Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ephery (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 1 December 2010 (→‎on Robert Gaudino Image: 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)


    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

    The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory website disclaimer regarding copyright status reads:

    LLNL-authored documents including, but not limited to, articles, photographs, drawings, and other information subsisting in text, images, and/or other media, are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required.

    So are LLNL works copyrighted or PD?Smallman12q (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think copyrighted. What it seems to be saying is that the Federal government acquires the copyrights produced by LLNL in the course of its work. The Federal government may acquire copyrights, and once it does, it's just like any other copyright holder.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't the acquired works then be eligible under {{PD-USGov-DOE}}? There's a discussion at Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE#Note on this template but it seems dated.Smallman12q (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can tell, no - it appears to me to be an assertion of copyright and does not suggest that the license to the US government extends into a general public domain license. Only the named party (the US government) seems to retain a right to republish these documents. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It looks like the US has bought, en masse, copyrights to everything the lab produces. When the US does that, it stands in the place of the lab when it comes to copyright. The example I always give on this page is official portraits of Supreme Court justices, the government doesn't take photos of them itself, it allows the justices to hire someone and then the government contracts with the photographer, and the US then owns the rights and controls distribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec w. Wehwalt) My understanding is that if a US governmnet department hires a photographer onto the payroll, and sends him out to take pictures, the law requires that these are PD (same for the text on the website) and no copyright can be created. However if the department funds/sponsors/commissions an agency to do a piece of work, the department may have bought the copyright in the work, or the grant agreement may specify that the department is allowed to use the copyright work. In both cases a copyright exists, and the US government is not prohibited from holding copyrights, only from creating them using public funds (there's a principle here I suspect) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Elen: As a lawyer, I try to use words carefully. I said "the government contracts with the photographer". An independent contractor is a whole other ballgame. He is not an employee, does not get a ten percent discount at Holiday Inn, and the government can buy his rights and then stand in his shoes. Which I think is what is going on here. Sorry about the lecture. So, basically what you said is correct. I'm sure there are volumes written on the policy reasons for the distinction.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who may not fully understand the distinction from your explanation, I'll note that holding a license does not make you the copyright holder. For instance, we grant Wikipedia license to our contributions, but we remain the copyright holders. As set out at Bitlaw: "A license (or more properly "an express license") is an agreement where the copyright owner maintains its ownership of the rights involved, but allows a third party to exercise some or all of those rights without fear of a copyright infringement suit. A license will be preferred over an assignment of rights where the copyright holder wishes to maintain some ownership over the rights, or wishes to exercise continuing control over how the third party uses the copyright holder's rights." Cf. [1] Unless there is other language elsewhere, it does not seem that rights have been transferred through purchase; the copyright holder remains LLC, but because of their sponsorships the Feds have non-exclusive authorization to use or license the material for government purposes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    -If that's the case, then there are quite a few mis-licensed images. I have brought the matter up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#.7B.7BPD-USGov-DOE.7D.7D_Laboratory_image_use.Smallman12q (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of people label based on wishful thinking, I'm afraid. I've done it myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a sad truth and is made difficult because there seems to be a reluctance to delete on Commons, or at least that is what I have experienced. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/US government portraits is a classic example of when does a contractee become an employee. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not a government work, and the LLNL employees are not federal employees. The contract between DOE and the manager of LLNL governs whether DOE becomes the copyright holder or just a licensee. For example, DOE contracted with Commerce Clearinghouse to publish the official reports of DOE and FERC. In fact, the federal government paid CCH per keystroke for the editing, printing and x number of copies. However, CCH resold the same series and even placed a copyright notice on its private edition, which was otherwise identical to the one generated under its DOE contract. Similarly, West Publishing prints a number of court cases from various states. They don't really hold the copyright in the court opinion, but they claim the copyright in the page numbering and citations. Racepacket (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Kristian Berg Harpviken.JPG

    I have been asked to provide the source of this image. However, it belongs to my employer, and I am mandated to make it public domain (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License attribute added to the file page. Not sure how to proceed. Could you please give me a hint what to do to avoid deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halber (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to provide us with verification of the permission from the copyright holder. You can do that by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION but you may also want to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials as well as WP:CONSENT. Please be aware that you may have a conflict of interest and in that regard you should be aware of the guidelines of WP:COI. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for deleting the post. I just realised that I am uncomfortable with making public where I work, and hence removed the post. With regards to the CoI, I see the point, but believe I have provided neutral information, and apart from one page, all the work I have done on pages related to my employer amounts to expanding or updating. If you see the need for reviewing my edits, please do so. That being said: thanks for the response regarding the copyright question. I found the whole process confusing, but a declaration of consent is now sent by email for the image in question. Halber (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyrighted song on PD DVD

