Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
Hit Publish changes.
If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
Note for those replying to posted questions
If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
This is not just simple text, so it should be eligible for copyright. Their marketing department probably has a policy on the use of the logo, and it is possible that it is released under PD (but unlikely). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apprecaite the link, but trademarks by nature do not need licenses. No matter what the site intimates, a non-copyrightable mark has no restrictions on use other than proper attribution of source. That's the whole point.
If the consensus is that this is not {{PD-textlogo}}, then I'll leave the image tags alone (although I disagree, and honestly, I don't think this one should even been a close call). But more fundamentally, the latent confuson of about the need for trademark licensing needs to be addressed in the policy pages, IMO. I have a proposed section on the WP:Image use policy talk page. BillTunell (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright protection. See User:Elcobbola/Copyright. The "flying WV" does not meet the criteria of originality to be copyrighted and should be considered {{PD-textlogo}}, IMO. It is a trademarked logo, and should be afforded the protection of such. CrazyPaco (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it is partially in that stylization that it departs from being simple text. Also, BillTunell; simply because something is trademarked does not mean it is not copyrightable. The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be copyrighted, and not enjoy trademark protections, and something can be trademarked and not enjoy copyright protections. Items can also enjoy protections of both, or neither. Trademark and copyright rights are independent of each other. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand what you're saying, but there are no "pictorial" elements in the "WV" logo as required for copyrightability under U.S. Copyright Office's Compendium of copyright registration standards, Section 506.03. It's a mere letter/color combination. "Stylization" is not a copyrightable element under any legal standard. Likewise, "departing from a simple text" does not mean something is copyrightable -- even assuming that's true in this case. There needs to be a picture incorporated in the logo somehow. BillTunell (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. Regardless, I recommend contacting WVU if you want to get this image declared as free of copyright. Enough people here disagree with it being pd-textlogo eligible. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Um, no." is just contradiction void of any logic.
We do not need to contact every institution's legal department every time you personally don't like that an image has been declared PD.
Bill, Paco, and Wordbuilder all have it right. This image simply isn't copyrightable. Under Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, the courts ruled: "[a] typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)" and a "Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as "...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters...whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text."
In this image, the letters "W" and "V" are letters and intended to be used as such. Contrast this with ASCII art or the Washington State University logo in which letters are not intended to be used explicitly as letters, but as a medium by which an artistic image is formed.
There is this apparent opinion amongst some editors that something has to be "simple text" to be PD and everything else isn't. There is nothing in the law, legal rulings, Congressional clarifications, or our policies/guidelines which states this. As such it is an opinion, not policy.
Lastly, I agree with Hammersoft that something can be trademarked, copyrighted, both copyrighted and trademarked, or neither. It is important to make such a distinction. — BQZip01 —talk15:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BQZ, I grow tired of this. Contacting the potential copyright holder isn't something that causes one to catch a mortal affliction. You say you have it right. Several of us say we have it right. You keep throwing coypright law at us, yet aren't a lawyer and we disagree with your interpretation of that law, and we're not lawyers. So, we're still at square 0. When you pass the bar in some state, and especially when you become a practicing IP attorney, let us know. Until then, your opinion is that of a lay person, just like the rest of us here. Since there's no consensus this image is free of copyright, it has to remain tagged as non-free until we prove it is free. Step 1: Contact WVU's Trademark Licensing Services. Their contact info: Trademark Licensing Services, Stewart Hall Room 302, P.O. Box 6686, Morgantown, WV 26506 304.293.8028. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want this to remain civil. However, I am a practing IP lawyer, and I would agree with BQZ. Contacting WVU wouldn't be a bad idea necessarily, but it's unrealistic to think that anyone there would have the authority or incliniation to "declare" a particular image uncopyrighted. WVU has neither noticed the image as copyrighted, nor applied for a copyright on the image (I've done a loc.gov search). And, in any event, if contacting the mark's owner were the required procedure, there would effectively be no fair-use or public-domain images on wikipedia, whcih is obviously not the case. BillTunell (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then submit your credentials to m:OTRS along with your analysis of why this is free. If in fact you are an IP lawyer, you should well know that copyright does not have to be declared to exist, and that has been the case for a long time now. Further, contacting WVU isn't out of line, and doing so wouldn't mean we wouldn't host non-free content here. Fair use exists whether WVU wants it to or not. We contact copyright holders frequently. That's why we have instructions here for doing so. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to cut this conversation off here since it is getting ugly. My arguments were presented here since this is the wikipedia encyclopedia forum, as opposed to some other wikiproject. I have no problem submitting my credentials but I do not see how the procedure at m:OTRS could possibly affect this determination. The published copyright standards are what they are. BillTunell (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And subject to interpretation, which is why we have court rooms and an entire third branch of government to interpret the law. We don't operate solely on what the law says. You should know that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add my layperson opinion to the mix, since that's all we have here. The West Virginia logo reminds me of the old Van Halen logo, and also the Weezer logo which is a take on that, and both of those are copyrighted. I believe the "wings" are a pictorial element beyond a typeface element. But what do I know, I'm not a lawyer either. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew: The "VH" logo is an example of a trademarked but not copyrighted logo. Van Halen has other copyrighted marks relating to guitar design, and their album covers are a different story. But the "VH" itself is not copyrighted. See Van Halen trademrak site for an explanation. BillTunell (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict x3] I appreciate your opinion Andrwsc. Do you have something that shows those logos to be non-free? File:Weezer logo.png appears to be a trademarked, free image. As for File:Van Halen logo.jpg, the flame alone makes this image copyrightable, but the basic logo appears to be just trademarked (see above post).
