Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.74.239.201 (talk) at 08:39, 24 March 2010 (→‎how do i update: new section). 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)


    Hi wikipedia team

    I am the founder and executive member of the Sathkruthi Organisation. You have asked about the copyrights for this. How can i submit copyright tag for this. Please let me know. Thanking you,

    Sirish Krishna P

    Contact details

    <e-mail redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris enigma (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, we cannot answer by e-mail. This page is manned entirely by volunteers and e-mail replies are too time consuming. I have also redacted your e-mail address - Wikipedia pages are highly visible on the internet and revealing an e-mail address here is a magnet for spam. To answer your question, if you want to release copyright material for use on Wikipedia, please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just read your article, I have tagged it for speedy deletion as it clearly violates our policy against advertising - it is way too promotional in tone. Please also read our advice on editing with a conflict of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Logo fair use opinion -- a bit urgent

    This question is a bit urgent in that it is impacting a pending Today's Featured Article Request. The seahorse logo File:Avery Coonley Logo.PNG in The Avery Coonley School infobox is used under a {{logo fur}} rationale. There was an argument on the article talk page that it was actually free given the OTRS ticket and should be deleted immediately, but the OTRS volunteer on the ticket has opined that it should be considered "in a standard NFC context." The complexities are explained on the TFA page. It would be helpful to have an expert opinion on whether the image is used acceptably in this article. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The image has been removed from the article while the issue is discussed, but an opinion on the acceptable use is still needed. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The NFC context is a bit of a red herring because I think you are probably able to obtain a free version, Avery Coonley School in its OTRS ticket empowered you (Nasty Housecat) to act as an agent for the school, this means that by default the contents of the site are not free but that they have empowered you to release any content from that site on behalf of the copyright holders under any license. However, because logo's are different from act as both copyrights and trademarks(in a non-legal sense) and so generally copyright holders would not release them under a free license (for example the wikipedia logo is not-free!) the OTRS volunteer wants to be very sure that you are a) explicitly exercising your power to license that logo as free content and b) that the school has not given you any private directions about how you are to exercise the power that the school has given you that would contradict you releasing the logo in that form. These are the two steps necessary to explicitly release the logo to wikipedia as free content, but even if the school has not given you any private duties you should still contact them and make sure that they are really ok with you releasing the logo as free content and that they understand that anyone will be able to use or modify the logo for their own purposes if it is done; especially because ( and this is not very clear from the language and I don't know enough about US copyright law to say) it looks like you may have some form of duty to act in the best interests of the school.

    Looking at your comments it seems you have not been clear about whether you are able to or wish to release the logo as free content and you need to clearly state these things first. Once the status of a possible free copy is clear then we can move on and consider a NFC rationale. IF there is no possibility of a free version then the current image should be assessed on standard NFC logo criteria as to whether it can stay. Ajbpearce (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE: Ok, I have just seen your edit at [1] which makes the above redundant, In that case the logo must simply conform with WP:LOGO , which the use would appear to, so if the image is re-uploaded by you under the NFC with this rationale then this should suffice for the article Ajbpearce (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you notice however that editor and agent 'Nasty Housecat' contradicts that in previous edits, including the following one that says the OTRS permission applies to the entire website and all text and images without restriction. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this has already been addressed pretty well by Moonridden girl at WP:TFAR, unless Ajbearce disagrees. Whatever I may have said about the OTRS permission, the fact is only OTRS has actually seen it, I think she had been very clear about its scope. As both reviewers have said, the right thing to do is to ask the school. Which I will. I have no idea what they will say but I would not be too hopeful. Even Wikipedia, I am told, reserves its logo.
    Also, if I could ask Ajbpearce to check the image rationale at File:Avery Coonley Logo.PNG, which I believe should already conform with WP:LOGO, but given the contentiousness of this discussion, would like a double check. Thanks for taking a look. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to contact the school further. Due to the following: The OTRS release specifically empowers Nasty Housecat to act as an agent for the school as "We permit <name redacted> to license the entire site -- inclusive of images and subpages. We have no limitations on what <name redacted> can license -- we trust him." Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    SunCreator he is empowered to do so if he feels that it is in the interest of the school, but he is not obliged to do so. Nasty Housecat has (very understandably) indicated that he is unwilling to do so without explicit permission from the school & I cannot see in any of his edits something that would indicate he has ever considered otherwise. In any case the point of our copyright policy is not to seize on possibly ambiguous statements ( which i don't think Nasty Housecat's was, It seems tolerably clear that he never intended to license the logo under a free license) and then use that to try and use content against the wishes of copyright holders. In regards to the image rationale at File:Avery Coonley Logo.PNG I can't initially see any problems with it, have any specific issues been raised other than the OTRS thing? Ajbpearce (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an initial question at the top of the thread about the use of a non-free image, before the free/non-free questions arose, but nothing specific was raised. I believe this issue is now resolved. Thank you very much for your help with this. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Coats of arms, non-free licence and recreatability