    I've obtained a PD video of the 1969 Inaugural from the Nixon library on DVD (Government employees took it to make a 30 minute public information film about the Inaugural). On the clip I want to use, however, showing the theme float, you can hear the people on the float singing the Inaugural theme, which I know was copyrighted then though I doubt it's been heard of since January 1969. Am I OK using the clip, or not? I guess I could mute the audio track somehow if necessary. The point of having this is for the video, the article is "Bring Us Together" if anyone is interested.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The legal copyright status for audio works is a mess. In general, if I record a copyrighted song being performed, then my video is a derivative work of the original song and is subject to copyright. That's true, even if the video is not itself copyrighted. I guess it would matter whether the audio performance is an incidental sound (merely a small portion, and not intended to be a duplication) or whether it's a reproduction of a large percentage of the song. – Quadell (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The song is played for 42 seconds, the final 12 seconds of which the commentator talks over it. I believe the full song is somewhat longer, but that probably showed the entire portion that was sung while parading down Pennsylvania, it is difficult to say, the audio is not wonderful and you can't tell if it was spliced. Isn't there also a thirty-second rule for song fragments?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this in relation to uploading the clip here as fair use because of the audio? If so the same 10 criteria would need to be met. The bigger question as I am reading it, why is the audio is important? It seems as though you want to use the visual portion "showing the theme float" correct? Or will this be used in an article about "the Inaugural theme?" They are two different things. Can they go hand in hand? (Never mind - I see you added the name of the article) Yes but you also mention "the commentator talks over it" which brings another element into the overall question. While the clip itself (visuals only) may be in PD the audio may not be and I gather you already understand that - so the question is really what your use is for? There is a really great "comic" that was put together several years ago to help filmmakers (and other artists) get a basic grasp of fair use and copyright law. Tales from the Public Domain: BOUND BY LAW?, If you have never seen it I highly recommend it. EDIT: Now that I see the article in question I the use of a short piece of the audio (minus the commentary) fits into the same concept as 'Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm.', which was a case that brought into play use of about 15 seconds of a campaign song in a campaign ad. Because only a few seconds of the song was used, and because part of the commentary in the ad was about the campaign song, it was ruled it met fair use. This is slightly different than the 'Jackson Browne V. John McCain' lawsuit, although there is a good read in an analysis of the case called THE SINGER DID NOT APPROVE THIS MESSAGE, which also cites the 'Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm.' case by saying the District Court of New Hampshire found fair use when one-twelfth of a song was used in a campaign ad; however, the court found the small amount used relevant only to the extent that it affected the market for or value of the song. But remember Wikipedia is a lot more strict that U.S Copyright law in regards to fair use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cut it down so the song only plays for a few seconds; File:Bring Us Together video.ogv. The article is "Bring Us Together" The audio is unimportant to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) See above. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather the song wasn't there. The only point to the video is to show the girl in the Inaugural Parade (and Nixon's reaction, though it is hard to say anything much about that). It seems better to have the audio track than silence, but I'd settle for silence rather than lose that video, which I am proud of getting.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I use this photo?

    Can this photo be added to the photos at Wikipedia Commons? If the answer is "yes", would you please do it? I am not lazy, I just do not have enough computer knowledge to do it. http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00071359+MCC-1359 Thanks Gandydancer (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the full record page for the image it was taken before 1923, so yes, it is now in the public domain. You can make a request at the commons:Commons:Help desk. ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's that simple. My understanding is that a photograph would have to be PUBLISHED before 1923, not just taken before that time. The site itself states "Copyright and Permissions: All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright © protected and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees. We require that all images be credited to the Denver Public Library, Western History Collection. Please refer to the price list for commercial and private use, listed below." --Quartermaster (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Free Images

    In the WP:AfD sections, there is a link next to the article's name that says free images. Clicking that link takes you to Google Images. Am I right in saying that the images on Google Images are not, by and large, free images? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Google also may know that the image is free for commercial use, or free to modify. The free image search limits the results to these. But you are right that most images returned in the basic Google image search are not free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so there's some kind of search filter in place? Would it be advisable to bookmark that page and search for any images I might need on there? Would I need to check copyright myself, or could I trust the search filter? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Google advanced search, you can filter the search but you have to be sensible about deciding if an image is really free because Google only gives results based on the licence provided by the image page or image itself. Here are two stamp images [2] and [3] that Google found using the "labeled for commercial reuse with modification" filter and shows them to be freely licenced. However, the Frank Sinatra stamp is definitely copyright of the USPS because all post-1978 stamps are copyright, per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#United States and the other is a photo of a 2009 poster produced by the Royal Mail taken by a Getty photographer who released it with a free licence but it is a derivative work, so it too is most likely copyright. You still need to check the copyright claimed is valid, some are obviously wrong, other copyright licences look false and of course other are proper, so use caution. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Gary_larson_school.jpg

    Just asking for assistance on the NFCC of the above image.

    I uploaded it, and completed a Non-free media use rationale, and it's now being disputed[4], but as far as I can see the rationale is valid.

