Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

The Bride Wore Red

While googling for copyright renewals I came across a strange absence. There doesn't seem to be any renewal for MGM's 1937 effort The Bride Wore Red. This should mean that the copyright lapsed 28 years after first registration. This might be expected for most things in that era, but not for Hollywood films first registed by MGM or Loew's. However my search didn't find anything. What more should be done, if anything, to meet whatever our standard of due diligence is beyond searching the Google renewal record scans? Stranger yet, searching half a dozen couple of random volumes in the 50s and 60s, I found no sign of MGM/Loew's renewals whereas Fox appeared assiduous renewers. I can't help but think that I am missing something here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No opinions? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Some not-quite-aimless googling found this abstract of a widely cited paper entitled Determining copyright status for preservation and access : Defining reasonable effort. The writers discuss searching renewal entries (such as found on Google and Gutenberg) rather than the actual Copyright Office records. The abstract concludes: "The resulting CCE search procedure is suggested as a standard of reasonable effort for copyright searching, which demonstrates a legally responsible reasonable effort to respect the rights of copyright holders while advancing preservation aims and converting carefully selected print materials to build the digital library." Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

File:FSPB_1916_pl.VI.RD.jpeg

Can you tell me if there is a list of PD templates? If so, where are they? I have looked ... I've learned a few but this is the first from a British government publication, so I guessed. :) Please help! --Rskp (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected the copyright template to the proper one {{PD-UKGov}}. In future you may find this page useful and also this commons page. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This wikipedia page lists just PD tags. This Wikimedia Commons page could also be useful.--Rockfang (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

your singing group was reincarsiated to a more younger age 15&14&35&15 years of age old martha wells and the vandrella sits at home with no memories of show business in the year 2010.A&R REPERSENTIVE INTURN STEVEN LAMONT MOORE OF MOTOWN RECORDS.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.54.187 (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Problematic YouTube link

An editor recently added this external link to Theater drapes and stage curtains. My impression is that the link is problematic because the video, which appears at Rose Brands' corporate web site (in their "blog" section), is covered by the all-encompassing statement at the bottom of their home page: "All content ©2010 Rose Brand. All Rights Reserved." As an aside, this also seems to conflict with WP:LINKSPAM because the linked video has text (at both beginning and end) that would lead readers to their commercial site. I am inclined to delete the link for these reasons, but I'm not 100% sure of my analysis. Also, the posting editor is new and I don't want to discourage anyone, especially for the wrong reasons. Second opinion, anyone? Lambtron (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the link per WP:YOUTUBE. – ukexpat (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:YOUTUBE applies. The video is not a copyvio as the company that made the video uploaded it to YouTube. Also, because only a logo is shown for 3 seconds and the beginning and end I don't think WP:LINKSPAM applies either. I don't think the purpose was to advertise the company. I think the purpose was to demonstrate the appearance and operation of a tab curtain. The part of the video with the directional arrows enforces the idea that the video was made for demonstration purposes and not advertising.--Rockfang (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If the video is copyrighted, does it matter who uploaded it to YouTube and, if so, how does that affect WP copyvio? Also, it seems to be a clear violation of WP:LINKSPAM because it has about four seconds of text, at both the beginning and end of the clip, that would lead readers to their commercial site. Whether that's the intent or not, it's an obvious result. Lambtron (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it does matter who uploads videos to YouTube. For example, if I upload an episode of Star Trek: Voyager to YouTube it would most likely get deleted quite quickly as a copyright violation. Linking to this video would be a violation of WP:ELNEVER. If CBS Television Studios (the company that owns the rights to the show) uploads the episode, it would not fall under WP:ELNEVER. They can upload videos they own the rights to wherever they want, and it would not be a copyright violation. Regarding the potential WP:LINKSPAM issue, maybe we can just agree to disagree. :) Rockfang (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Rosebrand is running an aggressive marketing campaign at YouTube, so it's reasonable to think that they uploaded this video. In the general case, though, how can one be certain that a YouTube video has been uploaded by the copyright owner? Lambtron (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to be 100% certain that the uploader is the copyright holder, but I think there are indications that can increase or decrease the likelihood of this being the case. For example, looking at the uploader's other uploaded videos. If they upload a speedrun of Super Mario Bros. 3 and have also uploaded a Metallica video, I think the odds of them owning the rights to both are pretty slim. On the other hand, if NBC were to provide a link on their site to an episode of Outsourced on YouTube, the odds of them being the one that uploaded it increases in my opinion. I hope this answers your question.--Rockfang (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers photo needed

Hi! I created a small article about an little known actress called Alexandra Powers. The article needs a photo of her. I found one while surfing the net. Here's the photo I found: http://www.tvspielfilm.de/stars/star/alexandra-powers,1571496,ApplicationGallery.html?page=5 Is it acceptable? Please let me know. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not unless you can prove it is a freely licenced image. There is a photo credits notice at the bottom of the source page though it does not say which one applies to this particular image. ww2censor (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You can not use th eone you listed - it is copyrighted to one of the photographers at the bottom of the page (Frank P. Wartenberg für VOX, ARTE, ARD (2), RTL, Pro7, Premiere, Senderbild (3), Verleih (2), Stuart Franklin/Getty Images, Universal Studios International B. V). As the actress is still alive you most likely will not be able to claim fair use on these types of shots. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with above. The actress is still alive, so under WP:NFCC #1, a free license photograph of her is considered to be something that can be created. Therefore, a non-free image of her will not be acceptable. It would be considered replaceable fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright questions