    A number of coats of arms on Wikipedia use a non-free licence, and say: "Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent". To the best of my knowledge, this is untrue. The "real" form of the "logo" is actually the blazon (a textual description of the arms), so anyone can actually recreate a free equivalent, as long as they understand the jargon of a blazon and can use drawing programs.

    Is my interpretation, that these images are actually improperly being included, true? Should we delete and/or replace the images of the arms, with a free equivalent?

    Some examples I've come across are: File:Melbourne_Crest.png, File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_City_of_Sydney_(old).jpg, File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Margaret_Thatcher.PNG, and possibly File:Perth-coat-of-arms.png.

    I would appreciate notification on my talk page if someone replies. Thanks!

    —Felix the Cassowary 09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If Commons:Coats of Arms is accurate then it looks like it points the way fairly neatly here. In short: a coat of arms (CoA) downloaded from the web must be assumed to be under copyright unless otherwise indicated, because it may have been recently created. However, as you note, since it's not possible to copyright the blazon (or if it is, that copyright has long since expired), it's entirely possible to simply create a CoA based on that blazon, as long as it doesn't look like an obvious copy of a potentially copyrighted CoA. In other words, the specific CoA's you linked to probably are correctly tagged as copyrighted works. Hope this helps! (I'll post this to your talk page as well.) -- Hux (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just bear in mind that the Royal College of Arms is still busy creating new blazons in England at least[2]. Having said that, I do not believe that the blazon is copyright even on a new grant, hence it would follow that only the artist could claim anything, and then only for their exact rendering.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A dig around the Royal College of Arms site suggests that while arms can be created in any style based on the blazon, the holder of the Letters Patent (or their heirs in the case of a grant to a person) can take action in the UK and Commonwealth to prevent their arms being misused [3]. This doesn't seem the same as being copyright. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hux, I'm afraid your answer only concerns me all the more. It seems we agree that the image is copyrighted. But my question isn't abut whether the image is copyrighted, but whether it's legitimate to include it on Wikipedia at all! A part of the justification for including those copyright images, is that you can't recreate them in such a way as to accurately represent Margret Thatcher's (etc.) coat of arms. But you can! So isn't it then non-fair use, to include an image we can recreate? Shouldn't we delete them? —Felix the Cassowary 13:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple solution would be to draw another one based on the blazon (Commons has all the components you might need, unless you're feeling particularly artistic). The case where it would be acceptable is if a CoA is also the official logo for an organisation, so it would not be possible to obtain a free copy of the version that is actually the logo, only to draw different versions that don't match the logo (thus being useless for showing what the logo looks like). This is often the case for companies or governmental organisations (like the City of Sidney), not for Margaret Thatcher though. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with holders being able to prevent their arms being misused sounds to me like a noncopyright matter that's not considered a problem at Commons. There are many other such images at Commons; for example, File:CIA.svg is public domain, but there are strict legal penalties (detailed on the description page) for its misuse. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Images in my article