    Anyway - can anybody help? thanks. a_man_alone (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Photographs

    A post earlier about stamps being copyright got me thinking. If something is in the public domain, and is readily visible to people, but is copyrighted, then could someone upload a photo? For example, stamps after 1978 are copyright in the US; but what if I took a photo of one any uploaded it? The same goes for trademarks. Say I took a photo of a can of Pepsi, could I upload the photo? The reason I ask is that I know you are allowed to watch and photograph people (be it for security surveillance, for a psychological experiment, or for a newspaper) if they are in a place where they would reasonable expect to be seen by the public. So taking a photo of someone in a shopping mall is fine, but through their bathroom window is not! How does this apply to photos of copyrighted things? — Fly by Night (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Taking a photo of a stamp or logo is making a derivative, and a good image will not be adding anything, so you will not have added any copyright to the original. Displaying a logo in public does not give away the rights to reproduce it. A person is not a work or art and so has no copyright in their own image. (unless there was some body art or tattoo). Privacy issues are separate to copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking it a step further - you can take a picture of, say, your dining room and if there is a can of Pepsi on the table it is still fine for you to license your photo of your dining room. However if someone came along and cropped your photo to show *only* the can of Pepsi that derivative work would not be ok, even if your license terms allow for derivatives to be made. You don't own the design of the Pepsi can or the logos/artwork/graphics on that can so you can not legally re-license it. Same goes for anything else - think of it as, in the digital age, making a copy of a digital file. Just because you made a 1:1 copy does not imply any transfer of copyright from the original copyright holder to you. And, as Graeme said, privacy issues are another issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure the etiquette for US Government images

    Oops! I added File:EGRID subregion map.gif (my first uploaded image) without using the copyright template. It was flagged.

    The image was downloaded off an EPA web site (cited in the description), and I have also seen it in documents generated by the EPA. So was pretty sure the image would be legitimate to use.

    I just added the PD-USGov-EPA template. Was it OK to do this? Does that template need to be added from somebody in the US government? Or perhaps I need some more authoritative source? Am I supposed to somehow attach the cite for the source of the document to the template?

    I did not remove the di-no license template because I have these questions. But I will remove it if all is OK now. M.boli (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Martyn Godfrey image needed

    Hi! I think a picture is needed for the deceased author's article named Martyn Godfrey. Would it be ok to use this image from this link: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/g/martyn-godfrey/ Please let me know. Thank you.Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not an easy question to answer. You should know the source of the image first of all, and by "source" I don't mean the website you link to above. I mean where did that website get it? Is it a crop from a larger image? What is the copyright status of the original work? For example I also find the same image here as well as here that is credited to "School Services of Canada", so it may well have been a publicity image that was sent out by a publisher, or one provided by the author. If that was/is the case you could use it via the {{non-free promotional}} tag with a FUR that explains how the image meets all 10 of the criteria found at the Non-free content criteria policy. It is important that you read Wikipedia:Image use policy and understand why it is important to follow what the Adding images section says. And I know that this person is deceased however the question will always arise with a fairly recent death of if there is a possibility that anyone took a "free" photo of him when he was active and 2000, when, he passed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Tour Eiffel Citroen.jpg

    Why is this image tagged as public domain? As far as I can tell, its author is unknown and hence the usual arithmetic of author's date of death plus 70 years is not applicable. Considering the picture was taken in 1925, it is well possible its author lived beyond 1940. Thoughts? Madcynic (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a file from commons: I agree that it seems dubious to suggest it is in the public domain, you should raise it in a deletion discussion on commons rather than here. Ajbpearce (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Image of Edward Popham

    I am currently expanding the article on Edward Popham. There is an image of him on the National Maritime Museum which says the image is for sale. This image must have been made several hundred years ago & has been scanned from a book "History of England" but I'm able to clearly identify when the book was published. If the image &/or book it was published in are out of copyright how can the museum say the image is copyright & would it be OK to copy the image and use it on his wikipedia article?— Rod talk 10:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They are claiming copyright in the image as a derivative work, in common with practises at several other british museums (see National Portrait Gallery copyright dispute). However, the view of wikipedia and the WMF has always been that such a position is not tenable and that "a simple reproductive photograph of a two-dimensional artwork does not give rise to a new copyright on the photograph." (see also Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp) You should therefore feel free to use the scan taken from the book in the article; and it can be considered public domain. You should upload the image using the PD-ART image tag. Ajbpearce (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've uploaded it to commons at Edward Popham.jpg but could you check I've got all the tags in the right places as the "public domain - art" seems to appear twice.— Rod talk 11:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Images from Bureau of Prisons Website

    At least eight images have been copied from the BOP website:

    Unlike other government website that are very careful about identifying the source of their photos, BOP is relatively silent on who took those photos and whether the photographer retained any rights in them. It is not stated whether the photos were taken in the course of the photographer's employment by BOP. I have sent an email to the Department of Justice asking about this but have not received a response. Could we adopt a policy as to whether it is proper to download photos from the BOP website and then upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The BOP is an agency of the Department of justice, and includes a link to the department of justice legal policy, which includes a public domain declaration. I would have thought that this was sufficient as a declaration that those photo's were in the public domain and generated by the BOP? This seems more straightforward than the national laboratories discussion above. Ajbpearce (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have followed a number of these controversies, and the BOP is an unusual sloppy case. BOP does link to DOJ disclaimer which "apply only to the Department of Justice site" and not to all Department of Justice sites. So it is not clear whether the BOP website was ever reviewed by a lawyer, and what it intended by the disclaimer. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am disappointed that this user may be pursuing this as a matter of retaliation as there as been an ongoing discussion regarding these photos at Talk:Chandra Levy#Bureau of Prisons photo. I pre-emptively pursued a discussion at image copyright help here and at commons to make sure I was proceeding appropriately regarding images from federal government websites. Then deletion requests were posted by anonymous IP 66.173.140.100, timed so that the GA reviewer would direct the removal of files that had previously been in the article. As this is a novel method of gaming the system that I had not encountered before, I am concerned that there may be a breach of good faith here. KimChee (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC) / 15:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • - Well, wikipedia does take copyright issues very seriously and there does seem to be a doubt as to the licensing status of these pictures, so it is better we get it absolutely correct. I gather someone has contracted them and asked them the question, I am in favor regarding copyright of, if in doubt, keep it out. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is interesting that both image copyright help and commons expressed concerns with the course of action -- uploading BOP photos without doing the work necessary to determine their copyright status--which resulted in the photographs listed here. Perhaps this is a case of WP:HEAR? Also note that unlike the legal policy link on the BOP website which goes to the DOJ disclaimer, the Privacy Policy link on the BOP website, goes to a separate BOP specific page that describes the BOP website as being separate from the DOJ website. Racepacket (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spoke with Ann Diskell who handles BOP photo permissions and releases. She reports that in general, the photos posted on the BOP website are government photos, but it is possible that some are not. Each facility controls its own website, so she does not know the source of the photos of each facility posted on each of those pages. When people write to her asking for reprint permissions, she will sign a release and generally asked for a photo credit attributing the photo to the Bureau of Prisons. She said that she knew that File:Federal Bureau of Prisons Central office.jpg was taken by a government employee and is not copyrighted. Racepacket (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The solution to this is simple: Assume that the BOP photos are taken by the government unless you have evidence to the contrary. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it make more sense for the person who wants to upload a photo that was taken from a website to stop and figure out whether that particular photo is copyrighted or not? If the website clearly indicated one way or the other, that would be easy. But here we have quite a confused mess. Alternatively, if the person seeking to upload the file to Wikipedia was willing to indemnify Wikipedia and anyone else who later uses the image from any future copyright claims, I guess we could "assume" that the files were just fine. I suggest we get this straightened out. Racepacket (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the website as a whole is a work of the U.S. Federal Government, so it is reasonable to think that the components of the website (the HTML, the text, and the pictures) are also works of the feds. If the picture truly was taken by a third party, the U.S. Government would have to take care to identify the picture (i.e. this pic was taken by Joe so-and-so). It would be the fault of the U.S. Government for failing to identify the copyright holder. We can say "feds, you put it on your website, and we saw no information to the contrary, so we have every reason to believe that it is your work" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that the foundations position is the opposite to Whisper to me's comment. Its like an addition in content, it is not that the addition-er has a claim to add it, if it is disputed then it is up to the person that desires to add it to show how it is suitable, this is compounded when it is a claim of freely distributing to the public domain the content on another organizations website. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But are there reasonable grounds to make the dispute? I elaborated on why we must make the assumption above. There is no evidence that a third party photographed these pictures, and because they are featured on a USGov website, we must assume that they are works of the USGov; if they are third party works, the US Government would take care to post identifying information; if they don't, that is their fault. By appearing on a USGov website with no contrary information we have every reason to state "This image is a work of a United States Department of Justice employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties." Racepacket asked us to consider whether a government contractor did the work. If this was the case, the website would state this as such, as it would have to do so. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct (to Off2riorob before the insertion). The upload must read the template and make sure that the facts stated in the template apply. For example, {{PD-USGov-DOJ}} requires you to state the photo is the work of "a United States Department of Justice employee, taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties." (BOP is a subsidiary agency of DOJ, so this is the closest template.) Racepacket (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded above. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggesting that it is their fault if they haven't made it clear is not a very strong claim of public domain and not one I would legally want to claim in a court of law. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, generally if anything that is a product of a USGov employee is in the public domain (that claim is not in dispute), then it is the role of the U.S. government to differentiate what is PD and what is not. It is reasonable for a user of a USGov website to assume that content on it is PD unless the US government makes it very clear that this specific content is not PD.
    So when dealing with content on USGov websites we need the "innocent until proven guilty" mentality. Our job is to make sure that the websites do not have evidence that the content is from a third party (a contractor, someone else, etc.). But if such evidence does not exist, then we assume it's PD.
    It would be irresponsible for the third parties to not demand for the addition of copyright information, and it would be irresponsible for the USGov to not clearly indicate which content is not PD.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading more of what is above... Here's how to settle this.
    We should compile the contacts for each BOP facility, and the contacts will be able to tell us if the photos were taken by a third party.
    If we get a response saying that the photo is copyrighted (and from a third party), then we e-mail the BOP asking them to add a photo credit and delete the photo off of the Wikimedia servers.