Sir, This is an image uploaded by me. (File:Chamarajanagar.JPG). It is completely my work i.e., the image was captured by me. How can i provide a license for this image when i have captured it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijethnbharadwaj (talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You must add a copyright tag to every image you upload indicating under what licence you are releasing the image. You can add a copyright tag to an image by clicking on the "Edit" button. Editors who upload their own work usually add one of the following tags to the image: {{PD-self}}, {{cc-by-3.0|Attribution details}} or {{attribution|User:Someuser|My full name}} though you may also want to refer to the copyright section for image creators for additional details. ww2censor (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Old map in 1987 book

Would {{PD-old}} be a suitable licence for a map, plate 44, which is part of a 1987 edition of Astbury? The list of plates on pages vii–viii describes the map as "Hayward's 1604 Map of the Fens". The obverse of the map itself appears to be unaltered by Astbury; it is black and white; it is faint. The map is captioned on the reverse as follows:

This map of the fens, surveyed by William Hayward in 1604 and copied by Thomas Badeslade in 1724, shows the area as it appeared before the seventeenth century period of drainage. Cambridge University Library

— Astbury A K, Astbury, A K (1987) [1958]. The Black Fens (3 ed.). Wardy Hill, Ely, Cambridgeshire: Providence Press. pp. 128–129. ISBN 0903803186. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--Senra (Talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Being republished in a new book doesn't make old PD materials suddenly under copyright (unless artisitc changes have been applied), so PD-old would be perfect license for it when you upload it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated --Senra (Talk) 12:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Adding a Company Logo to the page

I wanted to edit the Zions Bank page to add the company's logo in the info box (on the right side of the page). Can anyone tell me how to do this? Thanks! RushmoreGold (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two steps: First, the logo must be uploaded to Wikipedia. It is probably a copyrighted image so it will have to be tagged with an appropriate non-free content rationale, in this case {{logo fur}} and with the {{non-free logo}} template. Second, when it has been uploaded, it is added to the infobox in the article with the appropriate code, in this case the code is [[Image:logoname.png|150px]] (the display size can be adjusted if 150 is too small). Hope this helps – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Grand Tetons featured picture: no rights justification given

Regarding File:Barns_grand_tetons.jpg...
This is marked as a featured image, but the "Permissions" link is a dead link. There is no copyright notice or other justification of rights to publish. Shouldn't there be something more, especially for an image that is 'featured'? Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.63.133 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you go to [1] you can see that the original image is public domain, just like the information template says. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Image:Linus Pauling Quartet in 2008.jpg

I appear to have messed up the formatting for this in trying to put in all the necessary information and tags to demonstrate fair usage. Can you please help me format this properly so it shows as it should? I'm terribly confused as to why all that tagging information is showing up when it should be hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayler1973 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the template format but, being a non-free image, it is not used in any mainspace articles, so I tagged it for deletion. You cannot use it unless it is in an article but besides that problem, the band still exists so a freely licenced image can be created, therefore it will likely fail the non-free content criteria anyway. You may want to try to get the image released under a free licence or take a photo. ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

NASA images and copyright

It began over File:Gliese_581g.jpg being used on Gliese 581 g but applies to all images supplied by NASA.

Basically, is what I've said here right? That an image credit on NASA websites is the same thing as saying this is copyright of the credited person/organisation and not a public domain image? There appears to be a number of images on the Commons that have been supplied either sourced from a NASA website or off a website attributing the image to NASA, but which the original image was credited to a non-NASA entity. If what I've said is true then they would need to be looked at as well.

The NASA policy regarding images states,

NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA.

There appears to be confusion over what "noted" means, people seem to be assuming that anything uploaded onto a NASA site is public domain. Clarification on this would be greatly appreciated. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen this issue previously with some commons images. Some images on the NASA websites are clearly attributed to individuals or organisations and this is because they are not NASA images hence their policy statement. It indicates that all NASA sourced images should be scrutinised carefully to ascertain their true copyright status because just being on a NASA website alone does not mean it is freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing licensing designation

I was given a photo free and clear by the photographer and uploaded it, tagging it as "public domain". I'm now thinking I'd like to maybe switch that to Creative Commons Attribution so at least the photo will be properly sourced if it's reused in the future, but I can't see how to do that. Is that possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayler1973 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to File:Linus Pauling Quartet in Seattle 2000.jpg even though you asked about a different image of the same subject two posts above this one. Are you sure the photographer owns the copyright and not the group, who are the subject of that photo? Either way, because you are not the copyright holder, author or source, you need to get the copyright holder to send us their permission directly by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION when an OTRS ticket will be added to the image with the copyright licence they agree to. Their email to you is not enough to confirm their permission. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete my file or fix it please

Plz help me to fix or del this file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SG-1000_Logo.svg. The logo consisting only of text, not with the font "Zeroes" displayed in browsers as intended. Maybe someone can try to solve the whole. In any case, the current output is incorrect. Thank you :) Abani79 (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You can remove the fair-use rationale and fill in the missing details for the information template I added above because. I inserted the copyright tag {{PD-textlogo}} because the image is so simple it is not copyrightable though it is a trademark. ww2censor (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem with image copyright

I included a photo to my article because of the below disclaimer from the source:

"Disclaimer and Notice of Copyright: All materials posted on this site are subject to copyrights owned by the Medical Library Association (MLA) and other individuals or entities. All material subject to MLA's copyright may be reproduced for the noncommercial purpose of scientific or educational advancement. Requests for other uses should be forwarded to MLA's director of publications for consideration.

