Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NK97 (talk | contribs) at 05:36, 17 July 2012 (new topic). 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)


    book reviews and copyright

    File:Gunsnroses002.jpg

    Could you transfer on Commons? It consists of simple geometric shapes and text.--79.32.156.121 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikimedia Commons does not accept fair use justifications: see Commons:fair use. Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted either. So, unfortunately, no, it can't be transferred to commons. Braincricket (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the IP has a point. But it is hard to tell if there is some sort of design in the background. Does {{PD-textlogo}} apply? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be right about {{PD-textlogo}}. It does look like there's something abstract expressionist in the background, though. And the art community seems to think Barnett Newman's paintings have crossed the threshold of originality, so I don't know. Actually, I only responded because I thought this was cut-and-dry based on the current licensing of the photo. I'm going to defer to more experienced editors. Regards. Braincricket (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some more looking it appears that the circle we can see in the image is just an imprint of the record. See this one which is just clean black. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    More importantly, it's not clean black, but it has non-black bits elsewhere from what this one does. Even better evidence to show that the non-black is a scanning artifact. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and tagged it with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just undid my edit, but I realized the image might be eligible for deletion. We don't have enough information to determine who owns the image. No source or author was given. If this was taken from somewhere on the internet, wouldn't the image be copyrightable even though the album is not? That would make this eligible for deletion under {{Di-replaceable fair use}}, correct? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding PD images to EN WP vs. commons

    I've posed a number of copyright questions to the Commons village pump, but there is little response. Assuming that there is no resulting clarification about some informally disputed deletions, am I allowed to instead upload the images to the English WP, naturally using valid licensing? Although most of the images deleted there are of U.S. origin and clearly PD here, some editors in the Commons prefer to go by the strictest international interpretations, and either ignore or minimize U.S. copyright law. In one such image, for example, the admin cited what they thought were EU rules, simply brushing off the U.S. law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as copyright is concerned: if an image is public domain in the US, it may be uploaded locally regardless of its copyright status anywhere else. Just bear in mind that the scope of commons is broader then en. Files uploaded locally should typically be uploaded with the intent to use them in a at least one specific article/page. You may also want to tag them so they aren't copied back to commons and deleted. Monty845 01:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The images would probably deleted here as well as the only proof for the {{PD-US-no notice}} license is your vague description and claim of publicity photo without copyright notice without providing sufficient evidence for this claim. --Denniss (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many comparable publicity pictures' description pages have been updated with reliable sourcing for the PD status of the entire class of image, so if the images deleted at Commons were uploaded here, they would not be subject to deletion. Do you have access to copies of these images that could be uploaded here? Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean me, I mostly have only the final cropped image which overwrote the original uncropped images showing borders and sometimes the reverse side, ie. this one, I'm trying to salvage. But I don't have any of the original description text and source links as they were summarily deleted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The images I deleted at Commons just had a vague statement that they are publicity images issued by studios together with a link to a site explaining the copyright situation. What they failed to have was the option to verify this claim as copyright notices may have been on the back or in the cropped-out borders. That's why many of these images uploaded to Commons under this special copyright excemption have been uploaded with an image showing the back of the photo in question to ensure there was no sufficient notice or none at all. --Denniss (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly: this image, for example, had both the front and back, since it was one where there was a film description included on the back side. I believe that most, if not all the images you summarily deleted showed the full uncropped border in the original uploaded photo. I typically crop out and clean up images and re-upload them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for noting, "for the record," my previous errors, ie. the "Life magazine" one: discussed here. What is also worth "noting for the record," is that I explained the error when discovered:
    "I think I found out the source of the problem. The online search for "Life magazine" showed all their issues and renewal dates beginning in 1985 through the present. However, a search for just the word "Life" showed up the rest, once you go through 1,350 records, most of which are only called "Life", but not related to the magazine. Whoda thought? I naturally assumed the first search found all the ones renewed. I'm also aware that Life magazine stopped publishing a number of times and apparently starting up again recently, and thought that might have been related.
    "FWIW, this matter could have been dealt with in a cleaner way. Without a renewal, the image would have been PD. So rather than all this bad faith attitude and innuendo being posted first, why didn't someone just find the renewal, post it, and say how they found it." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that it may distress you, but it's important to note that there are reasons for your uploads to be suspect. This is not a matter of some arbitrary content removal on Commons which should be remedied by moving the content here without further review. You have, unfortunately, uploaded content on both projects that do not meet copyright requirements. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you implying that the back of every photo is required, regardless of any actual copyright search? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the photo: File:George Maharis 1975.jpg. It would take more research to determine copyright (or public domain) status. Copyright status = Public domain status, right? --George Ho (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it would. But that assumes the online source scanned and uploaded the back of the photo, making a search unnecessary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue being pointed out is that when you, Wikiwatcher1, specifically are the uploader, due to past issues with copyright and uploads, that the AGF assumption can't apply, and they are expecting that if you do upload a image with the claim "no printed copyright" you provide the front and back to show that it is true. On the other hand, a user that has an established history of uploading images without problems, the statement "no copyright found on back of photo" will likely not trip any issues, though certainly it can't hurt to upload the reverse of the photo to prove themselves correct. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The search is necessary; see 1909 Act. Under old Act, a photographer can correct mistakes, and other copies might have had copyright notices. Unfortunately, no registration is done to notify mistakes. --George Ho (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Old photograph published in recent book