    Each BOP facility has a dedicated e-mail address in its "Contact" page.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an easier alternative. Free Use is a bit of an "in your face" approach. The uploader is saying "I have investigated this, and I declare to the world that nobody out there has any copyrights in this image." However, Fair Use is more conservative. It is saying, "even if somehow there is a copyright out there, the way that I am using it in this Wikipedia article would not infringe that right." I think that most of WhisperToMe's uses of the images would qualify as a fair use. You are writing an article about a prison and the infobox shows the prison so that people will recognize it. If you were to upload the images to en.wikipedia and include a fair use rationale template, the problem would be solved for those prison article. However, people would not be able to use the images to "decorate" random articles that have little to do with the prison. Racepacket (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No sorry, re-read WP:NFCC - we can't use fair-use images where a free image could be created that would serve the same purpose. I think we must reluctantly conclude that, as the BOP does not seem to have considered copyright/ the needs of wikipedia when creating its website - and so cannot say with certainty whether images are free or not, that absent a specific public domain declaration from the BOP, we can't use these images on wikipedia. Ajbpearce (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, since we have the contact information for all of the BOP units, and we know that the BOP has an obligation to differentiate what is PD and what isn't.. it will no longer "not seem to have considered copyright/ the needs of wikipedia when creating its website" after a few well-placed e-mails that will get to the bottom of things. I am now awaiting responses that indicate which units have images that are not PD. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree; the obligation of the BoP is to run the prison system. Beyond mug shots, we do not know they have any experience in photography, and it is entirely a reasonable possibility that they would contract out. This means that it would be an acquired copyright, and the feds stand in the place of the photographer for purposes of copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The BOP refers to the DOJ legal policies. The USDOJ says: http://www.justice.gov/legalpolicies.htm "Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission." - This is presumed to apply to the BOP site in addition to the main DOJ site. The DOJ copyright notice doesn't say "Watch out as pictures are taken by other people and are therefore copyrighted!!!" - If these copyrighted photos are a significant factor in the website, the DOJ has a responsibility to indicate where they are copyrighted and make a note of it in the general copyright notice.
    Also it is common to see government agencies use their own employee photographers, including military and civilian agencies.
    I have already sent out the e-mails inquiring about copyright status, and I will send more. In receipt of any e-mails saying "Oh yes, this is copyrighted" I will ask them to indicate the copyright on the photo and on the USDOJ copyright disclaimer
    WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes? So? That disclaimer does not say anything about the website's content; it is a general statement of copyright law. It tells us nothing about what on the website is and is not generated by DOJ. And please, if you say they "have an obligation", be so good as to point out the relevant statute or regulation.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "It tells us nothing about what on the website is and is not generated by DOJ." The DOJ didn't generate the very copyright statement on its own website? How do you know this?
    A copyright statement ought to be taken at face value. It ought to be a general statement of everything we need to know about the website's copyright.
    "so good as to point out the relevant statute or regulation." - It is a moral obligation. An obligation doesn't have to be under law. It is not ethical to have a copyright statement that doesn't warn people "Hey, this website has some copyrighted information that is NOT public domain like most things are"
    The beginning of this discussion indicates very reason why this is under dispute is because of a deficiency in the BOP's reporting of the copyright status. The copyright status should be straightforward and clear. Apparently in this case it isn't.
    The BOP understands this is an issue, so now it is working with us to resolve all of the copyright disputes.
    WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WhisperToMe, you have asked for help here, we are trying to help, please listen. I simply noted that the DoJ disclaimer does not address what on their website is PD, since we do not know what is DoJ-generated and what is not. We cannot go with an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, anyone seeking to use material should be cautious on copyright status, that way no one gets sued. The government does use photo contractors from time to time, I often give the example of official portraits of Supreme Court justices. When I did the Scalia article, I could not use either of the two official portraits he has had, as they were not done by government employees, but rather by contractor; the government purchased all rights and now controls them. The Court was willing to have them on WP with conditions; those conditions ran against our policies therefore we did not use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay - My point was that if the DoJ does not sufficiently address what is PD on its website and what isn't PD on its website, then it needs to begin doing so.
    At the moment we will have to ask the DoJ about every image on its website and we will have to take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach. However this becomes aggravating as they will have to respond to constant requests asking "Hey, did you take that picture?" and editors will have to take time out to send those messages.
    I get the fact that the USGov does use contractors. But my bone of contention is that the USDOJ disclaimer in this case does not warn people about this, and that content from contractors is not clearly indicated. Racepacket had said above that "I have followed a number of these controversies, and the BOP is an unusual sloppy case." The problem is that the USDOJ does not clearly warn people that this is the case.
    I understand that we want to avoid legal trouble and that all uploaders need to take care that a particular image had the correct copyright. But at the same time government agencies need to be crystal clear on their copyright statuses so that our jobs as Wikipedia editors and image uploaders are made easier, and their jobs are made easier (as they don't have to respond to a battery of questions about image licensing).
    Consider this copyright disclaimer: The State of California Department of Corrections says here: "In general, information presented on this web site, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by law. However, the State does make use of copyrighted data (e.g., photographs) which may require additional permissions prior to your use." - This does two things: it establishes that most content on the site is PD, but some material is not, and it also states that the state will give a heads up on whether a piece of material is copyrighted
    WhisperToMe (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person I spoke with at the Bureau of Prisons Public Affairs Office seemed cooperative. I think that she would give us an answer on specific images on her website just as she did on the photo of 320 First Street. It would be best if our request listed the specific images that we want to copy from the bop.gov website, and we would get an answer as to whether they were Federal Government works. In response to Ajbpearce, WP:NFCC does not control this situation. If the only image we have of a prison is one of dubious status, we can claim fair use on that image. Wikipedia does not expect us to travel around the country taking our own photos of each federal prison. But if a free image is available, such as File:Federal Home Loan Bank Board Building.jpg, we should use that instead of File:Federal Bureau of Prisons Central office.jpg, which may not be. My suggestion to WhisperToMe is to use the questionable material under a fair use claim, rather than assuming that it is free content. Racepacket (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good. I'll be happy to collect a series of links to all BOP images on Wikimedia servers, so you can send them to your contact.
      • Fair use can be possible IF we are prohibited from taking a representative photograph of the particular facilities. If a representative photograph can be taken, then equivalent fair use images cannot be used.
      • WhisperToMe (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is what we have: We should say that we want to "copy" these images, and we'll get an answer for them: BOP images on Wikimedia of prisons