The names, trademarks, service marks, and logos of MLA appearing on this site may not be used in any advertising or publicity, or otherwise to indicate MLA's sponsorship of or affiliation with any product or service, without MLA's prior express written permission.

Although the MLA site includes links providing direct access to other Internet sites, MLA takes no responsibility for the content or information contained on those other sites, and does not exert any editorial or other control over those other sites.

MLA is providing information and services on the Internet as a benefit and service in furtherance of MLA's nonprofit and tax-exempt status. MLA makes no representations about the suitability of information or services posted to or linked from its Website."

According to the source, I am allowed to reproduce the picture as long as it is for "educational advancement". But I received the following message: File copyright problem with File:Frankrogers.GIF Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Frankrogers.GIF. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone please let me know how I can solve this problem.The filename is File:Frankrogers.GIF

Thank you and good day. SBhawk —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBhawk (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• A few things; first, Wikipedia doesn't accept images under a license that does not permit commercial reuse. The license for this image prevents commercial reuse. Now, we DO permit non-free images if no free alternative exists or could be created (per WP:NFCC #1). This image isn't free for our purposes, so we must use it under terms of fair use. Given that he is dead, we presume here that finding a free alternative is unlikely (that's not the case for living people). So, I've tagged the image with {{Non-free fair use in|Frank Bradway Rogers}} and removed the no license warning tag. But, I've added a no rationale warning tag, which makes the image still subject to deletion. You need to write a fair use rationale for using this image in the article in which you've placed it. Information about how to do that is at WP:FURG. Please read that and write a rationale. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

pictures

Can you put pictures on wikipedia and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.21.107 (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You are best off to read uploading images but you can only do so after you are a logged in user with an autoconfirmed account (meaning that the account must be at least four days old, and the user must have made at least ten edits). If you do not have an account, or you have not been autoconfirmed yet, you can make a request at files for upload. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

reporting possibly unfree files

Hey, I found some pictures on wikicommons which were obviously just copied from the web with somebody claiming to be the creator. I tried to report them at the possibly unfree files page, but as the pictures are on commons I can't even do step 1 properly (puf template does not work). Some help would be appreciated. File in question is File:Masiela Lusha Pantages.jpg (original source here: [2]). I have a very strong suspicion every picture user:PeterRoyce "created"is just copied from the web. How to proceed? Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about this editor's uploads. I nominated this file for speedy deletion. In general, if you can find the source I would say the best thing to do is to flag it for speedy deletion. On Commons, you can either user something like {{speedy delete|copyvio, see http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/OpstkUzvEAT/Opening+Night+Phantom+Opera+Pantages+Red+Carpet/cUSTlbfnAnn/Masiela+Lusha}} or {{copyvio|Also found at http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/OpstkUzvEAT/Opening+Night+Phantom+Opera+Pantages+Red+Carpet/cUSTlbfnAnn/Masiela+Lusha}}. If you don't want a speedy delete there is no equivalent of PUF, so you would just open a deletion discussion by clicking on "nominate for deletion" in the toolbox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This could be a lot of work. I read the discussion here and PeterRoyce says he's uploaded 544 images, and he denies the allegations as well. User:Noq has confronted him about this and User:HJ_Mitchell has blocked him for persistent copyright violations. Either the editor is actually right (quite unlikely) or it's going to be a tough time finding the source of each uploaded image not yet reviewed. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For more help, try reporting the situation at WP:CCI.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've opened an investigation there. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

photos of sculptures

I have photos of works from Jens Adolf Jerichau and Denys Puech (neither of which have photos of their works in their articles), which I took at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek museum. Would I be able to upload these? I have seen other works from the Glyptotek museum here on wikipedia, so I am wondering what determines if a photo of a sculpture can be posted. Thanks. --Tea with toast (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama is usually what applies to sculptures but varies considerably by country. You should first of all consult this commons page that lists the rules for many countries. For Denmark FOP is allowed for building but not for works of art, for which the general copyright period is 70 years pma per the Consolidated Act on Copyright 2010 found here so Jens Adolf Jerichau's works are in the public domain but the works of Denys Puech will not be free until 2012. Goood luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Three images not yet uploaded

If you look at the left side of this image, just below the nose of the aircraft, there is the logo of Northwest Territorial Airways (NWT Air). While I was taking pictures of the aircraft I also took one each of the NWT Air and Ptarmigan Airways signs. Both of these airlines are no longer in operation, having been bought out by First Air in the 1990s. What would be the copyright status of these signs? If the images can only be used under a fair use claim would it allow the use in First Air and/or List of defunct airlines of Canada? There is no article on either of these airlines. The third image is again from the Buffalo Airways hangar but is of the original sing from The Gold Range. The same questions as above apply to this as well. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The logos look slightly too complicated for PD-textlogo but could be used under fair use if you included commentary on the logo and not just used for illustration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Excessive amounts of Fair-use Audio Files at Emo

