Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ctalbeck (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 21 August 2011 (→‎logo file deleted (CSD F5: Orphaned non-free media): 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)


    Suspiciuous uploads

    Resolved
     – All at PUF, strong consensus for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know quite where to put this.

    Over the course of about a year, user Christian Adrian uploaded images from (in reverse chronological order): Sony CYBERSHOT, Canon PowerShot A430, Canon PowerShot A530, Panasonic DMC-FX8, NIKON D70, and Canon PowerShot A95 cameras. Half of his images had those in their metadata, the other half had no metadara.

    I find the whole affair suspicious, but I wanted to double check with everyone else before going any further. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You know what? After reading through User talk:Cristian Adrian, I think that it might just be best to delete all of this user's uploads as copyright violations. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nominated them all for PUF here. – Quadell (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Quadell. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Image permission grant to Wikipedia

    Is it possible for the author to give specific permission to Wikipedia for use of his photo even though he wishes to retain commercial rights with respect to users other than Wikipedia? Thank you. Steve Harnish (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, not really. I mean, they can, but it has no real effect on how we use an image here. In fact, it's a speedy deletion criteria (see Wikipedia:CSD#F3). If they wish to retain commercial rights, we'd have to treat the image as non-free, and it would have to comply with WP:NFCC in all respects. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to what Hammersoft said, if you want for Wikipedia to use an image that you hold the copyright to, you'll have to license that image under a "free license" that allows anyone (not just Wikipedia) to reuse the image for any reason (including modifications and commercial reuse). The reason is, Wikipedia is founded on free content, and we want to encourage material to be licensed so that it can be freely used by anyone. By holding to this principle, we've helped bring many thousands of images into free use that would otherwise be restricted.
    But there is an option that authors use. If you release your photograph under the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license, you still retain the copyright. You give anyone the right to use the image, but only under certain restrictions. For one thing, they have to credit you as the author. For another, any work they make using your image, they have to release under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license as well. So, for instance, if I wanted to use your photo in a book I publish, I would have to release my book under the cc-by-sa-3.0 license in order to do so, or else I would have to negotiate a separate agreement with you. Most publishers are not willing to do this, of course, so they prefer to purchase a separate license from the photographer. See this for more information. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the CC-BY-SA option, I believe re-users do not have to release their entire work under the same license if it is just a collection of independent works (e.g. a photo gallery, or a compendium of encyclopedia articles). It is only when their work is an adaptation of a CC-BY-SA work that the share-alike clause takes effect. See definitions 1(a) and 1(b) and clauses 3(a) and 4(a) here for more details. --Avenue (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Does taking figures and diagrams from academic papers count as fair use?

    Are you allowed to take figures from academic papers (as long as you cite them)? Most of the most reputable figures for science articles come from academic journal articles. I know that this definitely counts as fair use in the publishing world. Academic papers routinely take figures from other papers. Can you do this on Wikipedia?Rppeabody (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, it isn't considered fair use even. No one is entitled to ownership of facts.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you can copy facts. Just be careful that you don't copy the way those facts are presented. What I mean is, all the data in a chart would be factual and not subject to copyright, but some aspects of the chart itself might be subject to copyright. For instance, the colors and thicknesses of the lines, the way sections of a pie chart are labeled, the background color, etc., could all be "creative" choices subject to copyright. Very simple charts, such as chemical diagrams, are probably fine. But for anything more complicated, it's necessary to create new charts based on the underlying data to make sure we don't violate copyright on these details. – Quadell (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I work on articles on long-extinct plants. It's useful to have an illustration of a reconstruction of the form of the plant. As Rppeabody says, scientific papers simply copy these illustrations from one another. Where the images are complex, I have uploaded low resolution versions to Wikipedia, claiming "fair use" – see e.g. the image in Psilophyton. This approach was agreed in an earlier discussion here. Where the images are 'diagrammatic', I have redrawn them – see e.g. the image in Aarabia. So my answer would be:
    • Figures and diagrams which can be re-drawn from the original data or verbal description should be handled in this way, being careful not to copy the original figure, but to create a new one from the data/description.
    • A low resolution version of an image which cannot be re-drawn from the original data or description (generally because in effect the image is the description) has in the past been agreed to be fair use, with a rationale of the form "Very difficult to correctly reproduce a scientifically valid [insert type of image] other than by copying." Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, thanks everyone. So basically, in this case, as long as it's fair use under the law, it's acceptable. Out of curiosity, can anyone explain the situations in which you can't use images, even when they qualify as fair use under the law (i.e. ESA images)?Rppeabody (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    For Wikipedia use have you read WP:NFCC which lists the criteria for use here? Wikipedia is much more restrictive than the law. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nanoarchaeum image