    Also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supermax_prison,_Florence_Colorado.jpg states that the BOP is the author, although the image was printed from the Miami Herald website (which credits the BOP)

    I would also like to inquire on the status of the new MDC Guaynabo image at http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/gua/index.jsp WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any quick way to translate those into URLs from the bop.gov website? Racepacket (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - Lemme match the URL to the image. Done. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The point about fair use if photography is prohibited may not be correct. I would suggest consulting User:Fasach Nua, who is the expert I consult in that area when questions arise.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the translations. I am working on wording the inquiry. Racepacket (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, contractor photography is a common problem. I worked for the Federal Government years ago, and was involved in some construction matters. My agency's files had many photographs documenting facility construction, and few photos were taken by Federal employees. Most were taken by the architecture/engineering/construction firms. I can see how if a new prision is built, the architects and construction contractors would take photos and share them with the BOP central office. It would be less likely for a BOP employee to spontaneously have the urge to photograph the prison building for the website and/or files. Racepacket (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dilly

    Hi. The band Band of Horses have recently become the first band to release a music video via the movie website IMDb. The video, for the song "Dilly", was accompanied by a poster which was created to promote the video. The poster appeared on Band of Horses website and some other news websites. Can i upload a scaled down version of the poster and use it as a thumbnail to accompany the paragraph about this event on the main Band of Horses wikipage? Thanks. Iangurteen (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds it could be a fair use. It would be best for text in your paragraph to also talk about the poster. You also have to make sure that all the criteria for fair use are satisfied, including that it aids comprehension of the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To add slightly to Graeme's reply, if the poster is just being used for decoration, as opposed to illustrating some critical commentary in the article, then it will fail the non-free content criteria. Most importantly, under any fair-use claim you must justify its use by providing a good "Purpose for use". The bottom line often comes down to the question, does the lack of a non-free image detrimentally affect the user's understanding of the topic in question that could just as well be explained with prose alone. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg

    This file probably needs moving to Commons. We seem to have permission of some kind from Barbara F. McManus, Co-Director of the copyright holding body, though perhaps not the clearest. This was in 2006 and our standards have probably changed. The question emailed was:

    "I am writing to you as requested, to ask permission to use your image of bestiarii in the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia" (en.wikipedia.org), to illustrate the article on bestiarii. The image is linked at (link). Wikipedia is non commercial, however it is conceivable that some articles may appear in print, or in a DVD or other version, in future, and third parties may use Wikipedia content for purposes outside Wikipedia's control. Would you be willing to allow use of this specific image, for this purpose? If so, could you please visit the following web page, and confirm this is in order, giving a name and position, so that others in future may be sure we asked properly."

    The response was: "I added the permission statement"; also "Photo of bestiarii courtesy of the VRoma Project". here.

    Comments on the need to update this? FT2 (Talk | email) 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • - I wouldn't move that to Commons with a IP talkpage assertion. If she wants to release it under a commons license and she alone has that authority then she needs to contact OTRS and get checked out and verified. Until then it needs a fair use rationale. It can't go to commons even if you accept the statements she has made as it is not freely available for third party use, or perhaps I am reading that wrong, anyways her statement is unclear and doesn't make it clear what commons license she is attempting to release it under. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, in the absence of unambiguous free licensing, the fair use option isn't an option either: it's clearly replaceable, so there's no way this would be legitimate under NFCC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hadn't considered the fair use possibilities. If there is no acceptable fair use rationale then, its on its way towards deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simple answer: email the photographer again asking for clear permission and forward to OTRS. If the photographer does not respond, delete the file. (I am assuming that the artwork depicted was originally made a long time ago and is now PD, so fair use does not apply.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    picture copyright issue - please remove!!!

    I uploaded a picture for the "Leonard E. H. Williams" article but now I am having a second guessing (and cold shivers) for any possible copyright issue. The family gave me green light but I could stumble on a Crown copyright and then it might be trouble. I urge any admin who has a minute to spare to drop by and erase the picture. At least until I have cleared up the subject. regards to all. File:Williams3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hollow Man2010 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 29 November 2010

    I have added the {{db-author}} template to the image so it gets deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nestor Vladimir Portillo /OPA

    From a pro soccer player to bodybuilder in Ontario Canada after a full achilles rupture .[[5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.7.132 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving/copying images from commons to en.wiki

