can verify that this jpeg is entirely my own work and wouls like it to appear at top of my article page Martyn Jones (painter} Would you like me to recommend an external source for verification of the article? Martyn Jones78.149.46.203 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) How do I upload jpeg onto article page from Wikimedia Commons please? 194.82.216.249 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martyn_Jones_(painter)"

    I also note there is a problem with my current IP address as its an address I use when I am teaching at college. I have another E-MAIL address <redacted> that could be used. Please advise?Martynjones27 (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added the image to the article. If you need anything else, let me know. – Quadell (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Design Methods.svg

    can anybody offer an info about the origin(bibliographical resouce)or authorship of the "Design Methods.svg" scheme at the page of the same name ?

    l_kubo —Preceding unsigned comment added by L kubo designer (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you referring to File:Design modes.svg? That image was created and uploaded by User:Design methods, Adam Kallish, in December of 2005. It was converted to SVG by User:Jafet in July 2007. – Quadell (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:SupremeCourtJustices by Presidents.png

    This looks like it's copyrighted to me, but I wanted to make sure before marking it. Thanks. 129.236.254.115 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes you think that it looks copyrighted? It seems quite plausibly user-created, and User:Saqib has been around for a while. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 14:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to [8] it looks valid to me. MBisanz talk 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-free images on appropriate and inappropriate articles

    Is there a way to prevent a non-free image that is appropriate on one article from being used on other articles where it is not appropriate? Take for example File:Pinterdvd.jpg, the DVD cover of Harold Pinter’s Nobel lecture. It cannot be FFD’d because it is used appropriately for identification on Art, Truth & Politics, the article on the DVD. But the uploader insists on using it also on Harold Pinter, where its use is decorative IMHO. Non-free content review seems to be no help, for it is not a forum where enforceable decisions are made. (Indeed this problem was discussed generally here on that forum’s talk page.) An editor once told me to challenge the non-free content review on the image description page, but I am not aware of any tags for that purpose. Any ideas? —teb728 t c 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, one approach is to try to get the uploader community banned. Besides that, I think that's what WP:NFCR is intended for, though I have no experience with that myself. Besides that, I guess it can be dealt with in the same way as any other persistent inappropriate addition to articles. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If an image is being abused, then its use can be technically restricted through MediaWiki:Bad image list. I suspect you are going to have to get some consensus on the use before going there. I highly suggest using dispute resolution first. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Converting to SVG

    Alright, a question here. So, there is this non free flag that I want to convert to SVG, but only a fair use version exists. Could it be possible to convert to SVG safely if I took a picture of this flag, abnd released it under a free license? Thanks in advance for your help. Connormah (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, if the presence of the flag in the photograph is other than incidental, you would not have full ownership over the photograph. That being said, is there some reason you can't convert that version to SVG? File formats aren't my thing, but it seems to me that the resulting work would have the same copyright status as the original one, and therefore be usable under exactly the same rationale. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what it is exactly, but there is something about non-free SVGs that make them weary of converting non-free images to SVG. What license should I use for photos of flags flying, then? Can it be uploaded to Commons? Connormah (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, note that many flags are in the public domain, so these issues don't crop up. I assume Burnaby's isn't. The best advice I can give you (IANAL, etc.) is that if you are taking a picture in which the flag is the/a focal point, any copyright that exists on the flag will follow through to the photograph, and the latter will not be suitable for uploading to the Commons. If the presence of the flag is purely incidental, this is not the case. I am not an expert on determining where the line is, but those are the principles involved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I am unsure about a copyright status of this flag. It is assumed that it is copyrighted, but I, for one am not sure. Would you reccommend to inquire about the copyright status? Connormah (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I add a copyright licence tag to my uploaded images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrkneyViking (talk • contribs) 09:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What images? How did you obtain them, and who holds copyright over them? Algebraist 13:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They are my images used on the page about the European Marine Energy Centre and I own the copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.102.172 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They all appear to be copyright of EMEC. You will have to provide some kind of evidence that you own the copyright (See WP:IOWN)). For example this image, File:Guideline for Health & Safety Standard.JPG appears to be a photo of a copyright work. – ukexpat (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Screendump of an email