I count 12 fair-use files for this subculture's music in the article which I find excessive number of Fair use files in an article about a realitivly small subculture and pushing the boundires. Any one else think so? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Not to mention there is probably free emo music on the internet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I took eight of the files out, those being ones where the title of the music wasn't mentioned at all in the article prose. Seven of them were orphaned as a result, and I informed the uploader of the seven files. I still think more of the files could go, as their importance and relevance to an encyclopedic view of Emo is questionable. Further, as Magog said, there probably is free alternatives available for crucial demonstrations of style. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is pleasant. I was reverted by the uploader [3]. Anyone else care to take a stab at explaining the issue to this person? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for my terse edit summary when I reverted Hammersoft. I'd just gotten out of bed & was quite surly. That's no excuse for my attitude, but it's the reason I was a bit uncivil & swift to revert. Anyway, to respond to ResidentAnthropologist's original statement, whether you think this is a "relatively small subculture" is irrelevant to its encyclopedic coverage. And if you read the article, you'll see that it's far from a "relatively small subculture"; it's a musical style that has a 25 year history, has been the topic of significant media attention in the last 10 years, encompasses a number of chart-topping platinum artists, and has been widely discussed in the music press. In response to Magog, whether there is "free emo music on the internet" isn't relevant to Wikipedia (I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, really). And no Hammersoft, there aren't "free alternaties available for crucial demonstrations of the style". Again, this is a style with a 25 year history. All of the "crucial" recordings of the style are copyrighted (even the stuff you'd find "free on the internet" aka Myspace samples by present-day garage bands, which certainly aren't crucial demonstrations of the style) would likely still be subject to copyright. How many recording artists do you know that license their recordings under free licenses? Certainly none that are discussed in the article. There are no free equivalents for these samples. I've given some more detail in my response to Hammersoft on my talk page, but basically each of these artists' musical and lyrical style is directly referenced in the article, with sources. The samples significantly increase readers' understanding of that musical style and the evolution of the genre's sound (which has gone through many permutations over 25 years), concepts that cannot be illustrated in text alone. I should also point out that punk rock, which is the only FA on a music genre, has 21 non-free audio samples in it (and had 17 at the time it was promoted to FA). I should also point out that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples) specifically says that there is no limit to the # of samples that may be used in one article, so long as each individually meets NFCC #8. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So let's just liberally include as many samples as we want, because there's no limit? That's not how it works. Look, I understand the samples might be illustrative of whatever it is the article is trying to convey. There might be citations regarding a particular artist, but the files that I removed had NO CITATIONS REGARDING THEIR CONNECTION TO WHAT IS BEING SAID. That's where it fails WP:NFCC #8. You're picking these samples as being somehow indicative of the passage being discussed in the article. This is your judgment. That's Wikipedia:Original research. You're not backing it up with reliable sources. I didn't remove four of the files because they're at least mentioned in the article. The eight I did remove were not mentioned. You can't justify the existence of a non-free file on an article just on generalities. Citing a band is one thing. If you're going to use it's material, you need to find citations to back up why a given simple is important to the article. That doesn't exist for the eight non-free media files you restored. I'm not responding to your post on your user talk page, not out of surliness, but I think it better to focus discussion here on this topic. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about liberally including gratuitous samples at all; it's about illustrating a musical style and its evolution by giving samples of the key artists that are specifically discussed in the article. Take the Rites of Spring example that I discussed on my talk page. The article gives specific, sourced statements about how they were the originators of the style, and how they "broke free of hardcore's self-imposed boundaries in favor of melodic guitars, varied rhythms, and deeply personal, impassioned lyrics." How would one illustrate this except with a sample? It doesn't matter that song sampled isn't specifically mentioned in the text, as long as it includes examples of the band's guitar sound, rhythm, and vocals, which it does (for what it's worth, the Greenwald book which is the source of the statements does specifically focus on that song in an analysis of the lyrics—page 13—which is why I chose it as opposed to any of the band's other songs). If the cited text mentions specific elements of the band's musicality, and the sample includes those elements, it's not original research to state that the sample illustrates those elements (for example, if the text mentioned use of a particular instrument, then any sample using that instrument would be illustrative of it). The book that is the article's primary source does actually go into detail about how some of these specific songs ("Kiss the Bottle" and "If It's Here When We Get Back It's Ours" for example) are exemplary of the artist and style. In an older revision I had citations in each of the sample captions, but I felt that these were redundant to the cites in the body paragraph and they slightly messed up the format of the captions. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Giving samples, fine. But connect the dots. You're not. I'm not contesting what you're saying about Rites of Spring. I'm contesting that the sample you chose illustrates what is cited about the group. Find a cite that connects the dots. Otherwise, it's just original research. You think the sample illustrates what the article is trying to convey. Frankly, I don't care what you think about Emo music unless you're a reliable secondary source. You're not. You're just an editor here like the rest of us. You don't own the article, and asserting this sample as fact supporting the prose is every bit as improper as me including a sample of Johnny Cash music and asserting that Emo music had its foundation in Rockabilly. Unless you're going to assert (and can back it up with citations) that every single song produced by this group sounds exactly the same, and therefore the citation about the band applies to this particular sample, you're way out in left field on this one...and that's just one of eight I removed! You saying something is a fine example of X doesn't make it so. You're leaving your imprint on the article by way of asserting things not in cited evidence. If you want to dig out citations that tie these samples to this article then by all means do so. Adding a ^[23] to an image caption due to an inline cite isn't going to break the caption. You should also correct the prose to reference the sample and provide the cite that ties the sample to the prose. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to yank them as the user seems to be making no effort to integrate them into the article in the last 48 hours The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to restore them (again), and restore an older version of the captions which has specific citations within them. I find it inappropriate for you to have removed them unilaterally (again) and marked them for speedy (again). It is not original research to provide samples that illustrate concepts that are specifically referenced in the article text, when those concepts are not conveyable by words alone. The selection of samples does not constitute original research: if the text, for example, specifically refers to an act's melodic guitars, then all one need do is select a song of theirs that features the guitar. Stating that a sample of guitar illustrates their use of guitar is not original research, regardless of whether the source names a specific song. I was not haphazard in my selection of the songs sampled; each one is either specifically analyzed/referred to in the article's main source (the Greenwald text), or is a notable example of the genre due to its chart history. If you have specific concerns with the usage of specific files, I suggest you nominate them for deletion at XfD (or try discussing them on the article's talk page, which you haven't done). This page is for questions about copyright, not a place to argue NFCC thresholds. You have also not addressed my point that punk rock, the only music genre FA, has 21 non-free samples with many of the songs not specifically referred to in the article text. I would expect that if this were the threshold for use, that such a thing would have been addressed in an FA review. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unilaterally? The only person in this discussion who feels these are appropriate for the article is you, IllaZilla. If there's a unilateral action here, it's your actions. I'm going to continue to focus on "Remainder" to illustrate the point. You reinstated a citation in the caption of that clip, but the caption does not reference this clip. It references the band. Again, as I noted, I could just as well include a clip of Johnny Cash for all the relevance it has. YOU think it is relevant. The cite doesn't, as it doesn't reference that clip or the song. We haven't discussed this issue on the article's talk page because the discussion is centralized here. I'd prefer not to scatter this discussion across this page, the article's talk page, and 10+ MfD pages. This just isn't that big of an issue. As to Punk Rock; FA or not, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are empty. Just because that article has two dozen non-free media files doesn't mean this article is allowed to have that many non-free files. It's a case by case determination, not a threshold found in other articles. Frankly, I haven't reviewed that article recently and don't care because it's not relevant to this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the caption does not have to reference that clip specifically. The cited text discussing Rites of Spring references the band's "melodic guitars, varied rhythms, and deeply personal, impassioned lyrics." In order to illustrate this (a concept that cannot be described in text alone), one simply needs to choose a clip of the band's that features guitar and varied rhythms. The source does not have to cite a specific song in order for the sample to be illustrative of those concepts. The comparison to Johnny Cash is, of course, ludicrous and irrelevant. I am not new to this, and I did not choose the clips based on my own point of view or personal preference. I chose them because the songs they are from are directly discussed in the sources, or because they are exemplars of the genre due to their chart history. The Greenwald source makes specific analysis of "Remainder" and calls it definitive of the band's style (page 13): "On what may be Rites of Spring's most definitive song, 'Remainder', Picciotto martyrs himself for his own sins, but therein glimpses a world of redemption."