    I'm worried that File:Urzwerg.jpg may be mistakenly labelled as public domain. The description page says it is public domain due to its age, but the organism depicted was only discovered in 2002. I found a higher resolution version of the picture in this article, so I'm afraid it may be the likely non-free source. My German is not good enough to tell for sure. I hope the picture can still be used under a non-free license because it is a superb illustration of the subject. --CyHawk (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops, the article actually claims the image to be public domain. If that is true we could grab the higher resolution version. --CyHawk (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it needs to have the correct PD tag. Does the source say why it's in the public domain? – Quadell (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. But it identifies the source as Karl Stetter, its discoverer: "Es wurde von dem Mikrobiologen Karl O. Stetter entdeckt. Bildrechte: Public domain." So it may be from his 2002 Nature article. Access to the article costs $32 but the author may have released the image separately as well... --CyHawk (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the image description page on Commons. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    File:GordonHaddonClark.jpg

    I was notitifed that File:GordonHaddonClark.jpg does not indicate its source, but the page does in fact do so -- John W. Robbins (Clark's literary executor). I have an email (which I think I may have submitted way back when) granting use with attribution of the source, which it has here. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings. Yes, the image description page does say where the image comes from, and that it can be reproduced if the source is attributed. Since you are not the copyright holder, we at Wikipedia will need evidence that the copyright holder allows anyone to reuse the image (not just Wikipedia) for any purpose, including modifications and commercial reuse. Do you have an e-mail from the copyright-holder asserting this? – Quadell (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Where should I send it? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Forward that e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Mention the image's location here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GordonHaddonClark.jpg and on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GordonHaddonClark.jpg
    Meanwhile, I'll tag them as pending confirmation, so they shouldn't get deleted until the permission folks review. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok so my issue is I have an MP3 file up on 4shared of Kyle Landry's Piano solo cover of Alicia Key's "Empire State of Mind". With this It was moved from public access and download because "antipiracy@riaa.com" reported it. With this I wonder if this is allowed? The MP3 is of the piano cover which is still up on youtube and Kyle Landry (The pianist of the cover) has given the ok to keep the MP3's up... so is this type of report allowed? I argued with the 4shared support and they settled on "Unfortunately we can not react on this matter unless RIAA confirm in a written form to us that they agree to have these files back online.".... So is this all allowed? Can I do anything about this? Do I have anything to argue on to get the file back up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.119.118 (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer. —teb728 t c 09:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Images for Blog

    Is it ok if i use pictures from major websites like people.com or instyle.com on my blog? Do i need to credit the site? will i get sued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.20.155 (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact a lawyer. —teb728 t c 07:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Without giving legal advice: Everything on People.com and InStyle.com (like almost everything else you find on the web) is copyrighted – all rights reserved; so no, it's not OK to reuse it. For details see the People.com Terms of Service and the InStyle.com Terms of Service. —teb728 t c 09:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Make a file free?