    After several weeks, I am still unable to resolve the warning messages that I recieve from Wikipedia reviewers regarding a few of my images. It keeps asking that I provide a rationale for the usage of these images. I have included an explanation that I am the lawful copyright holder of these images and am providing them for this article. The date for deletion keeps being pushed back. I simply cannot figure out what further rationale is needed. I can delete all of the gallery images if that will allow the article to be reviewed and to actually be posted on Wikipedia. Please advise as to what I need to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryanassadi (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the problem is is that you are uploading these as free images - claiming your own work - when in reality they are images copyrighted to other people, in some cases relatively-recently deceased, which would make them non-free. For example File:Frankfurtrudern.jpg you appear to say its your work, but given the page it is linked to - a dead artist - I doubt that. You probably should be using the {{Non-free 2D art}} licensing tag in addition to {{Non-free use rationale}} to provide the proper rationale. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is correct, I am not the painter, but the legal copyright holder of this work. This can be verified on the artist official website www.kratochwil.com. I had previously uploaded these images as non-free 2D art and the images were tagged for not providing a proper non-free use rationale. My rationale remains the same, that I have legal authority to distribute this work and in this particular case, thought that adding some images of the artists actual work would greatly enhance the wikipedia article. Do I have to upload them into the wikipedia commons page in order to use them. Should I just delete the gallery for the sake of enabling this article to be published in wikipedia? PLEASE ADVISE. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryanassadi (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I would appreciate notification on my talk page if someone replies. Thanks! —User:Aryanassadi —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    I suggest that you e-mail OTRS with evidence as described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unable to add photographs

    I've twice submitted 3 photographs. Photographs were not made by me. I've gotten email permission by the photograph's creator and submitted it to the permissions-en email address. The last time I submitted it was on March 9th. The photographs were just deleted. I nor the creator of the photograph have not gotten any email or other notification. So, how do you add a photograph with email permission from the creator? If sending the email to the permissions-en email is correct, what happened to the last time I submitted the photograph?

    The three photographs in question are: File:Chestefield Idaho Meeting House.JPG File:Chesterfield Idaho Ira Call Cabin.jpg File:Chesterfield Idaho Denmark Jensen House.JPG Bgwhite (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is usually a backlog in the OTRS system as it, like the rest of Wikipedia, is manned by volunteers (actually a fairly small group of volunteers) so you will have to be patient. Once your submissions have been reviewed and approved OTRS will undelete the images and tag them with an OTRS template. – ukexpat (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the normal time it takes to get thru the OTRS system? I first submitted Feb 27th.
    Just a suggestion, it would be nice to get a response email from OTRS that my ticket has been submitted and subsequent emails/web page to see the progress of the ticket. I haven't run OTRS forever, so I don't know if it has the capabilities (I'm using jira and maintain a system by Kace). The defaualt stance at Wikipedia seems to be guilty until proven innocent. Being labeled "guilty" while trying to contribute to an article isn't fun.Bgwhite (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The delay time on permissions where the image has already been uploaded (i.e. is not attached to the email) is about two weeks now. The delay where the image is attached is around 30 weeks. It appears that this email is being managed under ticket#2010030910053125 and a series of replies has gone back and forth between you and OTRS yesterday.
    The facility to auto-reply to emails is available in OTRS but because of the ridiculous amount of spam we get, it hasn't been enabled for backscatter reasons.
    Wikipedia cannot afford to be complacent in the matter of copyrights. We don't assume it'll be OK or that the copyright holder won't care. Apart from the risk of being sued, ultimately Wikipedia aims to use content that's verifiably free, and with the number of people who just don't understand copyright but still upload stuff here, the default position, that is that an image is assumed free but when challenged, the uploader must produce proof of freedom, is a happy medium. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How do I upload a new version of a file?

    I want to upload a new version of a file but it doesnt have the link that says upload a new version of this file. How do I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertomi (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    How Do You Delete A Picture?

    I have a picture I would like to delete that I uploaded. It is already set to be deleted because of copy right problems. Do I just have to wait for it to get deleted or can I do it on my own? Goodyfun (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun[reply]

    Just edit the image info page to add the text {{db-author}} at the top and an admin wil delete it. – ukexpat (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Scanned Content

    What are the copyright rules regarding advertising material produced by a now defunct (or at least I believe it to be) company? I am trying to create an article on an illustrator who did a significant amount of work for them, going so far as to draw himself into one of the advertisements, and I would like to use the self portrait ad as the picture for the top of the articles info box. I have a hard copy of the ad from 1946 Which I scanned, enhanced for color and clarity, cropped and saved for use on Wikipedia. I am not sure what the rules regarding this image are. Am I even allowed to use it? If so, which tag might I use and from whom, if anyone, would I need to receive permission for using the likeness of this advertisement. I would greatly appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable in this area as I am quite confused by the veritable sea of different copyright tags and information available here.