My point about the article talk page is that if you felt there were problematic non-free files being used in the article, you should have raised the topic there. Instead it was raised here (the incorrect place, as this page's purpose is to ask questions about copyright, not to argue NFCC thresholds), and without any discussion at the article itself you simply yanked the files and tagged them for speedy deletion. If you would like to discuss each file individually, I would be happy to do so on the article's talk page. There are other editors who watch that page and I'm sure would contribute to the topic if it were discussed there. Perhaps there are a few that could be removed, but they need to be discussed individually because, as I've demonstrated with "Remainder", there are strong arguments for retaining some of the ones in question ("Kiss the Bottle" and "If It's Here When We Get Back It's Ours" immediately spring to mind as the sources also call them definitive of the respective bands' styles...in fact the caption of "Kiss the Bottle" directly quotes a source saying that "more than any other song", it encapsulates the elements that drew listeners to the band).

My point in referring to the punk rock article was not to make an OTHERCRAP argument. I am not saying that "since that article has x many files, this article should get x too." I am drawing the comparison in order to illustrate that there is no hard limit on the number of files, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples), so long as each individually passes the NFCC. I am also making the comparison because Featured Articles are supposed to represent our best work, and have gone through a series of reviews and revisions. One expects that the usage of non-free files in an FA should be demonstrative of how they should be used in other articles of the same topic area. The fact that there are samples in punk rock of songs that are not specifically referred to in the article text (but where the text, rather, references the sound or musical style of the artist in question) indicates to me that your assertion that the songs themselves have to be specifically referenced in the text is incorrect. If that were the case, then I would expect these samples to have been weeded out during the FA process. I am in no way suggeting that emo is entitled to the same number of samples as punk rock, I am suggesting that the files are being used in the exact same way—to illustrate the musical style of the genre's relevant artists—and that the songs themselves do not have to be specifically referenced in the text in order to be considered demonstrative of this style.

This requires case-by-case determination, as you have said, and the place to make such determinations is on the article's talk page. I would be happy to discuss each file in question individually there, if you would care to. I believe I can make strong arguments—with sources—for several of the files in question. If the issue is making the article text demonstrate that these songs are exemplars, then that is a problem with the text and it can be fixed, since as I say I chose the songs based on their analysis in the sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Artwork by Vinicius Mattoso

File:Janis-Joplin-1969.jpg is signed and has a descripton of "Janis Joplin in 1969, by Vinicius Mattoso". The user who uploaded it is [4]. Is there any way to check whether that user is Vinicius Mattoso and whether he has granted us the right to use this artwork? I would ask him myself, but I do not read or write Portuguese. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your question, but I do think the use of a photograph of Mattoso's work without his permission is a copyright violation, at least in the US. See here. The Commons image is described as a fan-made picture, but I'm not sure whether that means the image is a picture taken of the drawing, or it means the image is the drawing itself. If it's a picture taken of the drawing, then the picture is probably a violation of Mattoso's copyright. For more confusion, but lending some support to your speculation that Whooligan is Mattoso, see here. That image on the Portuguese Wikipedia seems to indicate that Whooligan and Mattoso are the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just my 2¢... but the Commons image should be put up for review for deletion. And if the file on pt.Wikipedia were housed here, I'd make the same suggestion. It would be a good idea to check with someone active both here and on pt to veify their policies and procedures. That may also turn up something, anything, that can be pointed to as a credible source that Mattoso has uploaded his images on Wikipedia using the name "Whooligan". - J Greb (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons. I believe the Portuguese Wikipedia issue will take care of itself. The image is used in many Wikipedias all over the world. If Commons determines that the copyright is unclear and the image can't be used, I would think the various Wikipedias will find out, although I'm not sure if that's automatic. I'll keep this thread posted on what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Image file deleted on Commons. As far as I can tell, it automatically goes away on any Wikipedia that references it (at least it did here).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:SonsOfMIT.ogg