Nothing in policy/guidelines states that we default to non-free if there is disagreement. It certainly doesn't "[have] to remain tagged as non-free until we prove it is free." Moreover, even if you had such a policy/guideline, you have no standards by which to provide "proof", so we can never satisfy your personal requirements.
"[W]e disagree with your interpretation of that law" You disagree, but you fail to provide any rationale.
My opinion is backed up by law, caselaw, Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia guidelines, and Wikipedia disclaimers. Hammer, your opinion is backed by what? — BQZip01 —talk16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the Van Halen logo, I just mean the "core" design as seen on http://www.van-halen.com/samples.html (Thanks for the link, Bill!) The two versions are pre/post the David Lee Roth/Sammy Hagar switch. The image we have on en.wiki includes more than just the plain (new) logo. For Weezer, I don't mean that Commons image (used on recent album artwork) but the "flying W" seen in the background of File:Weezer.jpg for instance. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 16:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, point taken. I see what you mean, but as was stated above, mere variations of fonts are not eligible for copyright. These "wings" are no more than a double serif, a common typeface addition. — BQZip01 —talk16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BQZ, once again I'm going to ignore your comments. They're lather-rinse-repeats of prior arguments. If you truly want answers to these arguments, go to those prior arguments where myself and many others have explained how you are wrong. What your arguments keep boiling down to is step 1: through copyright law quotations at the problem, insist your interpretation is right. Step 2: read comments from others showing disagreement with your interpretation. Step 3: go to step 1. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well explain it to me again, because I clearly don't get it (or just provide a link). All you are saying is "You're wrong." (even in your steps above), but you don't explain why. — BQZip01 —talk16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been explained to you many times, by more than just me. I'm not interested in repeating the arguments all over again just so the next time this comes up you can say "All you are saying is I'm wrong, with nothing to back it up". I'm sick to death of these lather-rinse-repeat arguments from you. I will not be baited into it. As I said, if you truly want answers (and I'm well beyond AGF here at this point, given the huge body of arguments you've ignored) you know where to look. But you don't want answers. You just want to be right. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I believe I am right. I am willing to admit when I am wrong or may be wrong, but you've provided no evidence to the contrary other than your own opinion. Again, all I am asking is for clarification as to where I am wrong in anything I've said above. — BQZip01 —talk18:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you believe you're right. Honest, I get it. I really do. I'm just sick to death of contributing to and seeing many others contributing to efforts to show you how you are wrong, and when a similar debate comes up you throw the same arguments at it all over again, then say we're empty of support for our positions and insist we repeat all of it over again. It's tiresome, counter productive, and useless as to the point of trying to show you how you're wrong. You say you'll admit when you're wrong, but you don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is falls under the fallacy of a loaded question. I can either disagree and thereby give you more "evidence" that I continue this "behavior" (thereby proving your assertion) or I can agree with you that I don't admit when I'm wrong (thereby proving your assertion). It is a self-fulfilling statement, but it ignores reality and all I have to do is show that I do admit when I am wrong or make a mistake: try doing a word search for "oops" in my edit summaries. — BQZip01 —talk19:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will my saying "You're right, I'm wrong. On everything." make you happy? Is there ANYthing that I can say that you won't disagree with? For the love of God I sure as hell have no clue what it might be. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To BillTunell, the page you reference on the VH designs does not state the VH designs are free of coypright. It states they are trademarked. That doesn't mean they are ineligible for copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but why would the band actually copyright other things and not the "VH" logo, if it indeed was coopyrightable? While not determinitive, this strong evidence supporting the published standard. BillTunell (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not evidence at all. Without a specific release of copyright from the rights holder, there is no release. Without that release, we must consider it copyrighted. This is why we have things like {{npd}} and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you want to get release of those VH logos from the copyright holder, contact licensing_administrator@van-halen.com. and get it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this makes no sense to me. I'm not trying to use the VH logo for anything, so there's no reason for me to contact them. And it's just not true for wikipedia purposes that "without [a] release, we must consider it copyrighted." That would categorically eliminate all public-domain images on wikipedia. As much as that might be your agenda, it simply is not wikipedia policy.