    Dead Artist Fan (talk) 12:00PM, 18 March 2010 (EST) DeadArtistFan

    Whether the company is defunct is unlikely to affect the copyright status. However, many pre-1978 U.S. advertisements are public domain, due to lack of a copyright notice - see [4]. Assuming that you have a published copy of the advertisement that File:1946 Floyd Davis With Drink in Hand.jpg is part of (as opposed to a copy of the original artwork), check the ad carefully for any copyright notice. If there is none, you can tag the file with {{PD-US-no notice}}. But be sure to include the source / publication information (name of the magazine or newspaper, date, page) - this was the original problem with your upload. --dave pape (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a company logo that I want to upload to an article's infobox that I am currently in the process of making for Steiner Electric Company. But it is a non-free logo that I need help uploading because I don't know how to tag it or understand all the copyright and licensing information required. It is not a logo that can be uploaded in Wikipedia Commons and do not know how else to get it on my page like other company pages. If someone could please help me upload the logo and then tag it properly so it will not be deleted it would be much appreciated! This is the page so far. User:Lizzard388/Example/Steiner Electric

    207.7.208.253 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can help you with that, but non-free images cannot be used in userspace so it will have to wait until the draft is moved to mainspace. Before it is moved, there are a few issues, I will leave a message at User talk:Lizzard388. – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyfraud?

    File:Phi Gamma Delta Star+Diamond.png, a composition of simple geometry (vis. a single diamond and star), does not appear to be copyrightable, despite the claims on the file page. It may however, be trademarked. Thoughts? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, just two simple geometric shapes arranged with no particular creativity. Looks like a {{PD-textlogo}} to me. – ukexpat (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    following images are I created myself, I want to use in Wikipedia ( Digital art and Digital illustration) section, Which license is need to add for this image and any charge is needed further. Image details:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cognition-Libido.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Absence_of_Freedom-2008.jpg

    lake of the copyright tag they will delete my image soon.

    People can use this image only with my permission.

    Please guide me.

    Regards R.Gopakumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.194.92 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Material donated to Wikipedia cannot be "used only with my permission" as the diea is that this is a free encyclopedia that any one can copy and modify. So if you don't want to give your images to every one, don't put them in here. Instead I encourage you to take a look at CC-BY-SA-3.0 license and see if can can accept that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Pop Top Machine that kept us awake at night

    Re: Message about Copyright "The Pop Top Machine that kept us awake at night" I can't find how to respond, I can't find my article, "FREDERICK ABINGER (TOM) WARDER" (after submitted numerous inquiries) and I am just plain fed up! How can I withdraw the copyright from all the other images I posted onthat page? And how can I completely delete my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venturian (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    for File:The Machine that kept us awake as it pumped out poptops!jpg (WinCE).jpg you say that you created this image by yourself. You must give out a license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0 it seems that there is nothing here. If you did not take the photo, but got the picture from somewhere else then there may not be any permission to have the picture here. put {{db-user}} tag on the pages or images you uploaded if you want to remove them. For File:TomWarder 19.jpg we would like to see a license and a description of what the phot is of, and when it was really taken. For File:Tom Warder Mandolin.jpg did you really take this photo in 1964? and if so what license would you like to grant? File:Tom Warder (Medium) (Medium) (2) (Large) (Large) (Large).jpg is on commons with different procedures. This one has the CC tag, so you cannot revoke the license unless you had no right to grant it in the first place. The article you are looking for is on your user page: User:Venturian, it is not yet in article space. 00:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeffrey Dahmer

    Hi, I want to know if this picture qualifies for fair use. this one. Please help me, I don't know, if so, how to upload it, because I can't in Commons, it doesn't allow fair use images. Thank you. --SouthAmerican (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the person is dead and could not be photographed again this could be fair use. But is this a publicity photo widely available? Are you impacting the commercial interests of the copyright holder? Please look at WP:Fair use, all 10 criteria have to be met. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear editors,

    1. Pls help me understand what historic maps are count to be valid and which policy they have to accord to?
    2. If the historic map is from a published book or Atlas, which is the copyright type to be used?
    3. If a historic map is from a non-reliable source, what is the procedure to change it with a more reliable map?