    I'm looking to make the File:Kisc old campsite.jpg free. Any idea what to add to the file? Thanks ~ Ablaze (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You cannot make a picture, which is under copyright, magically free. However, you may be able to use non-free pictures in Wikipedia articles, so long as they conform to EVERY criteria at WP:NFCC and you can clearly demonstrate using a fair use rationale how it meets those criteria. --Jayron32 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo of sign

    As I was leaving the Beardsley zoo I saw a sign with a history of the zoo. I took a photo of the sign. What is the copyright status of the photo? RJFJR (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you describe it as "a history of the zoo", I'd presume the text of the sign is complex enough to be covered by copyright, making your photo a derivative work. There may be other aspects of the the sign that would also attract copyright, such as layout, designs or logos, but the text alone would probably be enough to mean you do not hold exclusive copyright over the photo. --Avenue (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If an illustration is 100+ years old is it Public Domain?

    I want to help illustrate the Wiki page on Alcott House with an image found on the internet.

    http://www.ivu.org/history/england19a/alcott_house.jpg

    I believe that it's been used in various places in magazines and on the internet without it being attributed. Is it OK to upload it and use it on Wikipedia? Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Fray (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If the image was first published (not just created, but published) before 1923, then it is public domain in the United States, and it is safe to upload here at the English language Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is credited to the Wilderspin Papers. Since Samuel Wilderspin died in 1866 (over 100 years ago), you can upload it to Commons and tag it {{PD-Old}}. —teb728 t c 02:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    attribution of 3D art

    i see here "description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear." [1], and here [2]
    however there is a "non free 3D" license and link to sculpture article that names the sculptor.
    how can the copyright status be unclear, when the rationale links to the sculpture article?
    how can it matter who is the copyright holder, if you assert fair use? Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The image description page at File:Crazy-horse-comparison.jpg does say that the photographer releases the photograph under a free license, and that the underlying artwork was created by Korczak Ziółkowski. That's all correct. There is a cc-by license tag for the photograph itself, and a non-free tag for the sculpture, and this is also correct. There is an adequate rationale, and it is used only in an article about this particular work of art. I don't see any problems with this image. – Quadell (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    the article picture was deleted once, and threatened with deletion, because the sculptor was unidentified in the picture description. i went and added the name. however, that will be the last time. i will instead upload "non free 3D art" without the artist's name, because it is not necessary to establish "fair use". Slowking4: 7@1|x 21:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a photograph, showing my late uncle Dr. Paul V. Yoder conducting a Japanese orchestra. I would like to upload it to be included on his page. This photo has been in my family for years. I am unable to determine copyright information on the photo since most of the writing at the bottom of the picture is in Japanese. This writing appears to be a title and date. This text was either on the negative, or added to the photograph when it was printed. How do I determine the copyright so that I can upload it?

    File:X:\Data\Temp\Japanese Text.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldanver (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a few questions that may help figure that out. What is the date on the photograph? Was the photograph taken in Japan? All the best, – Quadell (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Template copying fair-use media

    I've noticed that Template:Vector version available is showing the SVG version of File:CFC logo.jpg at that file's page. Should fair-use images not be transcluded in the template? How could that be fixed? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It needs an (undocumented) nofree=yes parameter. Fixed here. —teb728 t c 10:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Better yet use {{non-free vector version available}} —teb728 t c 10:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we actually need to tag such situations? If they're non-free, only one of the two files should be in use anyway, and the other be marked as orphaned and deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea. I didn't add the tag. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, Fut.Perf. Perhaps the template should be nominated for deletion? – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:non-free vector version available? Sounds like an idea. Is it even used? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's used by the image under discussion, which will soon be deleted. Every image that uses it gets deleted before long. – Quadell (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I nominated the template for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Non-free_vector_version_available. Feel free to comment there, if you wish. – Quadell (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Images for Liverpool Athenaeum