I would like you to comment specifically about how you'd like to shorten the proposed policy on the image use policy board, if you have the time. BillTunell (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without a release, we have no proof the work is free. Why do you think we have {{npd}}????? If we follow your model, where everything is free until proven not free, why bother with Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission???? Obviously someone here (and many someones) think it is important to prove release. I'm not stating something unilaterally here. As for the VH logo itself, you used the VH logo as evidence. I contradicted that evidence. Does that make sense? As to the proposal; it's your own proposal. Figure out how to shorten it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this has turned ugly, which I have tried to avoid. I'm not claiming that "everything is free until proven not free." But if you're going to fight against that straw man, I see no use in continuing. As I stated before, I will abide by any adminstrative determination on the "WV" logo, if and when it comes. Until then, I do not consider a lack of consensus to be determinitive one way or the other. BillTunell (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that non-free until proven free doesn't make sense. I'm not making this up. You said it. If that's the case, it's a logical conclusion that you believe free until proven non-free. If that's not the case, just what DO you believe? Something between free and non-free until proven something between free and non-free? <confused look> The only straw man here is the one you're making. Forgive me for the windmill made from your own words. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hammer, this is a combination of logical fallacies, Bare_assertion_fallacy and False dilemma specifically. You are making the assumption that there is a default position from which all images start. This simply isn't the case. From that, you've derived that there are two possible default positions from which to start, free or non-free, leaving one to prove that an image isn't in such a category. In reality we take all kinds of images (copyrighted, trademarked, patent images, free images with some restrictions, free images with no restrictions) and use them appropriately (or at least try to). It is up to the uploader to show that the image is under the license which they claim it is and for the Wikipedia community to accept/reject that claim. There is no default position within Wikipedia regarding images. — BQZip01 —talk18:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hammer's right. Our image policy requires not only attribution but proper licensing for an image, even if it is free. You have to have a clear statement that an image does fall into a free license to assert that it is free, otherwise, as per US Copyright law, we assume its copyrighted. An image failing to include a statement as to being free or not is removed under the assumption it is non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, what you said isn't true (caveat: see below). There are LOTS of images that were published prior to 1923. These have no accompanying information that states "This image is in the public domain", but they clearly are public domain images. Additionally, Copyright law makes no such claim that you have to have a clear statement that it is free or it is copyrighted; that simply isn't true. For things published in the present, if they are copyrightable (which is the key phrase here), I concede that what you say is true and that an automatic copyright applies, but they must be copyrightable in the first place. Many of us contend that this isn't the case for this image and many others. — BQZip01 —talk19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this discussion is about the copyright-able nature of the image, and not so much about the copyright, but the logic of our default position of assuming non-free unless proven other still applies in that we need to consider taking the position that the boundary for the threshold of originality for whether an image is copyrightable is very fuzzy and typically only defined for specific cases in the court of law; because of that and our image policies, we need to take the position that unless the image clearly fails originality, it should be considered non-free. A logo that is plain block text is clearly unoriginal, but anything beyond this is always going to be in question due to the fuzziness of the threshold law unless asserted by another source. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you missed the point. One license we use is images that have fallen into PD due to their age. We accept that this is a default for images before 1923, but we still need assurance the image is dated before 1923. Without clear proof, we can't assume its PD, and thus assume non-free. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you missed my point entirely. Copyright law doesn't say that, Wikipedia says it about copyrightable images and how they are treated, not those ineligible for copyright (which are, by definition, PD). Another license we use is for images that are PD due to the fact that they are not eligible for copyright in the first place. — BQZip01 —talk19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We here can agree that something is PD by way of age, for example. It's when we disagree, such as with this logo, that we have to have proof. Even in cases of age, we need to be able to prove how old it is beyond reasonable doubt. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We agree to it because Wikipedia has a concrete line (1923) that we've established because of Copyright law which states images prior to that are PD. By the same token, we have guidance on what trademarked images are ineligible for copyright and which ones are copyrighted. You have provided no rationale against any of the above arguments other than "no, that's not right." This isn't a logical argument, it's just contradiction. Your desire to insert additional requirements in this process is not part of this guidance and is disruptive. — BQZip01 —talk20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. As I said before, I will not be baited into this bullshit argument of "You have provided no rationale.." You've been shown multiple times why you are wrong. You disagree. Every time we have a similar debate, you trot out your old arguments again, insisting they are right until proven wrong, but never believe for a second that you could possibly be wrong and insist that everyone play your little game of refuting your argument again, only to have you do this all over again. You want to talk about disruptive? Look at yourself. This behavior of yours is utterly despicable. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of which arguments you two have had before, you need to articulate it again. Many of us were not party to those previous conversations. It may be frustrating that you have to repeat yourself, but it is necessary to reach consensus. We are trying to determine if this image is subject to copyright protection. You need to articulate why this image is copyrightable. I have yet to see an argument from you as to what the "artistic elements at play" in this image are, that arise to more than text and color. —Ute in DC (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to be continually baited into these bullshit arguments. Over and over and over again, BQZ uses the tactic of throwing just as much shit at the wall as he can in the hopes that in a new similar argument, something sticks this time. Whether it sticks or not, it still stinks. He knows damn well what the rejections of his stances are, yet demands over and over and over again that people refute him. It's a stupid, silly game, and I won't be party to it anymore. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BillTunell. As he has demonstrated, this image is not a copyrighted image. Nor is it eligible for copyright protection as is a mere variations of typographic lettering and coloring. It is a trademarked image and {{PD-textlogo}} is the correct tag. —Ute in DC (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this thread is really out of hand. Lots of talk, not a lot of authoritative knowledge. We have entered into a discussion on the topic "can a trademark also receive copyright protection" and "is the WV trademark copyrightable", and we're quibbling about slab serifs and frigging wings? You've got to be kidding.
A few observations...
Bill Tunell says "trademarks by nature do not need licenses." This is patently false (pun intended), witness "official" NFL and MLB logo'd wear, etc. This really throws Mr. Tunell's credibility as "a practicing IP lawyer" under the bus so to speak.
What I have said is correct. Trademarks by nature do not need licenses. The NFL and MLB logos are copyrights. Unauthorized atheltic apparrel that does not incorporate copyrighted logos is legal – and, in fact, you see it all the time. BillTunell (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
some have referred to User:Elcobbola/Copyright as some kind of authoritative source on this issue. I find the presentation very unconvincing for various reasons. Going from saying a typeface can't be copyright to saying the IBM logo is the same as a typeface seems really absurd to me, so I don't think User:Elcobbola/Copyright adds any clarity to the discussion.
Can I use a trademark in my blog's name or in the title of a blog post?
Yes, if it is relevant to the subject of your discussion and does not confuse people into thinking the trademark holder endorses your content. Courts have found that non-misleading use of trademarks in URLs and domain names of critical websites is fair. (Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, URL http://www.compupix.com/ballysucks; Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer, domain name www.bosleymedical.com). Companies can get particularly annoyed about these uses because they may make your post appear in search results relating to the company, but that doesn't give them a right to stop you.
Sometimes, you might use a trademark without even knowing someone claims it as a trademark. That is permitted as long as you're not making commercial use in the same category of goods or services for which the trademark applies. Anyone can sell diesel fuel even though one company has trademarked DIESEL for jeans. Only holders of "famous" trademarks, like CocaCola, can stop use in all categories, but even they can't block non-commercial uses of their marks.
Since the logo in question is a trademark, it seems reasonable that the above applies, and therefore it should be OK to use the logo in a non-commercial context which does not claim endorsement by the mark owner. NOT being an IP attorney, I wonder whether a logo can have both copyright and trademark protection. If the mark can indeed also be protected by copyright, then we have a issue.