    I have an email that is relevant to Paolo Martin page. There are some references that state things which I realised are not true, and so I emailed Paolo and he replied with clarification. There is a screenshot of this email here http://www.christiantena.net/images/paolomartin.jpg From my perspective I'm quite happy to give this information/image away, but I'm not sure of the implications of it because the words are not mine. Also, what is the correct way to cite this email on the Paolo Martin page? Dieselnutjob (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You could get him to release copyright on the text, but don't bother. This sounds like original research which isn't appropriate. You should look for published reliable third-party sources, which can be cited. A nice benefit of a previously published source, is you don't need to copy to Wikipedia, but can just cite it, so people can go elsewhere to read it. --Rob (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rob is mostly correct, except that it is not necessary for copyright to be released for text to be cited. Note also that if some of this information is available on Paolo's personal web site, it can be used under the conditions of WP:SELFPUB. Regards, decltype (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood Rob; he wasn't saying that the text would need to be released to be cited (which it clearly wouldn't, as he acknowledges), but that it would need to be released to be uploaded to Wikipedia, which is correct. But yes, uploading this to Wikipedia would serve no real purpose, so the copyright issues need not really be addressed. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Mays's Photo.

    Please check out Billy Mays's Wikipedia page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mays


    I do not like the photo they have uploaded for Billy Mays.

    I recommend this one:

    http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090628/capt.856cd44b928c42aa8ad30bdbcbe2b5aa.obit_billy_mays_ny113.jpg?x=359&y=345&q=85&sig=xZlZtY7QgxkcNb5EgY6.uw--

    How do I upload that one and replace it with the one they have up right now?

    Someone please let me know.

    -Hightek669 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    The image currently in the article is free (meaning legally free to re-use by any person for any purpose), while the one to which you linked presumably isn't. Wikipedia always gives preference to free images, even in cases in which the doctrine of fair use would allow the use of non-free images. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Media tagged both GFDL and public domain

    Recently I've been trying to clean up stuff in Category:License_migration_needs_review, and I've found the majority of the images that the bot can't process contain both the {{GFDL}} and {{PD}} or some variants of either. If the user wants credit for his image, it shouldn't be public domain... because that means anyone can do whatever they want with it, including taking credit. If the user doesn't care how the image is used, that's what public domain is for... and in the case of PD, anyone can ignore the GFDL stuff, because public domain says "do whatever you want". Logically an image shouldn't be tagged as both, and I'm trying to develop a method or consensus or something to deal with this. Is there a consensus on Wikipedia on how to deal with this?

    Here's how I've been handling it so far (boldly, hopefully not recklessly):

    1. Check to make sure the image is actually free (a good number are mislabeled). Relabel/add fair use/speedy delete nominate as necessary.
    2. Look at the image history to make sure the license wasn't tampered with. I saw one case where a user changed the info from a copyright tag to GFDL, with no justification. Not cool.
    3. Look at the upload history. If the comments field shows {{GFDL-self}} and there's no wording in the image page about "I release this for public domain" then I remove the PD tag. Done.
    4. Check the user's contribs. If their first image upload was within a month of the uploaded image date, I assume they didn't understand what "public domain" actually meant, and remove the PD tag. I try to put a note on the person's talk page as well, telling them how to switch it to PD if they want.
    5. Otherwise I assume the user knew what they were doing, and remove the GFDL tag as superfluous.

    Please let me know if I'm doing this right. RabidDeity (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Why remove the GFDL tag? If it was tagged as PD and GFDL by the original uploader - you should leave both tags. --Megapixie (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if it's actually PD, the GFDL tag is meaningless. Is it really harmful to have meaningless tags on there? I'm not sure. ReabidDeity's approach looks reasonable to me, though a more conservative one would be to remove the PD tag on the assumption that the GFDL tag proves that that wasn't what was intended. No strong views, really. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, it's best to be cautious and tag these GFDL instead of PD where there's a conflict. If an author says something flatly contradictory, such as "It's in the public domain, but I don't allow you to reproduce it unless you credit me", a judge would be likely to rule that the author clearly did not intend to release the work into the public domain, despite using those words. When there's a conflict, go with the more restrictive license.