    Thanks for help!Aregakn (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. To be used here the map should be public domain, which means old enough, published without a copyright notice in the United states before a certain date, or copyright not renewed and published before a certain date. Any map published by the United States federal government will be public domain. And crown copyright with limited life will apply in some other countries' government maps, eg Australia over 50 years old - so prior to 1960 can be used.
    2. If the published book is a faithful reproduction of the old public domain map, you may use it, but if it adds extra text or restoration, then copyright will be renewed.
    3. Just load up the new copy with the same name, you will be prompted that the same named image exists already. Please update the source to say where the copy came from, and actually only do this if the other version is better. If not better it would be more appropriate to upload with a different name.
    Thank you for your previous answers!
    1. Please name the policy I have to read, if possible.
    2. What is the method to defrintiate which historical map is better?
    3. If a dispute accurs in this regard, how and according to which bases is it going to be solved
    4. Is more than 100 year periud enough for the historical map to loose the copyright?

    Thanks again.Aregakn (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You are going to make more specific. You can read Public domain. In which country was the map published? is it online somewhere already? If both pictures are online then which picture to use can be discussed on the talk page of a relevant article. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, this will describe what makes an image the best. Things like high resolution, clarity, lack of distortion, correct colour, lack of noise, defects rectified (or not). Maps published before 1923 in the United States should be copyright free now. If elsewhere then other country rules apply. If you are going to scan or photograph a historic map, please do it in an uncompressed form. This will give the restorers the best chance to make it better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is discussion on Commons, see here about the question whether or not design is protected by copyright law or not. I am not an expert in the field, and I would welcome any expert opinion. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Design is not the same as copyright. It is more like trade mark, where it is registered and then the same item cannot be reproduced by others. A design on paper, such as a clothing pattern or blueprint will have copyright though. Design rights would not be infringed by photos here, but may be so if someone manufactures the item in the photo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What Graeme Bartlett said. — Walloon (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a tricky area. Some countries do recognize copyright in certain designs, for example the UK and many Commonwealth countries with the idea of "artistic craftsmanship", but often with shorter copyright terms and rather subjective criteria as to what is protected and what is not. The New Zealand Court of Appeal famously classed the mould for making frisbees as a "sculpture" and so protected by copyright: Wham-O Manufacturing v. Lincoln Industries [1985] RPC 127. Physchim62 (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How does one handle someone else over-copyrighted images?

    Let's say one comes across an image which, for example, someone has tagged as fair-use or GFDL but which one believes to be, or which clearly is, PD. Unfortunately I do not have a specific image in mind. What does one do in such a case? Is there a policy or guideline? Is there a standard practice? Does one just take the image and run with it? Or is it somewhat like the Restrictions on Van Vechten Photographs? Hyacinth (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is tagged as fair use, and you have evidence it is PD (say for example it is a pre-1923 US newspaper photo), then it would be fine to change the tag. For less clear situations you may want to try to discuss with the uploader before making the change, especially if it is a situation where the person who uploaded the image may be attempting to claim ownership of the image. -Andrew c [talk] 14:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So no, there's no policy or guideline. It's a sea of anarchy where one is free to claim land in the name of PD like a barbarian or to engage in dialogue like a gentleperson. Hyacinth (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we address this with a guideline? Hyacinth (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In the USA it is an offence to claim rights that you don't have, but what you see may be a derivative which could have a new copyright. It depends if there was sufficient creative input. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Restrictions on Van Vechten Photographs, saying no derivatives is unenforceable if the images are really in the public domain. Living authors may have extra moral rights though, even if they did release image. In Australia the moral rights cannot be released. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia used to strongly recommend, and I imagine still does, that while generally one should claim the least rights possible in the case that one is not sure one should claim the most rights possible, while providing a warning regarding the dangers of infringing on others rights. Given your point above this recommendation should either be revised or have a warning regarding the dangers of claiming rights one doesn't possess added. Hyacinth (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Recreated maps