    There are several photos of modern toys and dolls now on commons that sooner or later will end up deleted as derivative works. Many of them could be moved to en.wiki and used here under fair use. But I have no idea how to go about properly moving them while reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it. I asked on commons but there doesn't seem to be an established procedure in place. Any ideas how to go about doing this would be most appreciated. Thank you. Siawase (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestion would be to make sure these image meet all 10 of the required criteria in the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. Part of this is that that image should also meet the Wikipedia:Image use policy. The first issue I see is that "reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it" must be retained in order to meet the Requirements and Adding images sections of the policy. See also the Fair use images section. If the files in question are all Derivative works you should look at File:Pepsicup.jpg for an example of how to do it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that is exactly what I'm wondering about. Any idea how I technically go about moving/copying images to en.wiki while "reliably preserving the data documenting when and by who and under which license the photographer originally uploaded it"? I could just download the image from commons and upload it again on en.wiki and link back to the original commons image page, but once that is deleted the license data is no longer available, and can no longer be verified. The only thing I can think of is preserving each commons image page on archive.org but that seems incredibly clunky. Any ideas? Siawase (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one the overall issues when moving around files. I just want to clarify something to make sure we are both on the same page. For Wikipedia "author" and "Source" are meant to be the original author and source. In your scenario you are saying/asking about linking "back to the original commons image page", but that is not what is really needed. If the files at Wikimedia Commons give the original author and original source you just need to move *that* information over. Back linking to Wikimedia may tell people where *you* got it, but if the file will be, as you suggest, deleted there, it would do nothing to verify the actual license and source. That would lead to a {{di-no source}} tag being added, even to a fair use file. (See NFCC#4 - Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. And NFCC#10 - Image description page - Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value.) Without any links to actual files I can't really be more specific, that is why I suggested reading Adding images as a good starting point. Beyond that, I know about Commons Helper but I have not heard about a reverse tool. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I use public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale?

    I would like to know if the public domain images fro, de Commons Wikimedia can be used on handmade itens for resale? Many thanks Silvia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.115.127 (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If an item is truly in the public domain, the answer is an unqualified yes. The problem is determining if something is truly in the public domain. Even though the item is in the Wikimedia Commons, that is not an ironclad guarantee of its status. Could you specify which items you're considering? It's easier to give advice about specific images than to make a broad generalization. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)There is not one blanket answer of "yes" or "no" that will work. I say that because your question is not specific in regards to any one certain file. In general Public domain means there is no copyright at all, but a lot of Wikipedia and Wikimedia users mistake "free" as "public domain", which is not accurate. Not everything distributed by Wikimedia Commons is public domain, but everything is supposed to be "free". A few specific examples - it has become fairly common for registered trademarks to be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons as "public domain" or "no copyright", however you could not place that trademark on an item for sale if it implied that the item was actually a product of the company that owns the trademark. Another type of specific are files licensed via a CCL where moral rights, including attribution, are part of the licensing terms. If you were to use one of these images on a product for sale *without* required attribution it could result in issues. (To see how somehting like this has affected a rather large Wiki project read the German Federal Archives won't extend collaboration with Wikimedia article in a recent Signpost. Part of which is that users are not following the license terms of attribution such as the case of a vendor who had offered 104 of the images as "vintage postcards" in a militaria marketplace, the Bundesarchiv had him excluded from that marketplace and charged him 4,000 euros in fees.) So the best answer, without any specifics, it to say you need to take each file and clearly understand what the terms of use are. Also keeping in mind such things as Derivative works, De minimis, Freedom of panorama and moral rights and personality rights. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    About using public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale- II

    Thanks for your answer. The images I am talking about are posted at Commons Wikimedia with a clear notice regarding public domain, like ( here goes a copy paste) "This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years" Mostly botanical illustrations and 1900 fashion illustrations. Is this enough to consider the image in public domain? Thank you so much again. Silvia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.115.127 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    But *what* is that image? Can you provide a link? Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    About using public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale- LINKS

    (see #Can I use public domain images from Commons Wikimedia on handmade itens for resale?) – ukexpat (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, here goes the links of some of the images I intend to use as part of my designs:

    THANKS A LOT Silvia

    A cursory inspection indicates that these are probably in the public domain since they were all stated as having been clearly published before 1923 (in most cases, WELL before then). Note that neither I nor the Wikimedia foundation can warrant if this is absolutely so (read this Wikimedia Commons disclaimer). To be absolutely airtight about the status of the images, you would probably have to obtain copies of the sources from whence the images were derived. The larger your financial stake in re-using these images and profiting (nothing wrong with that) the more diligent you should be in verifying the copyright status of those images. It's all about risk-benefit analysis. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting images

    How do I delete an image that has not been placed into an actual article yet but rather only uploaded to a page?PREMIS2010 (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Image I am trying to delete is : File:Illuminator Image.JPG if someone can delete it please PREMIS2010 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. File:Illuminator Image.JPG has been deleted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the right license for File:Mmix.png?

    What's the right license for File:Mmix.png? {Non-free with permission} seems sort of right, except there was no restriction that it be wikipedia only. Ariel. (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    One of the easiest things would be to have them place a notice on the source page. However it would be best to use one of the acceptable free licenses. If it is really {{non-free with permission}} it also needs to meet the Non-free content criteria policy and would require a FUR. Permission is always the first choice, but currently what you have on the image is not good enough. Aside from what I already said you can read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for more detailed information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    3 Image Questions

    1) Provided a suitable rationale is provided, is this a suitable image for the Perry Como statue?