    I should like to use File:Athdining.jpg and File:Athlibrary.jpg in an expanded version of the article, but am not sure about their copyright status. They have been downloaded from the Athenaeum's webside here. They were downloaded by User:Whitewig24 who states he is a trainee barrister (so should know ore about copyright law than I do). However I am not convinced that the Fair Use argument (which is not spelled out) is valid. Advice please. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The uploader, Whitewig, has tagged the images as GFDL and CC-BY-SA. In doing so, he is claiming that he holds the copyright to these photographs, but this is very unlikely. The images are at http://www.theathenaeum.org.uk/ as you point out, and there's no indication there that the images are free. Whitewig has uploaded images from the websites of lots of different clubs, and many have been deleted as copyright violations. He has not edited on Wikipedia since February. I'm going to nominate all his uploads for deletion, since I'm pretty sure they are all copyright violations. (Since these images are non-free, we cannot use them here on Wikipedia. Even if a fair use claim were legally valid, which is doubtful, the images certainly don't pass our criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content.) – Quadell (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I thought that would be the case. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Disputed fair usage, Carly Foulkes image

    Requesting assistance in coming to consensus on use of an image of Carly Foulkes. I uploaded a screen shot of the ubiquitous commercial to the T-Mobile myTouch 4G article under the fair use criteria. Another editor wants to use it on Carly Foulkes, but that seems to be a stretch of the fair use policy. Is this the correct place to raise the issue? Gerardw (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO both uses fail WP:NFCC#1: In the bio it could be replaced by a free photo. In the phone article it could be replaced by the free text already in the article, "an attractive young woman ... in a pink and white dress"; that text needs no illustration for reader understanding. —teb728 t c 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying the Mona Lisa is a "woman in front of a bush." The image has become iconic is the year or so the commercials have been running. There are lots of models in lots of commercials, but as the references on T-Mobile myTouch 4G indicate, the campaign, commercials, and Foulkes have made an impact on American pop culture. The picture illustrates that in a manner a textual description can not, and otherwise meets NFCC criteria (low-res, no free pic available, et. al.) Gerardw (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article isn't about the commercial; it's about the phone. Seeing the woman in an add is not necessary to fully understand the phone. – Quadell (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So if the article is split, the image would be fair use? Gerardw (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fair use" is a legal defense, and it's not relevant. The question is, would it pass our criteria at WP:NFCC. And I doubt it would. Besides, I suspect an article about this commercial would be deleted as non-notable. – Quadell (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's not relevant, what is it doing in the "nutshell" box on WP:NFC, which WP:NFCC says to use? Gerardw (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one of the factors we used to create our NFCC. But at this point, the image has to pass our NFCC, regardless of any fair use claim. I get the feeling you're just being argumentative here. – Quadell (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Clear NFCC violation in both articles.—Kww(talk) 12:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Wikipedia, I recently uploaded my first photo onto wikipedia and received a message regarding my photo's source and copyright. I do understand the importance of copyright and source; however, I am not sure how I should deal with the fact that my father's portrait photo has been in my family's possession for over 60 years and I am not sure we will ever know who took the photo or if there are any copyright restrictions. I suspect there are none, but I can't prove it. Possibly this photo can be considered to be an "image of unknown an unverifiable origin". If this satisfies the copyright and source issue, is this all I need to say? If not, can you provide some direction or language that will be acceptable to wikipedia. shawmjennings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawmjennings (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, I have a couple questions that may help us clear this up. When was the photo made? In what country was the photo made? And has it ever been published (reproduced for the public)? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: It appears the uploader is referring to File:Colonerl Payne Jennings.jpg and File:19th Bomb Group B-29 BUB.jpg. Can anyone tell whether these were created by the U.S. military or not? If so, then there is no problem... – Quadell (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Quadell - the photos were taken late 1950 early 1951. I believe the portrait was taken either on March AFB in Riverside, California or on the Kadena AFB in Okinawa, Japan. The airplane was taken on the Kadena AFB. The portrait photo was used in the newspapers in April 1951. I don't know if the airplane photo was ever used. shawmjennings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawmjennings (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone here with military-photo experience tell me if these photos were created by the U.S. military or not? – Quadell (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Ray Charles Here We Go Again.jpg seems to just be letters can it be copyrighted