    Also, there are some cases where both tags are needed. If I take a photo of a PD sculpture, I may tag my photo GFDL (for the photo itself) and PD (in terms of the underlying statue). Or a composite image may be tagged with both. Or if I modify a GFDL image, but I release my contributions to the public domain, I may tag it GFDL, but PD as concerns my own modifications. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting points all around.
    Megapixie and Steve Smith, the rationale behind trying to clean up the images that have both tags is because I do indeed think it's harmful to have both tags. Is an image with both tags free to use without attribution, or not? This is a question the tags are specifically designed to address, and therefore we should try to ensure the tags are used properly and clearly. It's especially an issue when bots are trying to migrate images to the Commons, or perform other maintenance (such as CC relicensing), and the legal status of the images isn't clear. I agree that it's probably safer to assume GFDL than PD, and I think I'll change my personal policy accordingly. Once the barn door is open it's impossible to put the horses back in.
    Quadell, as for the first case I can understand different licenses on the original artwork and on the photograph of it, but in such a case the user should use text indicating the original sculpture is public domain, rather than {{PD-self}} as is typical-- unless there exists a template roughly saying, "This is a photograph of a 3 dimensional object which is in the public domain. Other licenses may apply to the image itself." This clarifies the status of the image, because according to {{PD-self}} the "work" is public domain-- one might reasonably assume the "work" in this case refers to both the object depicted and the photograph taken. Indeed, in your example attribution isn't necessary at all, and the only burden is in proving the original sculpture is indeed PD.
    The other examples about modifying or compositing a GFDL image are rather dangerous. The original work is GFDL, and derivative works must also be licensed as such, unless I'm mistaken. By stating that your modifications are public domain, viewers might jump to the conclusion that the modified work itself is public domain, especially if you use any of the PD tags. This isn't true, because you can't strip the attribution requirements of the original work. We all see the distinction, but the average editor might not. All of the existing PD tags state that the whole work itself is public domain. This isn't what we want. Plus how do you handle levels of modifications? "This work is a public domain modification of a GFDL modification of a CC interpretation of a public domain work." Kinda makes me cringe. Maybe it's easier to just say, "Please don't do that," just because it's so difficult to explain and understand, even if it's not expressly forbidden.
    Thanks all for your comments! If you disagree with any of my assumptions or find a flaw in this logic please let me know. RabidDeity (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I often use multiple tags on an image, with text descriptions, as in File:Columbia-15759-D.jpg. Sometimes text descriptions aren't needed, as in File:United States ten dollar gold certificate.jpg. If an image is tagged both {{GFDL}} and {{PD-some reason}}, without a description as to why, I'd say it's in an error state. But removing the GFDL tag is probably not a good way to fix it. It will take individual investigation, I'm afraid. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, also, your cringeworthy example of "a public domain modification of a GFDL modification of a CC interpretation of a public domain work" is not at all far-fetched. All text in Wikipedia is currently dual licensed under the GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0... except for early edits "grandfathered in" previously published under the GFDL only by multiple authors. Those aren't under cc-by-sa. And some people's text contributions (like mine) are all PD. And some may be released under earlier cc-by licenses as well. So a single article can be licensed in byzantine ways. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I add a copyright tag to the picture I uploaded? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mega06.jpg

    I picked it from Sharon Cuneta's website http://www.sharoncuneta.com/main.php?menu=5&subm=0&art=0&url=nv25_artcle13 and there is no copyright mentioned about the picture. I believe that the picture is free to use provided that its for a good intent.

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrreyes (talk • contribs) 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The site you mention says "©1998-2002 Sharon C. Pangilinan. All rights reserved." I see no reason to believe Wikipedia has any right to use it. Sorry —teb728 t c 02:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the site was owned by Sharon Cuneta Pangilinan, but the picture was orignated and was taken from the magazine article SHARON-STRUCK by Karen Vera, Mega Magazine, August 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrreyes (talk • contribs) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So does the magazine grant a license for reuse of the photo by anyone for anything? If so, see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle permission. —teb728 t c 20:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What about a picture that has no copyright that was made by drawing on photos for educational purposes?--ChubsterII (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:siamang_compared_to_bigfoot.jpg What about this image that has no copyright? It was made for an educational comparison.--ChubsterII (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe you misunderstand copyright and Wikipedia's mission. Everything is copyrighted, by default, unless you have an explicit notice stating otherwise. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is licensed in a manner which allows third party re-use, modification, and possible commercial profit. All content needs to be licensed in a manner which is compatible with Wikipedia's overall licensing. Images that are "for educational purposes only", may be OK on university websites, or in class projects, or for non-profit ventures, but on Wikipedia, that excuse is not sufficient due to the encyclopedia being licensed freely. Therefore, the two images you uploaded are assumed to be copyrighted and therefor not appropriate for Wikipedia. The only exception to this is "fair use" images, see WP:NFC.-Andrew c [talk] 13:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    cc-by-nc-sa incompatibility?