    I thought I'd get some advice on an image before uploading. I want to scan a higher quality image for an article on Paulding Farnham I'm working on (still in sandbox) to replace a poor quality but PD image. The image was published in 2000 as part of John Loring's book on Farnham, but the picture is of Farnham's 1889 exhibitor's photo ID pass for the Paris Exposition Universelle (the photo [1]). Is this old photo regarded as a previously unpublished/private collection photo or since it technically was exhibited in 1889 can it be uploaded? No author is credited in book and I assume the picture was taken in France or in the US shortly before the Exposition. Froggerlaura ribbit 20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Back of photo copyright notices

    Although I've never seen one, there have been a number of deletion requests today for images like this one, based on the rationale: ". A copyright notice could have been placed on the back of the photo."

    Another one so tagged, here, is typical in that it has all the relevant details, including the name of the film and studio on the front. The only information printed on the reverse of such obvious publicity photos that I've come across are film details, as in this example. Hence, a new rule is possibly being created, as already noted on my earlier question relating to the Commons, which is repeatedly deleting such images that don't also show the back.

    In any case, these tags, based on such "remote possibilities," would, IMO, fly in the face of logic and the established law, besides the common use of such star "publicity photos," as noted in film still. It would actually imply an industry-wide oxymoronic marketing system, where studios spend millions to photograph stars to give away in press kits to get them free exposure, while at the same time sticking a copyright notice on them to make sure they are not copied without permission or payment first. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If the question is valid and there is no clear answer, maybe someone can try to slow down the multiple deletion requests pending based on that rationale until there is some consensus, at least in the EN/WP. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In such cases baring any other evidence (eg other examples that show the copyright is frequently printed on the back), I would work under the assumption of good faith that the uploader is not lying about the nature of the image, and thus the evidence that the back lacks copyright is not required. That might not fly on commons where absolute proof of free-ness is generally necessary, but I can us using that on en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the user already has had lots of images deleted on Commons for exactly the same reason. See Commons:User talk:Denniss#Verification requested for multiple images deleted without recourse for details. When the uploader learnt that Commons doesn't want copyright problems, it seems that the user tried to export the copyright problems to English Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, rather than continue to export the images to Commons, which defers to the strictest "possible" international interpretation, I asked above ("Adding PD images to EN WP vs. commons"), if I could simply keep them here so at least EN/WP users can benefit.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's wrong to mention this, please delete my post. We hope (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how a copyright notice has to prevent redistribution or require payment. Remember we generally disallow such promotional photographs nowadays when the copyright clearly hasn't expired because we're aware although the copyright holder may allow redistribution to some extent, they may not necessarily follow the conditions of a free licence, e.g. they may not allow all possible derivatives and possibly even some forms of commercial use. In other words, I don't see why you think a copyright notice could have been printed which allowed redistribution. How likely this is I don't know. As for Masem's comment, I may be willing to AGF if it was actually a matter of lying. But I'm confused, if the uploader has access to the original photo, can't they just upload the back? If they don't actually have access to the original photo, then I don't see it's a matter of lying, the uploader may simply be unaware. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyright during the Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies

    What country's copyright would apply to works published in the Dutch East Indies (modern Indonesia) during the Japanese occupation (1942-1945)? If Japanese or Indonesian, visual works from this period would be public domain, but if Dutch law applied works would possibly still be copyrighted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it normal to wait this long for OTRS?

