Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masem (talk | contribs) at 04:29, 24 October 2013 (→Recent NBC logos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

    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)


    EDUN products

    I am working on this article and this one, can anyone find some free picture in Flickr or somewhere of some of the products by the brand? Like jeans or T-shirts. Any help it's very appreciated. Thank you very much. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadly, there don't seem to be any. But the good news is, clothing designs are not eligible for copyright, so anyone could take a photo of EDUN apparel and release that photo under a free license, without having to worry about whether it's a derivative work or not. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh that's dood. Anybody! If you have some Edun product please take a picture of it :D... Thanks Quadell. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also use the {{Image requested}} tag, but to be honest, it's not often all that effective. – Quadell (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, Quadell, I've seen it doesn't work very often, we still are looking for pictures of Ali hewson, Arthur Fogel, Eve Hewson, and Morleigh Steinberg :( Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 14:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    gregory siff wikipedia

    I added the appropriate tag i thought for the photo but wikipedia keeps saying i have not. i also emailed proof of usage for the photo from its owner. Please help!!!

    {{art things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artthings (talk • contribs) 03:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming you mean File:Greg_Siff_-_"Beauty_Is_Boring"_Portrait_by_Robin_Black.jpg, the copyright owner needs to give permission for all usages incl. usages off-Wiki and commercial usage. Unfortunately a restricted permission is not acceptable under Wiki-policies. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more info and a link to an example consent letter. GermanJoe (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have since decided on using a free work. I would like the photo mentioned above to be deleted from Wikipedia now. Is this possible? Thanks

    {{artthings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artthings (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    How many non-free pictures...

    With fair use can be used in one article? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's no hard limit; it depends on how many are needed for discussion. Some featured articles on musicians have something like 5 non-free files (including music samples). I am generally a lot thriftier with my non-free content, though in one article (Chrisye) I've used 3 non-free files. Some articles on artistic movements (particularly those after the 50s) have ten or more non-free images. Most articles, however, get by with no non-free images (or one at most). Of articles I've written (random examples), Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI uses only one, and Sudirman does not use any (despite being my longest to date). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much, Crisco -- Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 14:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    want to add an image to a page but have no clue

    I created a page about Ruth Frances Long and would like to add her photo - she has one on her web page [1] or her twitter account [2] and I don't know if I can use either on her Wikipedia entry or not. I probably have one I took of her at a convention but it wouldn't be as nice.. so I was hoping to use one of these if possible. How do I go about something like this? I know nothing about photos and the related copyrights...--Antiqueight confer 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, sorry to tell you that neither of the images you suggest can be uploaded here unless you can get the copyright holder to verify they are prepared to let the image be freely licenced which means anyone can use it for anything including modifications and commercial use. Her website has a clear copyright notice and twitter accounts don't often show the copyright status of images, so we assume they are copyright. Your own image can be freely licenced and while it may not be as good an image the possibility of getting a copyright holder to agree can be quite low but you can try. They would need to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to better understand some of the copyright issues you face. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was afraid of that but thanks for the links - I'll go read and see what I can come up with :-)--Antiqueight confer 22:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The page here is very easy to use. Put your image on your desktop or some other convenient place, then choose "Click here to start the upload form." On the next page, fill in all the blanks, upload your file, and then choose "This is a free work." Finally, choose on the succeeding page "This file is entirely my own work," and tell how and why you took the photo. Leave the Creative Commons attribution the way it is. Fill in your real name or your WP name if you want attribution. Don't bother to upload to Commons because it involves an extra step and is not as user-friendly. At the end of all this you will be greeted by a page that actually gives you a model line for you to copy and insert into any WP article, on the edit page. Very simple. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you!--Antiqueight confer 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Artwork

    If you are an 'artist for hire' in the US the client owns the oriniginal artwork and can reproduce as they see fit . However I was wondering is there another way I can allow them to reprint etc using my art without having the original ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.81.159 (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Well if you are the artist you can grant the license that you want, but if you or a potential copier do not have the original to copy it may be a bit hard to actually do something that you have given the right for. So you can keep original, give the customer a copy, and allow copying. If you do not want the client to have exclusive rights, you will have to organise a written contract to say otherwise. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot actually give you any legal advise, just some general guidance, so you should consult an attorney who specialises in intellectual property. ww2censor (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyrighted videos and sounds