Since 1976, copyrights do not have to be registered. And kindly cut the crap with <parrot>"There's no policy or guideline..." blah blah blah. Enough of the wikilawyering bullshit. You asked a question. I answered it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine, but I'm answering the question "what policy requires proof of ineligibility for copyright"? As every image needs a license, you needed to add that licenese to show your assertion it fails originality and thus uncopyrightable. You couldn't just post that image without the license and say it's uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
raeky: Note that a user registering multiple accounts is not, in and of itself, a problem. It's only problematic when used to deceive, mislead, etc., which is clearly not the case here. Note also that, by default, we must assume good faith and take take the position - as teb728 has done - that these are two different users. -- Hux (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to address the question directly: anything in the public domain (as long as you're sure it is and that it hasn't been mislabeled as such) can be moved to the commons without concern about copyright issues. -- Hux (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an unverifiable text note and no OTRS on the image page:
Hi Chagai,
Please note that all the images that we took at the Bareket observatory and appear on the web site are free for use.
Best regards, Ido.
The problem is that it has then been tagged with {{PD-user-w|en|wikipedia|Chagai}} and thus the text "This image has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its creator, Chagai."
I can see a few problems with this: "free for use" doesn't imply "public domain", secondly the author is mis-credited, thirdly we might have an issue that there's no traceability for this. I for one wouldn't want to have to deal with a future claim of infringement and be reliant on just this as an author's release. Isn't this what OTRS is for? Although I'm sure this example is genuine, imagine the potential for non-GF abuse if this way of working became de facto acceptable.
Chagai needs to have someone explain to him Wikimedia Commons and OTRS process and require that he go through that process for these images, then these images need deleted off of wikipedia so he can put them on Commons under the correct license (CC-BY-3.0 probably), with OTRS permissions. — raeky(talk | edits)16:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article Steve Fairbairn is without a decent image. It uses a free image of a relief sculpture of his face instead. I propose adding the photo at the top of this page http://www.rowinghistory-aus.info/the-boat-race/index.php as the main image. It is low resolution, irreplaceable by free content, >50 years old, and only a portion of the whole is used (it is clearly a part of a larger team photograph). Does this qualify as fair-use?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you tell me which licence is appropriate for File:MoReq2Paper.JPG given that it is the cover of a (free) publication of the European Commission, and given that the publication bears the following notices:
"Copyright European Communities, 2008
Reproduction authorised for non-commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged."
I have tried (really, really, tried )to work it out myself, without success.
We require the authorization to reproduce images for commercial as well as non-commercial purposes. Since the copyright notice specifically says that reproduction is only authorized for non-commercial purposes, we cannot use the image. PowersT15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was wondering if I could upload images from a website under these [4] terms and conditions as non free images. The photos cannot be replaced as the sight is now buried making it impossible for me to take my own photos of it. There are schematics of the site and some historical artwork that I would like to us as well. The images come from this [5] page in the website and are located towards the bottom of it. If the sight is ever excavated I would simply take my own and use those. Cheers. ***Adam*** (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the images are usable for non-commercial use only, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's free license requirements. Therefore, the only way you can use these is in accordance with the non-free content criteria, which are fairly strict. Without knowing how you're intending to use them, I can't offer more advice than that. However, the info at that link will point you on the right direction. -- Hux (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the age of this particular image that is the question, and the website does not make it clear. If the image was created then, then it would be Public Domain in the US. There are restrictions outside copyright, though. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]11:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miniature portraits
Are miniature portraits (example) considered two-dimensional art (not three dimensional) in the Bridgeman-Corel sense? I mean just the pictures, without its framing and all the trinkets. Some are flat, but others are prominently convex. NVO (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Bridgeman ruling was, fundamentally, about the lack of originality in exact, photographic copies of public domain images, not specifically about two-dimensional art. Therefore, imo, the images at your link minus, as you said, the framing, etc., would very likely be considered public domain under US law. -- Hux (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i cant upload afile
i cant upload any files from wiki.is uploading files possible in wiki?
can i upload files from wiki?
i have logged in as wiki commons but still not working
whats the problem?