    Resolved
     –  – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The contributor of Elevate Festival is contesting its copyvio speedy tagging by noting that the original content is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA. I assume the NC component makes this license incompatible with WP's own CC-BY-SA, but would love confirmation from a more knowledgeable editor. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You are absolutely correct. See [9]. NC-SA cannot be released under -SA. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct. However, in this case, the content seems to consist primarily of lists. Since there's so little prose, the article could probably be fixed with a little effort. decltype (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not need to be, though. There's an assertion of permission at the talk page. I've blanked and provided information to the contributor on how to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, both. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Passport photo of a Russian Federation citizen with personal data

    On Wikipedia (Macedonian language) have been uploaded a scanned photo of a passport ([10]) of a citizen of the Russian Federation with some personal data on it. As far as I'm aware with the copyright law (and the law as a whole) this is not allowed. Can you tell me if this is really a violation and advice me how to proceed? (There's a template in English, so you don't have to know Macedonian language to check this) Regards! --StanProg (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that we can't do much about it from here, seeing as it's another project. The best page to bring it up at would be here, but unless you know Macedonian... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know Macedonian, but the Macedonian administrators usually seem to not "understand" why the copyrighted and other not allowed images should be removed. Just like the scanned article from a Bulgarian newspaper here [11] which they deny to remove even it's for quick deletion. In other words: I just want to be sure if this scanned passport is legally uploaded or not. --StanProg (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:MarylandTerrapins.png

    The above file has an awful lot of fair use templates, some of which seem to be there only because "it looks pretty". Do all of these really fall under fair use? It's debatable, I think. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Because it looks official" probably isn't defensible as fair use, especially as it directly contradicts the purpose of trademark. Unless it's used specifically for identification and in a very limited context, it might not be OK to use. See also Wikipedia:Logos and Wikipedia:NFCC#8 RabidDeity (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I dimly remember a recent hullabaloo about the widespread use of sports team logos under fair use. Can anybody remember where that took place? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Status of File:NBL-logo.jpg

    The image File:NBL-logo.jpg is the logo of the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, maintained by NASA. It is tagged with {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. I know that the NASA logo itself isn't covered by that, but what is the status of this logo? The uploader was assuming that "Individual departments aren't covered by these restrictions the way I read it" (see User talk:RadioFan/Archives/2009/July#Neutral Buoyancy Lab logo). As this looks too complex for either of us, can someone with the expertise make a decision on whether this file has the correct tag, or should have a different tag, or needs to be deleted, please? --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Er, why isn't the NASA logo covered by the American government public domain? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the NASA logos seem to be tagged as being PD (here and here. Is there something I'm missing? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be missing the first line under "Warnings" in {{PD-USGov-NASA}}:

    Template:PD-USGov-NASA

    but I'm no expert, which is why I asked. The rationale on File:Nasaseal.svg says it's fair-use, then it has a PD tag. Maybe it can be both PD and "restricted" (hence the {{insignia}}, which is on File:NASA logo.svg as well). I just want to make sure we tag this image properly. --RexxS (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but those restrictions aren't copyright/IP restrictions; it's still in the public domain. And skimming through the relevant law (IANAL! IANAL!), it doesn't look like they'd apply to the NBL logo. Either way, you should be able to apply PD-USGov-NASA to it, assuming that the logo was indeed a creation of NASA or some department/agency thereof. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 02:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm really lost now. I checked our Public domain article and found "A creative work is said to be in the public domain if there are no laws which restrict its use by the public at large." Yet the use of NASA logos is "restricted per US law 14 CFR 1221". And I just found {{NASA logo}}. The words "can" and "worms" are running through my head now. Hehe, it's obviously time for me to give up worrying about it. --RexxS (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are these copyright or PD-text ?

    File:Sneaky Sound System - UFO (Goodwill Mix).jpg, File:Sneaky Sound System - UFO UK.jpg, File:Sneaky Sound System - UFO.jpg....are these truly copyrighted per the image page or is the design simple enough to be covered by PD-text ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my layman's opinion, all three show sufficient creativity to be eligible for copyright, and are therefore appropriately tagged. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a standard typeface or an artistic one designed speicifically for these covers? If it is a standard font, then {{PD-text}} applies, otherwise it is better to treat these images as copyrighted. In borderline cases like this one the decision also depends on the country of publication. Sv1xv (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion on a couple of font forums (by others) has failed to identify a standard font here. Probably custom made for the covers and hence, as stated above, copyrighted - Peripitus (Talk) 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Mollie Sugden as Mrs Slocombe.jpg