File:SonsOfMIT.ogg is a recording of a song marked as PD-self, but since the recording was digitized from an old record, that is certainly not the correct tag. As far as I can tell, the music and lyrics are in the PD, but I'm not sure about the recording. The upload description lists the recording date as "Recording date unknown, but early 20th century." I'm not familiar with record copyrights, so can someone please figure out what kind of license this requires? How can we determine the recording date? Or whether the original copyright is still in effect?--GrapedApe (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My reaction is that the "kind of license" doesn't matter, only your questions about the recording date and the original copyright. If the original work is still protected, then the digitalization violates the work's copyright. Unfortunately, I can't answer the relevant questions. I have trouble believing that the person who digitalized the 78 doesn't know the recording date,though. Wouldn't the 78 itself have a date on it (I don't have any 78s handy)? I also find the phrase "early 20th century" to be remarkably vague. I don't quite understand how Wikipedia evaluates these claims, but wouldn't it be the uploader's burden to demonstrate that the original copyright has expired? Not sure how much any of this helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I have listed the file at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 4#File:SonsOfMIT.ogg.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

unsure about copyright license status for specific image

The information for a specific image I plan to upload is listed below.

File information

Description	The many faces of Rage Threads
Source	http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-08-18/2dcd74j.jpg
Date	01:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Author	Anonymous poster from Chan4Chan
Permission (Reusing this file)	All Rights Reserved

The image is classified as an image found on the internet. Please tell me what license I need to use.

Hyperhippy92 ^{The Game} 01:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's probably not an appropriate image for Wikipedia. Both for license reasons (it's not a freely licensed image) and for scope issues (it's not encyclopedic). But, thanks for checking before uploading.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Janis Joplin Image

The following image is here but comes from Commons: File:Janis Joplin.jpg. I was going to nominate it for deletion on Commons, but I thought I'd first see if anyone here can shed any light on the issue. The image is of an oil painting by Patrick Pearse (AKA Pappi). The image is a photograph of the painting and the photograph was taken by Pearse and put on Flickr. A Commons bot uploaded the image in conjunction with a real-life editor named Alison. Then, it says that it was licensed on "that date" (I'm assuming the date of the upload), but by whom? Because the author of the painting and the author of the photo are the same, the licensor should be Pearse. Am I supposed to infer from the the green check mark and the passive voice ("it was licensed") that Alison verified that Pearse licensed the image? I supposed I could just nominate it for deletion and find out that way, but I thought I'd save myself any embarrassment if I'm wrong and someone can explain why here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is really a commons question but the image and its licencing look fine. Alison, a long time admin here and on the commons, just used the Flickr upload bot and this is why she is listed in the history but the bot does the actual upload and places the Flickr links into the upload file. Patrick Pearse is listed as the author and during the upload the bot transcribes the licence from the Flick page, so unless you think the validity of the licence on the Flickr page is false, I see no need to nominate it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Edit conflicted, concur with ww2censor, and adding on: It looks to me as if the bot confirmed the licensing immediately after upload. Though, the licensing isn't available now without logging into flickr. The bot frequently checks flickr licensing because sometimes rights holders attempt to change licenses after the fact, doing so often in ways that directly contradict the license they previously released them under. The bot gives a point in time in which the license was confirmed as being that which the uploader listed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So Pearse's license is on Flickr. At one time, it could be seen, even by a non-registered Flickr user, but now it can only be seen by a registered user. Because I'm not a registered user, I have no way of verifying the license. Not very satisfying not to be able to see the license, but I guess I'll just have to get used to it. What do you mean by "transcribes the license", Ww2censor?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I just checked it--the license is CC-BY-2.0. I'm also inclined to believe that the owner of that account is the actual author. There are lots of similar photographs of similar paintings. --GrapedApe (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I agree that it looks like the Flickr account owner, painting author, and photo author are all the same. I just couldn't follow the licensing part. The good news is all of this adds to my knowledge of how Wikipedia copyright licensing issues work. Thanks, everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

passport images in galleries and passport images with the uploader as "owner"

I have been looking at the images used in the image gallery of list of passports and the image gallery at Biometric passport and am afraid most images have 1 or 2 issues:

1. The source is "self". Thus the uploader has identified himself as the sole copyright holder. Although he/she might have made the scan and/or the upload him/herself, this does not mean they are the copyright holder as that is generally the state. It therefore also means that they can not automatically be released under a free licence.
2. Many others are uploaded under a fair use rationale. That means they can only be used if this is required to illustrate the subject and no alternative can be found. Furthermore, the rationale specific to the page where it is used should be added (and this is never done for these lists). I guess fair use can be reliably claimed for use on a specific passport page (e.g. the German passport cover on German passport), but not for use in a gallery (WP fair use: The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered.).