    Why is that one can upload a sample of a song for an article and cannot upload a sample of a music video for the same song? Just curiosity-- not that I want to do that--. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What it all really comes down to is whether fair use materials significantly improve the understanding of the reader, especially when details of the non-free material itself are discussed in detail. So, (and this may just be my opinion) if a music video is discussed in depth, and I'm thinking on the order of how paintings and the like are discussed, or a specific element from the music video, then a screenshot or short video may be appropriate. PS: Another thought about a sample (as opposed to a screenshot) of a music video, is that something essential must be present in the video that a mere screenshot cannot express. Chris857 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem to upload pictures

    Hi guys!!! I just uploaded Mongolian Air Force's MiG-21's picture. ( My friend taked that picture. I told u guys. ) If there has a problem just tell me. I'm just uploading that pictures to Mongolian Air Force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mongolian_Air_Force%27s_MiG-21.jpg

    Back in August you asked the very same questions about the same images and can read it again at: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/August#Problem to upload pictures. Your friend will have to verify his permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT as you were previously told. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He just sent email to commons. Buuhai (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to upload a picture of art that was purchased at an auction by a private collector? For instance these 2 pictures here were paintings done by Willis O'Brien back in 1960 for a cancelled project. http://www.icollector.com/Willis-O-Brien-concept-art-of-Kong-for-King-Kong-vs-Frankenstein_i11537029 and http://www.icollector.com/Willis-O-Brien-concept-art-of-Frankenstein-s-Creation-for-King-Kong-vs-Frankenstein_i11537031

    All his concept paintings went up for auction a few years ago. Is it possible to upload these pictures to an article without violating any sort of copyright?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A few questions: is it Willis H. O'Brien? Do you know when it was first published according to WP:PD#Artworks? If it's first publishing was the creation of copies at this auction in 2011, then File:PD-US table.svg tells us that it becomes PD 70 years pma, or 1962+70=2032. If we are a bit more unlucky, it might take until 2047. So, unless some other circumstances exist that someone else can find, it would appear that copyright will last a while longer. Chris857 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it was Willis H. O'Brien. It was for a 1960 project called King Kong vs Frankenstein. The picture of the Frankenstein giant was first published in black and white in a early 1990s book called Willis O'Brien Special Effects Genius by Steve Archer. Here is a scan from that book http://www.roberthood.net/daikaiju-antho/unnatural_history/images/kingkongvsfrankenstein2lb9.png But it was published in black and white. The color painting (alongside the King Kong one) made its first appearance at that auction.Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this not essentially the same problem you asked about in 2010 about another sketch of O'Brien's showing the scale between King Kong and a human? Did you ever resolve that issue which concerned this image because the problem is virtually the same. What's the difference this time other than the publication you found it in is different? BTW, just to remind you that we had two discussion on my talk page about the same issue that are archived here and here. ww2censor (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is, is that the previous question was in regards to a painting that appeared scanned in a book. This one is the actual paintings themselves that have been sold at an auction rather than a scan. Since the paintings do not belong to the Willis O'Brien estate anymore and are now owned by a private collector I believe the question is different here. Who would own any sort of copyright on these paintings?
    And BTW you really do have an amazing memory. You actually remember a question someone asked you over 3 years ago?!! I completely forgot about that and I don't do nearly as many edits as you do. Heck I don't even remember what I did yesterday. I wish I had your memory skills.;-) Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the memory is still pretty good for now. I recalled something similar to this, so searched for the discussions. Anyway, the issue is actually essentially rather similar. Unless you can prove that the painting were sold with their copyright, ownership does not confer any rights to the person in whose possession it is. The copyright belongs to the author or his heirs. IIRC, his wife is deceased without any children so finding who now hold the copyright will likely be rather tricky. As Chris857 says it may be 2032 or even 2047 before this falls into the public domain. Sorry to not give you better news. ww2censor (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible that one could get around any sort of copyright? For instance can it just be tagged that its a scan of a one of a kind painting and that this will not infringe on any copyright (which more than likely doesn't even exist. I don't believe O'Brien even copyrighted these paintings). And perhaps tag it as fair use with the captions The image linked here is claimed to be used under fair use as: it is of much lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality) and the photo is only being used for informational purposes. Wouldn't that be enough. If any sort of copyright holder (if any exist) complain then the pictures could simply be removed?Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot just skirt around copyright and if you want to make a claim under our non-free policy, the image must comply with all 10 non-free policy requirements and the one you will most likely run into is #8 that requires sourced critical commentary about the image itself, which, if it was in an article about the painting, would be relatively easy but in a biography is not so to justify. ww2censor (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I wanted to upload the painting to the King Kong vs Godzilla page to illustrate the first paragraph under Production. That paragraph explains the origin of the film and the painting would be the perfect illustrative point, as it shows an actual painting from that planned production. If it wasn't for King Kong vs Frankenstein there never would have been a King Kong vs Godzilla. If this could work I would rather use this painting here http://oi43.tinypic.com/2nsnybl.jpg or better yet the original scan in color http://oi39.tinypic.com/2qs3o04.jpg .Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I don't see how you can get around the fair-use limitations. The illo may be :"perfect" from your point of view, but mere utility is no plea against a lawsuit, since it is not vital to the article. Somebody is bound to have inherited or purchased O'Brien's intellectual property rights; and they could very easily be a litigious Hollywood person with an aggressive attitude towards collecting their due. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But if that happened (which more than likely never will as these pictures have appeared in numerous books through the years (as far back as Famous Monsters of Filmland in the early 1960s and without credit, and are all over the web (Just do a google image search on "King Kong vs Frankenstein") couldn't the offending upload simply be removed?Giantdevilfish (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotional images