    I wasn't sure whether to ask this at the OTRS noticeboard or here, but ultimately decided here. According to File:PNHP poster.jpg, the file was expecting OTRS permission in November 2011. Despite this, if I understand the OTRS ticket numbering properly, nothing was received until February 2012 and that didn't actually confirm the copyright status so we're still waiting for evidence of permission now. Is this normal? I note that the image copyright info is confusing. It has a CC-by-SA 2.0 tag yet under permissions it says 'promotional; free to distribute' which doesn't sound like a clear cut case of CC-by-SA or for that matter a free licence. Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not permitted to reveal the specific details, but I can share the general sequence.
    An email was received at OTRS in February with a statement of permission. However, as is often the case, the permission did not use the prescribed format. Even in those cases, if the permissions statement is clear enough, we can process it. In this case, the permission statement was not sufficient and OTRS agent sent a response, in February with a boilerplate response telling them what was needed, and providing a ink to suggested wording. No further communication has occurred.
    It would only be my speculation, but one possibility is that the recipient glanced at the boilerplate and thought it was an acknowledgment, rather than a statement that it wasn't sufficient. The item is marked closed, meaning we are waiting for them, but they may not realize this.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to suggest a note to the uploader, but I see the uploader is blocked, so that doesn't sound helpful.SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass deletion on Commons

    Not sure if this is the best place to post, but I wanted to warn that there is a copyright review in progress on Commons which will result in the deletion of probably 95% of the tens of thousands of files to be reviewed. The review is necessary due to a recent German court case, where it was decided that § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG only applies for literary works (Sprachwerke) and not for works of the visual arts (Werke der bildenden Kunst), which means a number of Commons PD templates are no longer correct. This review is being done via commons:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/German stamps review, and files are being placed temporarily in commons:Category:German stamps review delete. As the largest fair use project, it would make sense for English Wikipedia to try to "rescue" files that need to be deleted for use on a fair use basis here (other fair use projects can then copy from here later on). Is there any good way to organise this?

    Also, although most of the affected files on Commons originally came from German Wikipedia, there are some English Wikipedia PD templates affected by the same ruling. I've found {{PD-German Empire stamps}} and {{East German Post}} (both now invalid; not in use by any files right now) and {{PD-GermanGov}} (still valid for some uses but not all the ones we thought; about a dozen transclusions). There's also {{PD-Coa-Germany}} which I'm not sure about. Rd232 talk 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My reading would say that unless they fall into the PD via age, we (at en.wiki) would also be treating these as non-free. If that is the case, we should see if its possible to get a list of which images are used in en.wiki - hopefully small - and do as you say, rescue those that are being used, though I would say to rescue them first, then ask questions if they truly meet the NFCC later. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have proposed the stamp templates for deletion since they aren't used for any files anyway, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 10. Commons requires files to be both {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (or {{PD-URAA}}) and {{PD-old-70}}, but English Wikipedia doesn't have the {{PD-old-70}} requirement, so it might also be possible to save some files that way. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Boerse stuttgart logo.png

    I uploaded this image a while ago as non-free with a rationale. Does it meet the threshold of originality required for copyright protection, or is it a PD textlogo? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say it likely fails originality, thus could be tagged PD. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged it so. Perhaps it should be transferred to Commons and a higher resolution version be created. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 16:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Transferred a file from the German Wikipedia to Commons, (see Wikipedia:Help desk#Transferring PD textlogo file to Commons) and that one is now being used in the article, as it is of superior quality compared to this file. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Minecraft 1.2.5 Title Screen - from Commons.png and all Minecraft related images

    Would a full fair use really be necessary? It just seems like overkill, since the Mojang EULA says this: "You may create, use and distribute videos of you playing or using our Game for any lawful reason provided that you don't make any money from them." Which says that this is is for non-commercial use only.

    But then also this: "You may also make money using videos and screen-shots if it is covered by so called “fair dealing” or “fair use” exceptions to copyright, such as where it is for criticism and review, reporting current affairs etc. In each case, you will still need to add appropriate additional content and credits where applicable." Which puts the page as it is now.

    BUT THEN ALSO this: "..so feel free to make requests – and if you are unsure about anything you may or may not do, don't do it unless you get an OK from us first." and this: "In addition to the specifics set out below, where we do allow you to do something you will always need to add a credit as follows: Minecraft ®/TM & © 2009-2012 Mojang / Notch" Which would get the image probably deleted since it doesn't have that notice.