If I am right, then the "self" images should be changed from a free use to a fair use licence and they should be removed from the lists along with all other fair use images. This would probably reduce the gallery to less than 20 images I guess... I hope however I am not right and overlooking something; and also would not know how exactly to proceed. Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I realize this post was a bit too long, as I originally planned to post it at Talk:biometric passport. I would appreaciate however to hear if I am right and what the easiest way is to proceed (e.g. is batch rename of the copywrite type and general fair use rational needed?); and whether a list exists on wikipedia of countries where government-items are copyright free...L.tak (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Three things I need to discuss

1. Britney_Stevens is the sister of Whitney_Stevens. It's listed on Whitney_Stevens that she is listed under the categories Panamanian_Jews and Panamanian_pornographic_film_actors. Since Britney_Stevens is she her sister and a pornstar; should she be listed under those 2 categories as well?

2. Qumunity is an article I want to create. It fits under the category LGBT_culture_in_Vancouver because Qmunity is Vancouver's centre for gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people. I think there should be article for it. Here's the link: http://www.qmunity.ca/

3. Naturally Autistic is another article I want to create because it fits under Autism_related_organizations and It's been around since 1995 and it is run a couple in Gibsons,_British_Columbia and I have a link for it: http://www.naturallyautistic.com/founders/297/

Please let me know about doing these articles. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply:- 1 - post a question about this on the relevant article talk page, 2 & 3 - You cannot just copy text from the links you provide as it is copyright, either start a new article yourself using reliable third-party sources or make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles if the topics are notable. ww2censor (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My pictures

I've recently added some pictures and wikipedia is saying that i need to put the source? how can i go back and add the source so wikipedia doesn't delete my pictures, —Preceding unsigned comment added by D400j2000 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That would appear least of the problems in this case. The problem is you are uploading pictures with websites as the source, and claiming to be the copyright-holder who is placing them in the public domain. Unless you can prove they are pictures you yourself took then this is likely copyright violation. The person who owns the copyright to an image is the person who created the original. ChiZeroOne (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate image license tag does not exist

For File:Minecraft title.png, there is no appropriate tag for the actual permissions, as far as I can see. Technically, the Minecraft project has allowed users to do anything with screenshots, but has not actually disclaimed copyright in them (there is a legal distinction between the two things, even if there is little distinction in practice.) Should I create a new template?--greenrd (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the CC-0 license, although details may differ. Or like the public domain waiver in case public domain cannot be assigned. see Template:All rights released but this redirects to the PD-release template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Posting Photo

Dear Wikis, I am Irving Fiske's daughter and live at Quarry Hill Creative Center in Vermont. I'd like to post a photo of Irving to the Irving Fiske and QHCC pages. How can I do this without somebody coming along, fussing at me, and removing it? Can't I add an image if I own it or if the person that does is ok with it? Thank you. Isabella F. McFarlin <e-mail redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.173.27 (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you took the photo yourself then you can create an account and upload it at commons:upload. Just because you have a physical photo does not necessarily mean that you own the copyright, and if you don't know who took it, then you don't know who can grant permission. If you know the person who took the photo, it is easiest to get them to upload it, otherwise follow the procedure at WP:PERMIT. Wikipedia follows the letter of the law when it comes to copyright, so that everyone who copies it can be confident of the material in it. You can also place a request at WP:FFU if it is all too hard, but copyright ownership still has to be proved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wheatland floor plan

Would I be able use one of the floor plans of Wheatland from the Library of Congress [5]? I seen similar ones used before, as there are usually drawn by the employees of the National Park Service, however the ones for Wheatland have in the bottom-left corner "Drawn by: Thaddeus Stevens Trade School 1965, Under direction of the National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior". Would they still fall under PD per being a work of the NPS, or does the school hold the copyright for actually creating it? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing Image from Wikipedia and Posting to Wikimedia

This is my first attempt to post photos and it has been frustrating, sorry. A whole day has gone by with problems posting. I would like to remove this image and post it on Wikimedia instead so it can be viewed globally. Please let me know how to do this. The same goes for the remaining three photos I posted today to Wikipedia. Thank you! Enviromet (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

answered on talk page, but use {{mtc}} to get someone else to do it, or do it yourself at [[:commons:upload]] and {{db-user}} to get rid of things you don't want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series)

Hi! I think The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) should go under the category Category:2008_Botswana_television_series_debuts because it is a Botswana television series and it is filmed and set in Botswana. I also think it should go under the category Category:Botswana_LGBT-related_television_programs because there is a gay character in it called BK_(The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency). Let me know what you think. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, use the talk:The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) to discuss this, as this page is not intended to discuss categories! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This has also been asked and answered at the Help Desk. – ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Using an old family photo, a photo of a painting, a photo from a book dust jacket

I have an old (as from later 1920s early 1930s) photograph of a relative. It is a photography studio portrait. There is no copyright notice connected with it. The person in the picture died in the 1940s. Can I consider it public domain?

Also, I have a portrait of someone else (now deceased) painted by this person before 1920. It would be, as I understand it, in the public domain. If I take a photograph of the portrait to use, I suppose I own the copyright to the photograph and can license it to the commons.

Finally, I have a photograph taken in 1963 of someone. It is a publicity photo on the dust jacket of a book the person wrote. There is no copyright notice for the photograph. My presumption is that the photograph is in the public domain. Is that correct? If I use a scan of this photo do I have to mention it is in the public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashikom (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding #2: Photographs or other faithful reproductions of 2-dimensional artworks carry the copyright of the original artwork. So, if you take a picture of a public-domain painting, your photograph is also in the public domain (assuming your photograph to be simply a picture of the artwork and nothing else).