    Hello My question is regarding the use and upload of promotional photos. I was planning to upload a promotional photo of The Durutti Column, taken in 1998, as the main image of the article. What should I choose as "non-free use rationale?" (Basicly, I can say that I don't how to upload it as it does not seem to really fit in any presented option.) Besides this, the band is still active and I don't know whether it'd be a problem or not. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    A question to ask, as it's not clear - is that photo of the current band members? If they are still a group of those musicians, then per our non-free content requirements, we'd not be able to use a non-free image since it should be possible to take a free photo of the band performing otherwise. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a photo of current members. However, if the band was fully disbanded, would the photograph be eligible for use in Wikipedia? (And if so, with which non-free use rationale should it be uploaded with?) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been an open question for years. Have we ever come to a consensus about this? – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    concern about images

    Advanced Format

    http://www.seagate.com/tech-insights/advanced-format-4k-sector-hard-drives-master-ti/

    Many images in common. On wiki Dougolsen marks the images as his own work. That can only be true in two cases, if he authored the seagate paper and created the images himself, or if seagate is using those images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.103.206 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As these are on commons, I've put them up for possible copyvio there. I do note they can be replaced with free versions (as it is just data, just needs to be redrawn by a WP editor to put out as free.) --MASEM (t) 18:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly free image

    Although this, File:Wii U Game Banner.png, was uploaded under a claim of fair use, I think it might actually be copyright ineligible (although it is trademarked). The Wii U logo itself is in Commons, so I don't see how sticking it inside a couple of shaded curves would add that much more original authorship. It's best to be cautious about this, but is the rationale actually unnecessary? DarkToonLink 12:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure that this fails to meet the threshold of originality. I would consider the image copyrighted, just in case. – Quadell (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Tile logo.png

    Would the logo for Tile (software), located at File:Tile logo.png, fail to meet the threshold of originality and therefore be in the public domain? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not believe that a U.S. court would rule that this image contains creative content that can be protected by copyright. At least in the U.S., I think this can safely be considered PD. – Quadell (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. I have converted the file's description page to PD-textlogo and added a move to commons tag. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rreagan007/television network logos

    This weekend, Rreagan007 (talk · contribs) created the image File:Broadcast-network-logos.jpg and placed it on Commons under PD-textlogo licensing and added it to the articles List of United States over-the-air television networks, Broadcast network and Television network. On the first I reverted the image under the argument that the article is much more than about the big American networks and added no critical commentary, and removed it from the third because the article should have a world view, not just American-centric.