    So what would be the fate of all of the Minecraft images? Delete or fair use? Longbyte1 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    They're basically non-free images (the language used does not put them into a license compatible with CC-BY-SA.) They need to be used within reason and meet NFCC. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What a move from Mojang. I thought they'd allow their screenshots to be used freely with attribution. Longbyte1 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically it is this line: "You may also make money using videos and screen-shots if it is covered by so called “fair dealing” or “fair use” exceptions to copyright" that causes the problem. CC-BY-SA stipulates that as long as attribution is provided, any type of reuse can be done (monetary or not) regardless if it would be under fair use or not. Again, this is not saying we can't use Minecraft screenshots, just that they would be treated and handled as NFCC. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Legendarium.jpg

    Is this book cover really copyrightable? It's not an artistic dust jacket but it consists merely of plain typefaces and a unicolour background. I'd say we don't need a fair use rationale for this one but could tag it with {{PD-text}} instead. De728631 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, so I have moved it to Commons. Although Tolkien was British, this appears to be a US book, so we don't need to bother about any {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} stuff. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot! De728631 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    95 years after publication URAA

    Cornell's website says that the URAA (i.e. files currently in the public domain in their source country, but were not in 1996) made the copyright term 95 years after publication. Thus I was expecting to find a tag which says that the file is a foreign work and 95 years have passed since publication. Is there one? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Before Copyright Act of 1998, the term was 75 years, and all other foreign works made before 1923 have expired. You can search works that were previously published before 1923. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain further? Which term? Also template:PD-1923-abroad (deprecated on commons) suggests that files between 1909 and 1923 might be problematic - which they wouldn't be if there was a 75 year rule. I have a book by John Buchan (died 1940), published in 1909. What would the correct licence be? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all terms, including of URAA, before Extension. As for the Buchan book from 1909, the book is out of copyright, obviously, because it was published before 1923. The pictures included in this book must be out of copyright since 1984 in the US, as well. You must, as well, upload this to Commons. As for licensing, in Commons, PD-1923 and PD-1996. As for the author, he died in 1940, so it is out of copyright in UK (and Canada) because rules are, respectively, 70 years in UK (and 50 years in Canada) after death. --George Ho (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, if text-only, then scan and upload everything to Project Gutenberg website, or copy all text to Wikisource. --George Ho (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "obviously, because it was published before 1923"? It was published in the UK? Why have the PD-1923-abroad template then? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PD-1923 applies also to "Works published outside the U.S. before 1923, except possibly in the 9th Circuit, then before July 1, 1909. PD-US-1923-abroad is specifically for the English Wikipedia whose servers are located in the US, so such images may be not be used outside the Unites States when the work is still copyrighted elsewhere. Commons, however, serves all Wikimedia projects worldwide, so a work must also be public domain in its country of origin. That's why there is no PD-US-1923-abroad over there. De728631 (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand how this all works in general, I've uploaded plenty of works in the past. But as we know, the URAA may have returned foreign works that were in the public domain in the US to copyright. I know the file is PD in the UK inow, but it wasn't in 1996. Thus it was one of the caught files by the URAA. So our answer must come from the URAA, which is a 95 year after publication point. Where am I going wrong? We don't seem to have the right templates in place. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cornell exempts pre-1923 works from the URAA, fine – is this a flat basis? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a tag should not have a use before circa 2019, because the works published before 1923 generally get one of the PD-1923 tags. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    About the 1909-1922 problem: there is some theory that publications outside the United States, and in a language other than English, don't count as "publications". Some examples:

    • Let's say that a book was published in French in France in 1910, and it was later published in English in the United States in 1911. According to this theory, United States law says that the first publication of this book was in 1911. Thus, according to this theory, the copyright expired 75 years after 1911, not 75 years after 1910.
    • Let's say that a book was published in French in France in 1910 and that it hasn't been published anywhere since then. According to this theory, the book is currently unpublished, so it may still be copyrighted in the United States, since the copyright term for unpublished books is either life+70 years or creation+120 years.

    There was some case where a US court said that this theory is possible in some parts of the United States, but possibly not in other parts of the United States. The general assumption on Wikipedia and on Commons is that this theory doesn't apply and that all works published before 1923 are in the public domain, regardless of where they were published. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Grandiose, what language is that 1909 book? --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    English. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First published in English, right? Not any other language? What title? --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, only in the UK and I don't believe the US within 30 days (it's a history of Brasenose College, Oxford). But I've pretty much answered my question; the only part really remaining is why pre-1923 (or possibly 1909, a separate issue) works don't fall under the URAA. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Copyright Act, in its URAA-related provisions, attributes to those works that were published outside of the U.S. the same copyright term that applies to the works published in the U.S. that complied with all the copyright formalities (notices, renewals) that were required by the U.S. Copyright Act [2]. It does not attribute to those works a longer copyright term than that. Such works published in the U.S. with copyright notice and renewal have a copyright term of 95 years after publication, unless they were published before 1923 [3]. So, the same term applies to the works that have a copyright "restored" by the URAA-related provisions. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of a book cover and/or frontispiece

    Autobiography of a Yogi was first published in the US in 1946. It was written by Paramahansa Yogananda, who died in 1952. There was a court case around 2000 concerning copyright issues. Some people in a discussion consider it to be public domain.