    Perry Como - Musician Statues on Waymarking.com
    Perry Como Statue

    Waymarking Terms of Use

    3. License to Use Site; Restrictions
    6. License to Use Submissions

    2) Is it ever permissible to use a portion of a magazine cover when the subject of the article is not the magazine?

    3) Under what conditions can screen captures from TV shows or movies be used?

    Thanks!

    We hope (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I use this?

    (NOTE: See also Commons:Questionable Flickr images that lists this Flikr account as containing "images from various non-free agencies and magazines" Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    [6] seems to have been uploaded by the genuine author, but I'm not sure. Can I have a second opinion, please? Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you can upload that image. We recommend you upload it here. Click the "image from Flickr" choice. License it with Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 (CC-BY-SA-2.0) and fill out everything else appropriately (source, author, etc.). Jsayre64 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he can't - see below. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)No, you can not use it here. The image was taken by Kevin Winter and is being sold via Getty Images. Glad you asked however because had you uploaded it first it would have been speedied as a copyvio. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Chicago Fabulous Blog should be asked to change the licensing on the Flickr image to "copyright" to avoid giving the impression that the image is a free use one. Yeah, it's definitely a mislabeled copyrighted image. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (In reply to this) No, I doubt it is an "honest" mistake as all the images I have looked at are "licensed" the same but they are all from different sources. For example this was taken by Johnny Nunez. This is clearly watermarked and says "Photo by Nigel D". This one was taken by John Parra. And this one was taken by Theo Wargo. That is just a simple look. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see that Getty Images thing. Sorry. Now the copyright is being held by Getty Images. So even though the Flickr version was created first, you can no longer upload that image to Wikipedia, right? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not fully the reason - see my reply above. That Flikr account is clearly hosting other peoples work, which based on the users name, could mean they may be purchasing images from Getty and other sources to use on their "blog." Even so they can not re-license them as they do not own the copyright. In general material from commercial content providers is not allowed on Wikipedia, even under claims of Fair use for various reasons. One of the biggest being our "free" use fails "respect for commercial opportunities". Also I don't see where "the Flickr version was created first" - The image was taken at the MTV music awards on September 12. The Flickr account says "onstage during the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards at NOKIA Theatre L.A. LIVE on September 12, 2010 in Los Angeles, California" and Getty says "LOS ANGELES, CA - SEPTEMBER 12: Usher performs onstage during the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards at NOKIA Theatre L.A. LIVE on September 12, 2010 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images)" (and as an aside - not all images are vague in their sources - see this one which actually syas "(Photo by Michael Loccisano/WireImage for Verizon)") Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks guys. I know about uploading to commons, and usually use [7] to do so. I have often been caught out by these sorts of images, and it smelt a bit suspicious, so I thought I'd ask first. Oh well. Thanks again! Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems like a classic case of Flickr washing, so it is good to see editors are carefully checking Flickr uploads. There are many false licences which may be due to ignorance of copyrights or on purpose. ww2censor (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Would this be a fair-use image?

    A Wikipedia biographical article would benefit from an image of the subject. Seeing as the person died in 1998, could I use his photo which I downloaded into my PC from this BBC site: [8] It is highly unlikely that an image will become available in the future, so can this be considered fair-use? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we are really talking about "non-free use" as opposed to "fair use". If you can satisfy all the non-free use criteria then yes, it can be uploaded and used. – ukexpat (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Choosing the correct image tag

    The photograph in question has been given to me by the son of the person to whom the photograph was originally given by Jane Carr herself, hence the handwritten information on the lower front of the photograph.

    I am not sure where to find the correct place to add details of the license status of the image, and your instructions do not seem entirely clear. I shall look forward to receive further instructions.

    One of the main reasons for wishing to include details of this lady on Wikipedia is that she was one of the first, if not the first person to appear on a British television transmission, through assisting John Logie Baird.

    It is unfortunate that there is another actress by the name of Jane Carr, and I am inclined to think that using dates to differentiate the two would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelhendry (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Without knowing anything I can say that no free license license currently meets has been given to me by the son of the person to whom the photograph was originally given by Jane Carr herself. In order to use an image such as that Wikipedia needs permission from the *original* source/author - which seems to be vague, but the closest might be "Jane Carr herself". If the image is *of* Jane Carr than she would need to also establish if she owns the copyright on the the image, and, if so, how she obtained it. (i.e - she hired a photographer via a "work for hire" contract to take photos of her). Unfortunately an image given to you by someone who got it from someone else who got it from someone else is never going to pass as a valid permission. Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for more detailed information on how to proceed.
    NOTE: I am guessing you mean File:JaneCarr1943.jpg? I have tagged it as {{di-no permission}} as "Ron Wall, son of original recipient" and "I own the original" are not valid permissions because the "original" (As in negative, not a print) would belong to either the photographer or Jane Carr. As she has died if the copyright was owned by her it would have passed to a family member. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    on Robert Gaudino Image

    I received a notification about this image. I added a Non-free use rationale to the file. Have I done enough to prevent the file from being deleted? If so, could someone remove the warning? If not, what do I need to do? David.Kane (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=399953026"