    Rreagan007 reverted my edit under the claim that "no critical commentary necessary, they are non-copyrighted text logos", which I have reverted because I respectfully disagree with their opinion. They also changed the templates at File:American Broadcasting Company 2013 Logo.png and File:NBC logo 2013.png on the same justification, asking for a Commons copy. However I've had issues in the past about logos just being declared PD, and this weekend a logo for Disney Junior was removed from Commons as a copyvio by Fastily there (I reuploaded it here locally with the hope it stays solely on EN); I disagree that most television network images should even be on Commons in the first place.

    I'm asking if my action was proper and meets WP:NFCC for the removals, if Rreagan007 is appropriate in taking these logo images PD, and if the combined Broadcast-network-logos.jpg has any use here at all. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 07:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Rreagan007 statement: Non-copyrightable logos that only contain simple geometric shapes and text properly belong on the commons and can be used in Wikipedia articles without any critical commentary under current Wikipedia policy. I do not believe I have done anything improper, as all of the logos are indeed made up of nothing more than simple geometric shapes and text. These logos are (I assume) trademarked, and they are labeled as such with the trademark template on the commons, but commons accepts trademarked images and only looks at copyright status to determine eligibility to be on the commons. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, even the CBS eye logo is considered uncopyrightable but trademarked. The image is fine as a free image (whether its appropriate in context falls outside the question of copyright) --MASEM (t) 21:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    iOS 7 icons

    Hello, the reason I am sending this message is because that there has been rumors about the iOS 7 icons being made on Microsoft Word 2013, due to a YouTube video that was released. So, if the icons were made on Word 2013, does Apple Inc. have the rights to make it copyrightable when it was made from that program? Because if they don't, I'd be a good idea to make the iOS 7 icons that were uploaded here not copyrightable. --Blurred Lines 21:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The software you use to make an image does not affect the copyright status of that image. – Quadell (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's just say that I make a icon on Word 2013 that looks alike the new iMessage icon, does that consider to be a copyright? --Blurred Lines 01:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd probably be too derivative, and since the purpose of the app icon is to show primary identification without tarnishing the subject it wouldn't stay up for long. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Unrelated question

    Hello,

    I am editing the Wiki listing for Archway Cookies. I am the former President / CEO and former owner of the company. Now retired.

    I am trying to fill-in the history of the company, since it was only fragmentary and needed some help. I have many documents including several old photos of the Archway bakeries. All of the marketing materials I am attempting to load ... I created and approved. In attempting to load them into the Wiki listing and am getting kick-backs from Wiki managers about copyright issues.

    All of the original documents are in my possession.

    How should we handle this?

    Thanks, Tom Olin Jr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolinjr (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take a look at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation

    Hello, I am working on the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation article, I uploaded various logos of the channel:

    File:LBCI DRAMA.jpg.png

    File:LBCI News logo.png

    File:LBCI HD logo.png

    File:LDC logo new.png

    File:EUROPE FINAL.png

    File:Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation America (logo).png

    File:LBC Australia.png

    They are getting removed from the page due to them "failing Wikipedia's non-free image policy", what can I do to fix this problem? A.h. king • Talk to me! 12:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing. Using non-free images as you have done in that article does not comply with WP:NFCC.--ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there ANY way that I can make these files to be left on the page? A.h. king • Talk to me! 18:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid not. It's against our policies to use non-free images in this way on Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    License status of MakeHuman output

    I hope this is easy, but I have to ask:

    The owners of MakeHuman

    have granted a CC0 license to all models created. See license information

    Some of the output is used in MakeHuman, and I am trying to decide if it is correct that specific releases are not needed for each image, based upon the general license.

    I hope the answer is yes, but I have some concerns.

    First, I accept that the license means that I can download the software, make anything I want, and use it anyway I want. I don't need to get permission from them if I want to use a created image. However, am I prohibited from creating something, and then copyrighting it with a more restrictive license?

    I think the broad license of the software means that I can use a CC0 license for some output, but does it mean I have to?