    I have been creating maps for Wikipedia articles, based on information in a number of published maps, and textual information from both © and non-© sources. I have been doing so in the understanding that I am creating something new, and tagging them PD. My maps show only coastlines, borders, and named locations. Example Although I sometimes scan source material for accuracy, the scan is not visible in any way in the final work. Can I upload these maps to Wikipedia? Wikicommons will not allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoolWhippets (talk • contribs) 09:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can not see, why the restrictions mentioned on commons and on Open Street Maps also shouldn't also apply on EnWiki, as it doesn't qualify as Fair Use. --Heb (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If every part is drawn by you, and not a duplication of a still in copyright map you can claim the copyright. Note that google maps and street directories usually include trap streets to see if people are copying their work. Remember the information is not copyrighted but the representation is. I have used Google maps to figure out how to transform a free aerial photograph to be a flat 2D map. But then I just use the transformed free map. Then I draw on the buildings and streets and water features based on what is visible in the photo. The google map can give you the name of the feature, but is very poor for water features. Also there are quite a few public domain, do to age maps around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to File:Bougainville location and detail 1945.jpg? Your problem here is attributing the image to multiple sources — the "source" line of the information template refers to the source of the image itself, not the source of the data that it represents. Since you explained the source of the image on the description page, I've removed the no-source tag and rearranged data in the information template. As far as I can see, you're not doing anything against policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The file NATO Allied Command Atlantic - July 1954.svg is marked as {{PD-author}} by User:Marcd30319. While this user has made the SVG-version, it is just a auto-rendered version of this file on nato.int (which is also stated as source). For permission the user has noted that No free equivalent available. Copyright apparently held by NATO, but there is no indication anywhere that this is or is not public domain. I'm having a little trouble understanding, how this file can be released as PD-author, and thus marked it with {{di-no permission}} on March 5 (diff). It was removed later the same day by Marcd30319 (diff). I've asked the user why he considers this file to be a legal PD (because I don't think it is) on his/her talk-page (here), but after 12 days still haven't received any answer. Can anyone please elaborate on how this file can be PD or what I'm missing? --Heb (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The image is from an electronic version of a copyrighted book (NATO: The First Five Years), and as it is easy to make a free-content replacement, I've deleted it as a copyvio. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the appropriate template be {{Non-free fair use in}} followed by a justification. Hyacinth (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bloody diagram -- the sort of thing you can whip up in Paint in five minutes. What justification can there be? --Carnildo (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It should have been tagged {{PD-ineligible}}. Copyrights are for creative content (Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works). This is little more than a list with boxes with negligible creative content. Please note that if a protected creative work is copied, the copy is protected as a derivative work if it includes the elements of creativity of the original. I don't think this is the case here. The original has advantage of historical verisimilitude and should be retained, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm confused... nothing new. Here is an example of a photograph I'd like to use. Photograph was made in 1880, but the copyright says, "Digital Image © 2008 Utah State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved." The photograph should be in the Public Domain, but can a copy of the photograph be copyrighted? Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pish, upload (to commons) under {{PD-scan}}, I can't see how they can possibly claim rights. Especially in the US. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Death of Cleopatra painting by Juan Luna

    Is the 1881 The Death of Cleopatra (Spanish: La Muerte de Cleopatra) by Juan Luna still copyrighted? The images available on the internet are the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Your reply is appreciated. Thank you. - AnakngAraw (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Not in the United States (published pre 1923), nor anywhere with copyright of (life+70) or (life+100) years - i.e. the whole world. So go ahead and upload to Commons. Jheald (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it published before 1923? If it was first published 1923–2002, it could still be under copyright in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    how do i update

    i want to update the gokwe centre stub .seceral developments have since taken place as from 2007.im the town scretary for the town.asssit please

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=351740158"