    At WT:NFCC there has been discussion as to whether a FUR is necessary for File:Ray Charles Here We Go Again.jpg. It seems to be just a bunch of letters which can not be copyrighted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's {{PD-ineligible}}. – Quadell (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly wouldn't be the one to place that tag on that image, however I wouldn't really argue it either, since neither of the logos on the cover are especially eligible either. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still holding out hope for some sort of consensus. P.S. I am surprised that this is not already a well-resolved issue, since I don't think that this is a very unusual image for cover art.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are trademarks there, but nothing copyrightable, so far as I can tell. – Quadell (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I got the photo from the University of California Archive, and it clearly said Rights:public domain

    Material in the public domain. No restrictions on use.

    The url is http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt238nd17d/?layout=metadata&brand=oac4

    Apparently UC got it from the San Jose Public Library. I am not sure I choose the correct tags. For one thing it is old, and of unknown origin. For another thing it is of a historic building. I have seen this photo used on several TV news programs and other web sites. Most likely it was created before 1923, but it is hard to be absolutely certain.

    I would like to use this photo for an article I am creating on Frenchman's Tower.

    Would someone please check my tags?

    Thanks.Wikfr (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you're referring to File:Frenchman'sTower1910.jpg. I think the {{PD-US}} is correct. {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} probably is not correct, but it doesn't matter: the image if from the US, so US copyright law applies. I've adjusted the tags. – Quadell (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, you gave me the help I needed. I had felt very uncomfortable about my tags. I am new.Wikfr (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I received notification of a potential copyright problem with File:Israeli Telephone White.jpg. I based it upon File:Israeli_telephon_token.jpg uploaded by Jay Hurvitz who uploaded it under GFDL and Share Alike 3.0 allowing for modification. The one change I made was to eliminate the colored background. The original website from which he uploaded does not seem to exist any longer. Template:Money-IL from the commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Money-IL) definitely seems to apply here but I don't know if you can migrate templates. The image in question is of Israeli telephone tokens which have been out of circulation for about 20 years. Please advise on how to proceed.

    Thanks, Valley2city‽ 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps it would have helped if you had noted in the file description that your file was a derivative of a GFDL/CC-BY-SA file on Commons. If the Commons file is free then yours would be too. —teb728 t c 07:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Commons file is File:Israeli telephon token.jpg, and I'd question the licensing on it, also. Owning a token does not give permission to license an image of it under a free license. I'm not familiar with {{Money-IL}}, however, so that may be applicable. I think more input is needed. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help! I have permission but dont know how to show that

    I have permission from the copyright holder of a photo to use it on a wiki page. I am unsure as to how to get the picture uploaded....it was deleted. Kim Alley said it can be filed under the free license and anyone can use it, but i dont know how to set that up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxiemom (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Permission to use on Wikipedia has no meaning to us. We accept images that are released under a free license, such as cc-by-sa. If a given image is not available under a free license (or public domain via some vehicle, such as age), we treat the image as non-free and it must conform to all aspects of our WP:NFCC policy. Permission to use on Wikipedia is in fact a speedy deletion criteria for images (see Wikipedia:CSD#F3). I note that you uploaded File:Kimalley.jpg, and it was deleted under that very same criterion for speedy deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Old family photo

    I have an old family photo from 1909 that I would like to upload for inclusion in a new wikipedia article. Is it OK to do this and if so how should the copyright be described? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Cyprus (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for explaining that. I don't think it could be said that I would be part of the topic; essentially it would be about a person now deceased, who was politically very active 100 years ago and about whom I know something. I have photos and information that others might not have access to because the person was related to my late father. The article would be in the form of a biography and photos might add interest. There would be no reference to anyone living today.

    The photographs were taken in the United Kingdom; I don't know if that is relevant to the rules that apply to copyright issues on Wikipedia.--Johnny Cyprus (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The template for this situation is {{Template:PD-UK-unknown}}. But you do have to make an effort to determine who the copyright owner would be. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pictures of other pictures claimed as PD-self

    I stumbled across User:Dc76/Pictures and Templates a few minutes ago.