    I'll suggest an analogy, which may or may not be apropos. Suppose a camera company was in favor of broad usage of images, and sold a camera with a provisio that all images taken would have a CC0 license. Could they? My guess is no. If I buy a camera, I can take and copyright a picture, and I don't think the camera manufacturer can prohibit me from doing so. Is that correct? Is that analogous?

    If the answer is that all out put of the model is CC0, then I'll have a technical question about how to know that, although that may be a question for the software creators. It seems likely that the images on that article came from that software, but I don't know how to tell.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    By releasing the output of their software under a CC0 license, the MakeHuman team are not claiming any copyright on anything made with their software. (And even if some court says the MakeHuman team does hold a copyright, they irrevocably promise not to do anything to enforce it. Which is very nice of them.) They also state that there is no copyright at all on MakeHuman output. That's not a court decision, that's just their statement, but it's important nonetheless.
    Now if I used MakeHuman software to create a model, could I claim copyright on it? I doubt it. Nearly all of the creative content in the finished product was created by the MakeHuman team -- this makes it different than a camera. (If I buy an action figure and pose it in a certain way, I couldn't hold a copyright on that pose: the pose was an inherent possibility in the toy when I purchased it.) For me to hold an enforced copyright on a particular MakeHuman model I made, I would have to sue a reuser, and a court would have to agree with me that my creative input was significant, copyrightable creative content. That court would also have to hold that even though I saw that MakeHuman believes the output to have no copyright, and even though I agreed to their terms of use, I still thought I could copyright the output myself and I had a right to do so. I'm not a judge, but it sounds dubious to me.
    In this case, we have a statement by the primary content creator (MakeHuman) that the output is PD. And I'd say that's enough.
    I'm not sure there is a way in general to tell if a given image was created by that software. If an image has a clear statements from its creator that says it was created with the software, that's good enough. – Quadell (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not quite sure it is this black and white, but it is certainly clear that the company has no intention of going after someone for copyright violation, and since the items in the article were created by the designer of the software, those at least are fine.
    I noted your comment in a thread above that the choice of software doesn't determine the copyright, so I was hoping you would weigh in here. I am sure we all agree that Microsoft doesn't get to copyright words I might type in one of their products. But it also means I can assert copyright, even if Microsoft tried to claim otherwise. So the key appears to be who has control over the creative process. If I use Word, I do. If I use a camera I do. If I use MakeHuman, you suggest that I do not. I'm not fully comfortable with where the line is drawn. A predecessor to MakeHuman was MakeHead, a python script. Was the copyright status of that product governed by whatever rules were put in place by the writer of Python? I would think not. MakeHuman is written in C++. Surely the designers of C++ have no ownership of MakeHuman. So why can someone use C++ to make a program and declare that the output has a particular copyright?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, your there's nothing wrong with your reasoning; it's just a matter of degree. Is a MakeHuman user more like someone using C++ or Word, where there are infinite varieties of fully creative works that you can make with the product? Or is a MakeHuman user more like someone posing an action figure, or perhaps someone customizing an avatar in a game, where the user merely selects from a limited number of elements that were already present, in ways that were clearly intended by the product's original creator? You're right that it's not black and white, and I've never actually used the program, but it seems to me to fall on the "customizing" end of the spectrum, rather than the "writing a story" or "programming a software package" end... especially when you take into consideration the intent of the MakeHuman team, which was explicitly to make their output as reusable as possible. – Quadell (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Polly Thayer pictures