    Resolved
     – Thanks for review and assistance. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would like some thoughts on the non-free use rationale for this image. As background Mollie Sugden died today and this image appears to be a screencap, harvested from Flickr, of her in her role as Mrs Slocombe on the BBC's Are You Being Served. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The "unique historic image" tag is nonsense, I would say. But if the subject is deceased and no free photographs of her are known to exist, there's pretty strong tendency on Wikipedia to say that a single photograph for illustration passes NFCC #8, and the rest of the criteria also seem to be passed here (except that the resolution needs to be reduced). I'd say it's fine. Was there anything more specific you were wondering? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was the dead actor/screencap issue. Thanks.  – ukexpat (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Image reduced in resolution to comply with fair use policy, old version deleted. Mfield (Oi!) 02:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    File:Ibis.JPG

    I uploaded this photo and wrote that this photo made Nikola Pesic, who is also the autor of the artistic sculpture which is on th ephoto. I got the message that it is not clear who is the autor of the photo. I simply do not have the idea how to write this to be more clear than : Nikola Pesic is the author and he released this picture under GFDL licence in personal correspondence. For the same reason, some other photos of Nikola Pesic obtained in the very same way were removed from Wikipedia Commons. This is very confusing and I would really appreciate any help. Thanks in advance.--Maduixa (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So the person who created the sculpture is the same person as created the photo, and he releases it under the GFDL? Sounds fine to me, since he would have all rights to the photo. You said he communicated this to you via personal correspondence; if it was by e-mail, maybe forward a copy to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:PQ with Segovia & Castelnuovo-Tedesco.jpg

    Hello People, I continue to see a "speedy deletion" tag on my File:PQ with Segovia & Castelnuovo-Tedesco.jpg which is on my article titled Paganini Quartet. I did enter a copyright tag, so I am puzzled that this photo continues to be a candidate for deletion.

    I also attempted to delete the warning template below the enlarged photo, as invited to do once the copyright tag has been entered, but still I see the speedy deletion warning.

    Thanks so much for your assistance and all best wishes!

    DtemiankaHT (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The description has no information about the photographer. Obviously it is not your own work. Why is it public domain? Sv1xv (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. Please forgive my clumsy efforts. I have again attempted to select the correct license and description, based on good-faith representation that this photo comes from personal estate files and photographer is long since unknown. Your further guidance will be much appreciated. DtemiankaHT (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be a difficult case. When and where was the photo taken? Has it ever been published? In which country? Generally the copyright for works by anonymous artists in Europe expires 70 years after publication (see {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}). Sv1xv (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Song That Doesn't End, The - melody and lyrics in musical notation

    I have created a JPG of the melody and lyrics of the song, "The Song That Doesn't End." I keyed the melody into a music notation program myself, and added the lyrics from the Wiki page about the song (although I could have sung them myself). . The page mentions the composer of the song, and I've included his name on the music. . Although the JPG is all my work, the melody and lyrics are not. . Should I upload or not? . --Paul E Musselman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmmn (talk • contribs) 06:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I can’t tell from the article, The Song That Never Ends whether the song is still under copyright. If it is, your image would be a copyright violation. But even if the copyright has expired, I can’t think of an encyclopedic use for your image. —teb728 t c 07:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm very much mistaken, the song dates from the 1990s and would therefore still be under copyright. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But then again, you could make a decent case for fair use here, I think, so it would be justifiable to upload it as non-free conent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My reason for including the image/melody/lyrics is because an article about a song is virtually useless without knowing the tune! Paulmmn (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but that is not an acceptable WP:NFC rationale. – ukexpat (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Has this question from neuro been resolved?

    Hi,

    I just wanted to check if the question from Neuro on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Notpayingthepsychiatrist#File_copyright_problem_with_File:Graph2.jpg

    been resolved? I specifically asked Dr Seeman if anyone could reuse his graph and he said yes. This graphic is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graph2.jpg Does License mean the database? I don't really understand what is further required.

    thanks Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's tagged as being released under the GFDL; is that specifically what Dr. Seeman said he was doing? Did he say that he was allowing anybody to re-use the image for any purpose? Is attribution required? As well, the graph lists quite a few authors; is Dr. Seeman the sole copyright holder? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    File:Ultimate Driver Fanstite Logo.png

    Why is this against copyright?, I made it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmet1994 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=300499360"