Regarding #1 & 3 I am not a copyright lawyer, but according to Copyright notice, any work published in the U.S. before 1989, and lacking a copyright notice, is not under copyright protection, so both of these should be in the public domain as well. Please note, however, that all works created after 1989 are, in the U.S., automatically under copyright regardless of whether or not a notice is displayed. The pre-1989 loophole is how lots of screen-shots of old movies end up being used in our articles; while the movies did display a copyright notice, sometimes the trailers did not, making the trailers public domain works. --Jayron32 03:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In general you need to be on the side of caution. Simply saying "personal collection" or "photo album" is not the best idea when uploading images. If you do upload anything try to read Wikipedia:Image use policy and use the format given in the Mini how-to. As for copyright issues - There is a high probability the book is under copyright. For Wikipedia a scan of the books cover could be used in an article about the book, but you can not use the back cover (Or inner sleeve) of a book to illustrate the author. It is suggested to read the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy and it may help to read plain English examples found at Non-free content - Unacceptable uses - Images. Take note of number 9 and 10 on that list of examples. The "pre-1989 loophole" mentioned above is a general comment, obviously a book would not have a copyright notice on every page, nor would a film have a copyright notice on every frame. If the book is from 1963 and carries a copyright than the entire book is under copyright, that includes the cover(s). A scan of any part of that book could only be used under a claim of fair use.

In regards to the studio portrait and the image of the painting I would use caution simply because the author (Artist who painted it) of the painting, or their family, may still own copyright on it and many studios retain copyright on their images. It would help if there was a paper trail - a contract saying it was a work for hire for example, or a proof sheet for all the photos or the negatives. I know someone is reading this slapping their head thinking "Oh come on!", but it is very true. I like to tell the story about a little song most everyone knows and just assumes it is PD - "Happy Birthday". The music is from the late 1800's and the song itself was copyrighted in the 1930's. It is still under copyright and if somebody wanted to use it/sing it they need to pay for it's use. All I am saying is to use caution if you are unsure, and as you are asking here it means you are unsure. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but they said the painting was from pre-1920, all works created in the U.S. from prior to 1923 are public domain. The Happy Birthday issue is a red herring, since its lyrics date from after that year. If the painting was from prior to 1923, it is in the public domain, and any photograph or scan or digital reproduction of the painting itself would also be so. You may very well be right to be leary on the other two examples, but I think the painting may be in the clear. --Jayron32 04:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For the dust jacket photo, it's possible the copyright notice for the book might apply to the dust jacket too, in which case the copyright is probably still in force. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Image Copyright Question regarding book cover

I have a book cover of a book to be released in March 2011. The image is from the publisher in a .png file and is used on Amazon and their own website, Zondervan. I'm not sure what copyright tag to use. File:Revised Dangerous Church Cover.png

Thanks in advance for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyGod7 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless the copyright holder releases the image under s free licence, it is still a non-free image and must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria which also means there must be a completed fair use rationale in the file. Non-free book covers are usually not permitted in author articles without critical commentary about the cover itself, which is where you placed it, but in articles about the book itself per WP:NFCI & WP:NFC#UUI. For these reasons I am nominating it for deletion but you may be able to get permission from the copyright, in which case you should follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. Soundvisions1 has added the proper licence to the image. ww2censor (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

copyright status of this image: File:My Lai massacre.jpg

What do the experts think about the copyright status of this image: File:My Lai massacre.jpg?

I note the description says:

Image is arguably in the public domain. Otherwise, is included as fair use

This is quite unsatisfying. If it does qualify for fair use, it should not be on Commons, should not be present on user pages, and the usage on article pages needs to be examined to make sure it is in compliance. Obviously, if it really is public domain, none of those concerns apply. The photographer has a Wikipedia page Ronald L. Haeberle and has asserted ownership of the copyright. Obviously that assertion isn't controlling, but if Wikipedia is going to insist that it does qualify as public domain, we need to be right. We care about the copyright status in all cases, but when a photograph has been sold, thereby establishing existence of commercial value, we need to be especially diligent.

I don't know whether the facts of the situation support the claim of PD or of the photographer, but I know that regulars in this forum have considerable experience in this area, so I'd like to make sure that the image either clearly qualifies as PD, or if not, we take the appropriate action.--SPhilbrickT 20:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been some discussion about this at a Commons deletion discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It occurred to me that it might have been discussed, but I looked on the talk pages of articles where is was included, which also included some concerns, but I didn't know about the page you listed. If the issue is settled, shouldn't the page reflect that? It currently is wishy-washy, leading to my question.--SPhilbrickT 21:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree it's wishy-washy. Maybe the Commons file info page should be edited to link to the CDR discussion? – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on recent uploads

I am showing the below note on all of the images I have uploaded. They are for gernal use and no copyright infrictions. Please tell me what tag I need to use? Also, the images on the page I am designing show a red X in the corner instead of the image, I am assuming it is because they are cited wrong, correct? This image does not have a copyright tag. Copyright tagging is required in order to provide a consistent way to identify the copyright status of images, and to allow for automated classification of images. This template should be replaced with the appropriate copyright tag. Failure to tag an image may lead to its deletion. If you have any questions please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaporation Expert (talk • contribs)

I have reviewed your uploads. Its a little unclear where these pictures have come from. If you created the pictures yourself and have clear rights to the pictures, they need to be uploaded with a Wikipedia-compatable lisence OR released into the public domain. If these are not pictures you created, then they may not be eligible for uploading or use at Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Help:Files for some more info. --Jayron32 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How do I get an non free, fair use logo image into a document as the copyright owner, after I have uploaded it using the image link from within the document? Cwestllc (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Cwestllc (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)