    I've written an article on the painter Polly Thayer (Starr) which is waiting to be reviewed. I would like to include an image of her and several images of her work on the page. Is it OK to use a photograph of a self-portrait or other work she painted, as long as I took the photograph myself and give the source proper credit? Thank you. Dorothy Koval (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There are two kinds of photos on Wikipedia: free photos, and non-free photos. Free photos are always allowed, but non-free photos are only allowed in very limited circumstances. If you yourself took a photo of the artist during her life, then your can certainly upload that image to Wikipedia (so long as you're willing to release the photo under a free license), because it's a free photo. But taking a photo of an artist's painting is trickier. Since the underlying painting is copyrighted by the artist (or her estate), your photo would be a derivative work, and you wouldn't have the legal authority to release that photo under a free license.
    There are really only three options. (1) Thayer's estate could authorize that a photo of her own work be released under a free license. That would mean that anyone is allowed to use the photo for any purpose, which most artists' estates are hesitant to do. But if that happens, then the photo is a free image, and we can use it. (2) You could upload a photo of the artist's work as a non-free photo. In that case, you could only use it if it complies with our policy on non-free content. In particular, the article would have to have sourced, critical commentary about the painting; viewing the painting would have to be necessary to fully understand the article; and the article would have to use no more non-free images than absolutely necessary for that purpose. (3) The third option is, of course, to not use a photo of her work at all.
    I know our image policies can be confusing. I can help with this if you like. Just ask me on my talk page. – Quadell (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-free images on a "list article"

    A few days ago I created an article for an annual professional wrestling event, titled NJPW Dominion. Yesterday, I added the official promotional posters for each year's entry, but they were removed by Werieth, citing WP:NFLISTS, which in my view does not absolutely prohibit the usage of non-free images on list articles especially in the way that I'm using them. They were again removed with Werieth not claiming that they lack "critical commentary" and "fail WP:NFC". I pointed him to an RfC, where it was concluded that the article doesn't necessarily have to discuss the artwork itself. Then the posters were removed a third time, with Werieth now pointing me towards WP:NFC#UUI #14, which states "[unacceptable uses include] a logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event. If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable". Each poster is clearly different from the previous ones and I don't see this would justify the removal of the posters. I asked him about that so he went back to the list argument, so since we're running in circles here, I came here to ask your opinion. I believe these posters meet all points in WP:NFCC.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC only applies to cases where the primary form of visual identification is the image being used for the entire article (IE book and album overs). Not when it is used as part of a list or list like article. There is a long history of not allowing this type of usage. Werieth (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Werieth is right here. One image is appropriate for identification of the topic, but that's it; all subsequent images need to be the subject of critical discussion, and that's not happening here as you have it. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you have "critical discussion" on an image, much less a promotional poster? By describing it? Explaining why certain wrestlers are on the poster? That seems to have been enough for articles like TNA Genesis, TNA Turning Point, Destination X, Hardcore Justice, ECW Heat Wave, November to Remember and December to Dismember just to name a few to remain undisturbed for years? Do I really have to cut a decent article into five less than decent articles just for a policy that makes no sense?リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument - because all those articles fail too, and the post images will have to be removed. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive cleaned them up. Destination X is an example where the primary logo is valid, while the separate posters are not. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And to just note: these articles can still be "prettied up" by adding free images of the fighters involved, as we do not restrict free images on list articles. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a shitty argument, but WP:NFC is far from clear and riddled with weasel words open to interpretation and it'd be easier to swallow this if the policy was actually clear and enforced across Wikipedia, without articles like WWE Rebellion, Guilty as Charged, Hardcore Heaven, Living Dangerously, Anarchy Rulz, Final Resolution, TNA Sacrifice, TNA Against All Odds, TNA Victory Road and TNA No Surrender being out there for years. When even the higher-ups can't agree what constitutes "critical commentary" or what the critical commentary should be aimed at (image itself or the thing it represents), something's wrong.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As a point, given that all the articles you give as examples above are from the MMA/Wrestling side, which lately has been identified by the rest of WP as a sort-of walled-garden, trying to include a lot of non-notable events and athletes from these sports and ignoring policy. To find their articles to be full of non-free is of no surprise. And as a point, we have no way to automatically enforce NFC, so there are probably many more articles with inappropritate NFC use that simply haven't been discovered yet; the argument they have been there for years is also a non-argument if there is a problem with NFC. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent NBC logos

    File:NBC logo 2011.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    File:NBC logo 2013.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    File:NBC Peacock logo 2013.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Are these logos eligible for copyright in the U.S.? Per commons:COM:TOO, even mere shade won't make much of a difference, especially for Microsoft Windows logo. --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the deletion discussions on File:Nbcnewyourknewlogo2011.png (at commons), these should all be uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=578503469"