    It would seem that most if not all of those are cases of the uploader photographing someone else's work and then releasing it PD-self without a) giving the original source, or b) explaining why the images the uploader photographed are themselves out of copyright.

    I'd advocate toasting the lot of them as copyvios, but I wanted additional opinions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, there's no real information about any of them, and the uploader has been absent since 2009. I hate to say it, but I think all of them should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. – Quadell (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the files I have been able to locate Commons replacements, but that should be done before sending anything to PUF. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

    Please advise on how to tag (or how to create the tag) for this license.

    Specifics of the license can be seen here; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

    Essentially the license allows freedom to;

    -share (copy, distribute and transmit) and adapt the work

    Under the following conditions:

    -Work must be attributed in the manner specified by the author -Work may not be used for commercial purposes -If work is altered, transformed or built-upon it can be distributed only under the same or similar license to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbridecharlesryan (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • CC BY-NC-SA is not compatable with Wikipedia's license, which is CC BY-SA. That is, Wikipedia's license allows commercial reuse, so licenses which do NOT allow it aren't compatable with Wikipedia. --Jayron32 04:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully you can persuade photographer John Gollings to release some or all the photos you uploaded under a free license (including permission for commercial use) like CC-BY-SA. WP:COPYREQ describes the kind of permission required and how he can communicate it to Wikipedia. I am sorry to say that without a free license images can be hosted and used on Wikipedia only under the highly restrictive non-free content policy. —teb728 t c 05:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if the photographer is not happy about releasing images for commercial use, it may be possible for the photographer to release a smaller sized image, say 400 pixels wide, with the cc-by-sa license. This size of image is good for web use by no good for printing. The high quality photo can still be sold for commercial use as only the smaller is released freely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Roulado (Gônaïves)

    The Page should have been called ROULADO GONAVE , NOT "GONAIVES". GONAIVES IS THE 3RD HAITIAN CITY. BUT LA GONAVE IS THE MAIN HAITIAN ADJACENT ISLAND. HOW DO WE DELETE THIS MISTAKE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joneselunico80 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? Does this pertain to images? --Σ talkcontribs 05:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vector-Images.com

    Some years ago, a lot of coats of arms copied from Vector-Images.com were deleted on Commons. COuld someone explain why? If the COA is PD (which is the fact in most country, as their local copyright laws explicitly exclude official publications from copyright protection), then Vector-Images.com can not claim copyright on the vectorisation (which is an example for copyfraud), and the COAs can the kept on Commons. If the COA is not PD (like in some former british colonies), it is in general not possible to have such COAs on Commons, those have to be deleted. At the moment, I am doing some research on the question if a COA is PD or not by checking the local copyright laws. Can someone explain the Vector-Images.com issue?--Antemister (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A coat of arms is based on a description. It can be realised in different representations. So when someone creates an image of a coat of arms they then hold copyright on that new creation. Some of the deleted pictures may well have been images copied from other web sites (such as vector-images.com) rather than created by the uploader. The other alternative is old coat of arms images, which may be used if copyright has expired. Most countries do not exclude official publications from copyright either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the discussion you want to read at Commons is here. Anyway, concur with Graeme. Yes, there is variance in local laws, but that by definition means there's no blanket clause available under which to declare coats of arms to be PD. It's a case by case basis. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, if we want to have a VI.com SVG-COA on Commons, the picture has to be PD and it is exact vectorisation of the "offical" one used by the government (and not "improved" in any way by the VI.com graphists). Is this correct?--Antemister (talk) 11:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Derivative Work issues in photos of AAC aids.