    If we want to use an image of the book's cover or frontispiece, what licence would be applicable? Thanks - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the court concluded that "With regard to Yogananda's writings and spoken lectures, we hold that the works are not works for hire or the works of a corporate body, so that the common law copyrights did not vest in the church as a matter of law. We hold that there are triable issues with regard to the purported assignments and remand for further proceedings on those issues. We also hold that there is a triable issue regarding whether some of the photographs involved in this appeal were works for hire." I.e. photos of Yogananda taken by other persons are still likely to be copyrighted and if they are used on book covers, the safe way would be a fair use rationale. However, there is already File:Autobiography of a Yogi Current Book Cover.jpg so I for one don't see a need to add another cover image to any related article unless it is strikingly different from the one above. De728631 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue appears to be that the image to which you link is that of a recent edition produced by an advocacy group, whereas the original edition was not. In other words, we are unnecessarily/unwittingly promotional. Furthermore, it is claimed that the edition whose cover is being depicted contains substantial text changes from that of 1946, allegedly because the advocacy group wishes to portray things in a certain manner. I have no idea if these claims are true and, of course, this is one of those "pseudo-religion" articles where all sorts of fireworks can happen. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification: my query relates to use of an image from 1946, not a more recent edition. - Sitush (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help on adding a non-free image of Sam Malone

    Yes, this person is a fictional character. However, I have trouble finding an infobox image that truly represents a fictional character. Photo 1, Photo 2, and Photo 3 are surpassed by a free image of Ted Danson, already used in Casting section. Any other image? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Manliness2006.jpg

    Is this image eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a copyright for a film poster that is in a photograph?

    Is the bus film poster seen in this image ([[File:Pride & Prejudice London Bus.jpg]]) copyrighted? A query was raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)/archive1. Thanks in advance for any help. Ruby 2010/2013 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just for future reference, the concept you're looking for is called de mininis; it recognizes that we will sometimes unavoidably capture copyrighted works in photos but the amount, size, or focus of the overall photograph is not set on that work to ignore the issue of the copyright.
    • An example that I know is ok is File:Shibuya tokyo.jpg - while there are the copyrighted posters as ads in the BG, they aren't the focus of the photo and they are small enough to not be easy for reuse, thus the photo is still considered free.
    • The problem in your case is that that photo is clearly focused on the promo ad; the ad is certainly copyright, and the photo is focused on the ad, so that really isn't a "free" photo and should be removed from commons. --MASEM (t) 05:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of quotes for reason - copyvio?

    hello,

    in Polar Music Prize, I use the quotes on the website to indicate the reason of the awarding. Is this acceptable? Regards.--GoPTCN 09:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    Since you attributed the source and marked the quotes as such, this is totally acceptable. See also Wikipedia:Quotations. De728631 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Regards.--GoPTCN 13:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo of 1st century text

    Is a photo of a 1st century CE handwritten text under copyright? The image is in the British Library collection, here [4] , and the British Library claims copyright on the image. It would be useful on the Birch bark manuscript and Gandhāran Buddhist Texts articles. First Light (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That is more a photograph of the scroll as a material object than a reproduction of the immaterial work inscribed on it. I think that photo would not be accepted on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. First Light (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncyclopedia

    File:UnclopediaOnWP.JPG - As the website is under a CC license (namely, BY NC SA 2.5), this image should use the appropriate template. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We treat creative commons material with a no commercial use restriction as non-free content. See WP:NONCOM for details. Monty845 02:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Paint 7.png

    (copied from a previous discussion at Village Dump): Except for the image being created in the application, shouldn't the screenshot be semi-free; therefore we can use {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}}? (I mean, if the drawing's original, then it would be a CC drawing.) 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Logo IG-Port.jpg

    Does this image pass the threshold of originality for copyright protection? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that the brushstroke lettering appears to be only that and not an attempt to create something artistic in the negative space or overall, I would argue it fails originality (as there are plenty of brushstroke fonts one can get). --MASEM (t) 17:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    However, see Commons:COM:SIG#Japan. It says that calligraphy is copyrightable in Japan, so the logo might be unfree in the source country. The lettering is taken from File:Production I.G Logo.jpg and that image can't be {{PD-Japan-organization}} yet. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point: I would thus play it safe and consider non-free. --MASEM (t) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    My Copyright and Wikipedia

    I'm a digital artist and I wish to help Wikipedia by providing illustrations (which I'm capable of doing) to any articles that are in need. But I have a concern relating to the copyright of such an image. Would that image still be under my copyright? NK (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=502745418"