please find me a solution
i have to present a presentation in my college.so,please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pramoohot (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is not with the [{WP:NFCC|]], but I would think probably not (unfortunately; I do like the show). On the other hand, the use of the DVD covers also seems decidedly controversial to me, and they remain, so what do I know. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Flickr, CC-licensed images
I have located some CC-licensed images I would like to upload to illustrate an article. They are clearly marked as being under the Creative Commons Attributions Share-Alike 2.0 license. They're on the public web; anyone can verify their state. My plan is to upload the images to Wikipedia linking to both the original page and WebCited version of the page as clear evidence of the grant in perpetutity. Will that be enough? (The images in question are here, in the event that it matters.) — Alan De Smet | Talk22:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status seems clear enough at that link. Go for it! Just make sure you use the same license when you upload and be sure to credit the author on each photo. -- Hux (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just uploaded an image and was told it was not properly tagged
sorry, this is the first time I have done this and do not understand the instructions on wikipedia.
please help me!
and please don't delete the image yet - I'm travelling over this weekend back across continents and will not get to my mails again till early next week!
The image I loaded was: Eknath Easwaran courtesy of the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation.jpg
I downloaded this off a website www.easwaran.org/media
which gave permission to download the image provide a credit line was added
I can't see which category of copyright this is
cleary the image is copyright the Blue Mountain Center of Meditation, but it is neither "free" nor "non-free"
The site generally (and presumably also the photo) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. The Noncommercial and No Derivative Works restrictions are not acceptable to Wikipedia; so Wikipedia considers it to be non-free. But since Eknath Easwaran is dead, there is a possibility that a much lower resolution version of the photo might be used under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria to identify his article. The most important conditions are that no free image of him exists, and the image is low resolution. (300 px on the longer dimension would be acceptable low resolution.) —teb728tc10:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For download, in most browsers you can right click an image and choose an option such as "Save image as.." You can also consult your web browser software's help for more information. See also: Web browser. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having just discovered this page (it's amazing how many years you can be on WP and still discover new places) I'll ask a question that has come up from time to time. Namely: when placing an audio link on a page, is it necessary (for attribution purposes) to have a link to that file's information page alongside the Media: link to play the sound file? What laws/licensing terms are applicable here? If it's required, what is the minimum form the link label should take (for example, is "info" OK? how about just "i"?) And does it have to be right next to the Media: link? If so, how close? (I know any answers to this will be personal interpretation, but still I'd like to hear some views.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well some do and some don't, and the question is whether those that don't ought to, or those that do needn't do. (Basically the link is an annoyance, and it would be good to eliminate it or minimize its footprint, as far as the law allows.)--Kotniski (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK let me clarify: there are several templates like {{Audlisten}} which produce something like this: ⓘ. For giving links to recorded pronunciation within text, this is ideal - compact and to the point. However some people claim there's a legal necessity to design the template so as to include a link to the description as well. My question is whether they are right (and why), and if so, how unobtrusive is that link allowed to be.--Kotniski (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Powers, I'm missing understanding the truth in the assertion that the icon links to the file's description. The file in the subject is the OGG file, not the PNG file. Kotniski's example, Audlisten, links to the sound, so that plays, and a rather annoyingly meaningless file description of the PNG icon used (I'm missing the point there; someone is going to think the icon is a copyright violation or something?). I can't find where the example links to the description for the OGG file. Now that I'm starting to understand it, I'm starting to like Kotniski's point. I, as a reader, would have expected the PNG image to link to the description for the OGG file, not the uninteresting description of the PNG file. If both are needed, I suggest adding another "simple but obvious" icon for the actual (OGG) file description, such as maybe a copyright icon. Kotniski's example has always annoyed me. I do sometimes want to find out more about a file, and Audlisten totally fails to provide me the info I wanted, but instead misleads me to a wholly uninteresting description of a common icon. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies too, since I wasn't taking into account that the icon links somewhere else entirely. So are we saying that we're covered legally if the icon links to the audio file description page? (The question of whether we might want to link to that page because readers might actually be interested is another matter - I would have thought the answer was no in most cases, but that's not really what I'm asking here.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither would be acceptable in Kowloon Walled City. Use there would fail WP:NFCC#1 (because the image could be replaced by text saying that it the inspired images, and that text would serve the same encyclopedic purpose), WP:NFCC#3a (because its resolution is way too high for a non-free image), and WP:NFCC#8 (because showing it would not be needed for reader understanding). Sorry. —teb728tc06:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering what would be the copyright of the letter at the top of this page (Letter from Wheeler Dryden to Edna Purviance): [6] It was sent to the US from India in 1917 and is currently held at the British Film Institute (London). Since it was sent before 1923, it seems it could be public domain, is that right? Laurent (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not as such, no. You'd have to show that it was published before 1923, which can be very tricky indeed to do conclusively. Otherwise, your trail for copyright owner would turn towards the Roy Export Company Establishment who handle many Chaplin-related bits and pieces (apparently including this letter); understandably they have been keen in the past to pursue copyright infringements with some vigour, and also tend to renew copyrights where at all possible. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]20:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright would have been held by the author of the letter, not the recipient, and certainly not Roy Export Company, which was neither. Wheeler Dryden died in Los Angeles in 1957. Dryden's copyright would last for 70 years beyond his death, through 2027. It is possible that Dryden bequeathed the copyright to Charles Chaplin upon Dryden's death, but unlikely because Dryden had a living son. But is it necessary to reproduce the letter in the Dryden article? It would be much simpler to include the link to letter you gave above in an "External links" section of the article. — Walloon (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I was misreading the copyright status at the bottom. Obviously, they control the film images. Which makes exactly whom the BPI have got the images off a mystery. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]
Well, I've actually already added a link to this letter so it's not essential to actually reproduce it in the article. I just thought it could be an opportunity to import some interesting historical documents in Wikimedia Commons, but if there are any doubt on the copyright, I agree we shouldn't do it then. Laurent (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a mystery at all: the letter was addressed to Edna Purviance, and the the BFI has her scrapbooks, which are reproduced on the same Web page as the letter. — Walloon (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DOCUMERICA
Are images from DOCUMERICA public domain? Our article says that they were produced by photographers under contract with the EPA, a US government agency, so it sounds as if its photos are similar to HABS images that are sometimes taken by contractors. Conversely, I just discovered this DOCUMERA image on Flickr, and it's tagged with a free CC license, but not shown as PD. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By default, the copyright for works created for the U.S. government by independent contractors belongs to the contractors. But the National Archives' catalog info for the collections says, "EPA has specified that images are not to be used for advertising purposes. Rights purchased by EPA from photographers." If the EPA purchased all rights from the photographers, I don't know that it can restrict use of the photographs in any way, including commercial use. In my opinion, the photos are in the public domain. — Walloon (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we find the whole image copyright thing to confusing, may we use a simple program to create a crude but general sketch and upload that?
I think a good amount of users, including myself, know that while it IS possible to upload images you didn't create, the copyright issue and process is too confusing/intimidating/complex. The result? A good portion of articles have no image at all.
What I want to know is if I can create a rough drawing of the object and upload that. I am a poor artist, but I think that a crude, microsoft paint made image of the object is better than no image at all. Fusion7 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are creating diagrams, by all means use MSpaint (note that Gimp and Inkscape are free and can do much more than Paint). I doubt a cartoon-esque paint image could ever have enough visual value to depict an object photographically, and will probably be removed from the article. Of course, you could give us a specific example to help us in giving a specific answer. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of the various articles on military robots. A lot of them do not have any image of any kind. I feel that we c ould do a lot more if we were allowed to create basic renditions. Keep in mind that a lot of these articles are stubs, too.Fusion7 (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking to add a photo of a generic product to an article.
example of image (though mine won't have a white background, it'll be a photograph of one of those bottles). Would this qualify as fair use on the article for the product in question (Colloidal silver)? The bottles are made by several different companies that all use the same label design, so I'm not sure if that makes a difference. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
US Government page says others works are public domain
This page says, "These images are in the public domain and are available for download and reproduction." The first three images are obviously fine, but all the rest are credited to state employees. Can I trust that the original owners have given up their copyrights in cases like this, and if so, which tag should I use? --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The assurance of the U.S. government that the images were in the public domain is a very good defense against the charge of copyright infringement. — Walloon (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To choose the right tag
The question is about picture File:Gatlings2.jpg - I am confused which licence tag to use for this picture. The author is Evija Sidraba (my friend) and she allows to use this picture for free as far as her name is mentioned.--Ingii (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should be tagged the same as the original with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} which is what the upload on the Latvian wiki shows, on the basis that the original licence there is proper. Though it should really be moved to the commons, from where everyone can use the one image, and the local versions deleted. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Posting images of paintings to page "Houben R.T."
I would like to know on what grounds I am asked for copyright information for three images of paintings that I have posted to the page "Houben R.T." I own the rights to these images; I have posted them more than once and more than once they have been proposed for deletion. I work for Houben's studio and all of the paintings are shot with his camera.
How should I mark these images so that they are no longer proposed for deletion?
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png&oldid=268123291){kind=link}