    I have nominated Augmentative and alternative communication to be a Featured Article candidate, and there are some concerns about four of the images of AAC aids. They are all freely-licensed photos hosted on Commons, but concern is whether they are derivative works of the copyrights held by the creators of the aids. (For reference, an image like File:Videogameretaildisplay.jpg is not problematic, since the original copyrighted content is not reproduced in any meaningful way; but if this poster had been under copyright, the photo would be a derivative work.)

    I'm looking for outside opinions. The images under question are these: File:Communication book.jpg, File:Minimo.jpg, File:Gotalk.jpg, and File:VMax.jpg. What should be done? Are they tagged adequately? Should they be copied locally and given an addition non-free tag and rationale? (And what tag would best apply?) Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Simple PD-textlogo question

    If File:The Beatles Rockband Logo.png qualifies, does File:Rock Band logo.svg? Note the latter is an SVG... do vector formats of fonts have different copyright applications from raster formats, or is that just for the actual font file? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't make a difference whether it's a vector format or not. Basically, if creative work of sufficient complexity then it will qualify for copyright protection. Case law has shown that simple typefaces do not qualify. But for one specific logo or another, we're just guessing. The {{PD-ineligible}} or {{Non-free logo}} tags often just represent our best guesses. In my opinion, neither image qualifies for copyright protection. But if there's no good reason to tag them as free, it's probably safer to treat them as non-free logos, just in case. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S., font files are considered small computer programs, and are eligible for patent protection. But that's not related to this case, and it's rather a red herring in most discussions of typefaces and copyright. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I actually want to use the image in List of songs in Lego Rock Band, but no FUR would be applicable. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    upload of painting

    Hello- I wish to upload a jpg of a painting that I purchased at a gallery and own all the rights to. The painting is a self-portrait of Anders Stone and I wish to put it to the artist's page on Wiki. What would be the appropriate tag to use ("free use" etc) to not have it pulled/removed? Thanks in advanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Schlemmer (talk • contribs) 18:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate that you want to help by including this image. Unfortunately, if you did not paint the painting, and the artist did not sign over the copyright to you in writing, the you do not legally own the copyright and can not release it under a free license. The artist could do that, but unless he does so, I'm afraid we can't use the image. – Quadell (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-free contents in lists

    I have read WP:NFLISTS and I believe that I could not include non-free images of specific Nobel laureates in List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. Am I correct or is it allowed in this situation? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You are correct, I'm afraid. – Quadell (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Picture of Government Building

    Can the picture of a government building, posted on the official site can be used as a free content or the one under fair use rationale? Will the photographs of historic monuments or public places, posted on their official website under the gallery section be considered in Public Domain or not? Can we use them?

    I have uploaded File:Rajya Sabha.jpg and File:Lok Sabha.jpg, these are the pictures of the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament of India respectively published on their official sites under the gallery section. Do these pictures violate any terms of usage? Alokagrawal8 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    These two images are copyright and you have uploaded them as non-free images, in which case they must comply with all 10 non-free criteria policy guidelines, however, these images fail #1 because it is possible for someone to take a free image, so they are replaceable. Indian government images are copyright for 60 years per commons:COM:L#India and even though you have not provided a source URL nor a copyright tag either I very much doubt you can prove the images are over 60 years old. ww2censor (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    While writing Cinta Pertama I noticed that one of the posters at Tabloid Bintang's website] comes from a 1932 movie, Zuster Theresia, which was produced in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). Would said poster fall under Indonesian copyright law or Dutch? If Indonesian, it would definitely be PD, if Dutch it might not. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    logo file deleted (CSD F5: Orphaned non-free media)

    My article, "San Francisco Choral Society" has been deleted, apparently because there was some problem with the .jpg file containing the logo (File:San_Francisco_Choral_Society_2011_copyrighted_logo_jpeg.jpg. The logo was created specifically for the chorus. On the upload form I defined the logo as non-free, and I provided the copyright information. What more do I need to have done?

    If this is not the appropriate place to seek help, please let me know how to do so, assuming you can respond to this query based on my logon. I find Wikipedia's help difficult to use, at best. Thanks very much for your help.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=446026612"