Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

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

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Spirit Unforgettable

I have a couple of questions pertaining to File:Spirit Unforgettable.jpg, which was recently bot-tagged for deletion for lacking the specific identity of the specific graphic designer who created it and the specific identity of the actual copyright holder — however, the fair use template already includes the standard proviso that "the poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the item promoted, the publisher of the item promoted or the graphic artist", which always used to be enough in and of itself to stave off deletion, and I simply don't know where to even attempt to locate more specific information. Even on standard film-poster databases like IMDb or AllPosters, that information simply isn't given, and I'm aware of no other resource where the specific name of a poster's specific graphic designer, or the particular nuances of how to determine who the specific copyright holder of the image is beyond "the distributor, the publisher or the graphic artist", when there are three different production companies involved and no locatable information about the specific identity of the individual designer, can be located.

And furthermore, I just spotchecked a dozen other random film posters, and not a single one of them listed the name of the graphic designer or the specific identity of the specific copyright holder either — every last one of them, in fact, contained even less detail than the fair use template on this image already does, so I'm simply not grokking what the problem is.

As always, a film poster is expected to be present in a film's article, so this needs to be fixed — but I simply don't know how to fix it. Can anybody help out? Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bearcat. The file had to come from somewhere, right? You uploaded it as non-free, but did not provide any information about where you got it from. When source information is not provided, the non-free use rationale template will just add some generic text to fill in the field. WP:NFCC#4 requires that non-free content be previously published so that the copyright status can be verified. WP:NFCC#10a requires that specific information about the source be provided for basically the same reason. The template is bascially asking for this information. It's not specifically saying you need to provide the specific name of the person who created: "Where did this image come from?", "Who created it?", "Who holds the copyright to this image?" are just example questions saying "please provide some information about the source". If you don't remember where you got the file (i.e., the source url), then I think you might be able to use the image found on the film's IMDb page as the source, since they appear to be the same. Essentially the same image (minus the bottom third) is also found on the film's official Facebook and Twitter accounts, so either of those might be used to be used as well. On a different note, it might also have to be reduced a bit to comply with WP:NFCC#3b (WP:IMAGERES). -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The copyright notice is at the bottom of the poster: "(C) Spirit Unforgettable Films Ltd.". -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

A 1941 gramophone recording by Fred Astaire

I want to upload one of the images to Commons. However, it has layers of vinyl on background. Is this image okay to upload as PD-ineligible (or PD-textlogo)? --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

ww2censor, can you evaluate this image? George Ho (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Problematic user

User:Ronald Galope Barniso claims that all the pictures that he took and uploaded on Wikipedia he "Owns". Can some one explain to him why this isn't the case? Thanks, ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If he took the photos, then he still owns them, in the sense that he is the copyright holder. Once he uploads them to Commons under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then anyone can reuse them for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without asking for permission. However, he still has the right of attribution. In other words, he is still entitled to proper attribution, which is the only remaining benefit of ownership that he has not released. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of photo printed with Wikipedia article --- https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=william+h.+hand+jr.

the question is whether the photo of the JUANITA published with the Wikipedia article on William H. Hand, Jr. can be used by anyone for general publication. This particular version of a photo of JUANITA is found at several Internet sites. This particular boat is of public interest for several reasons, 1) it is now offered for charter in Greece, 2) it was built by a Maine boatyard and has survived for 76 years, 3) It was proposed and tested by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in 1950-51 for use as a seagoing antenna for a propaganda radio station.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyal5861 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no photo in that article. If you mean one of the external links, that would be governed by the copyright policy of the external site, or the terms set by the photographer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

And we don't give legal advice. You need to make your own conclusions about reuse. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

2 photos of my ancestors

i have uploaded 2 photos of my ancestors on the chennai jews article. These photos belong to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davvidlevi (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The photos belong to you only in the sense that the physical photos belong to you. The copyright to the images in those photos, on the other hand, depends on when they were taken and by whom and in what country. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Logo of Solo (DC Comics)

Is this logo copyrightable in the US? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A ring, four coloured cicles, four stars and 6 characters ard not sufficient to pass WP:TOO. ww2censor (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Barkha Sharma - Profile image

Hi,

I uploaded a file File:BarkhaSharmapreviewatAzastore.jpg which was pulled down due to copyright issues. I have noticed other such files on Wikipedia from the same source (Bollywood Hungama).

Could you let me know if the image from the below link could be used for Barkha Sharma's Wiki profile: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/more/photos/view/stills/parties-and-events/id/1558698

Thanks, Dxcu12 (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The original upload was deleted because it did not have a copyright licence tag attached to the file. It looks like the image you now linked does comply with the requirements for Bollywood Hungama's licence per the commons template c:Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama so you should upload it on the commons not here. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Live streaming webcams

There are now many live streaming webcams of animals, for example, see here[1]. (The ants are not very active at the moment!) Are these live streams subject to copyright and is it permissible to place links to these in WP articles? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

By default, yes. Just because they are taking shots of non-artistic animals, the framing and placement of the camera is eligible for copyright. So images from the live streams would be considered non-free unless the publisher has said otherwise. A link to these streams may be appropriate for an article, particularly on a topic page of the related project, but that should be determined by consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

CCTV footage may or may not be an analogous case – and may or may not pass the threshold of originality. See: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-recording device. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Image from NYS Dept. of Corrections published by NBCnews.com-Known copyright status?

I understand that images created by the federal government are free and fair use, but that state governments may be different story. I am attempting to upload a picture of a May 15, 2012 mugshot of Mark David Chapman to his Wikipedia page, because I do NOT think that the main photo is appropriate (it's mostly a picture of John Lennon, with Chapman in the background. Not appropriate for a page on Chapman, but perhaps for Lennon's main page and/or assassination.

This is the article that I want to take the image from, but I'm too unsure of what category it falls under:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/29/13553386-chilling-details-of-john-lennon-shooting-recounted-at-chapman-parole-hearing?lite StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As you will see from Wikipedia:File copyright tags/USA, very few states work is in the public domain, so any such use would be a non-free claim. I'm sorry but, as he is still alive a freely licenced image could be taken so this image would fail WP:NFCC#1. You are correct about the current image which only shows about half his face and even its use in the Mark David Chapman article is questionable for the same reason. ww2censor (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will continue trying to pursue a free license picture of him for the article. The original image was his mugshot after the assassination back in 1980. Not sure if it failed for the same reason, but I will check.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Public domain image tagged with permission template

A few years ago, I uploaded this file and tagged it as public domain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caldwell_portrait.jpg

I think this public domain as the photo dates to 1910, and has been published.

http://www.themagazineantiques.com/news-opinion/discovery/2009-02-19/edward-f-caldwell-and-companys-legacy-of-lighting/

The image was just tagged with a lack of permission template, which based on the above I believe is not correct. Rather than just deleting the tag, though, I wanted to check here first. Thanks for any insight. Kschlot1 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You wrote that the copyright holder to File:Caldwell portrait.jpg has released the picture to the public domain, but you have not provided any evidence of this. The page [2] is not mentioned on the file information page, but the information on that page reveals that the file is {{PD-US-suspect}}. However, it is unknown when the picture was first published. The website apparently obtained the picture from someone called Margaret Caldwell, and she has the same surname as the subject of the photograph, so she might be a relative to the subject of the photograph who was able to provide a previously unpublished family photograph. If the first publication was in 2009 (when the picture was posted to that website), then the copyright expires 120 years after the photograph was taken, meaning that it enters the public domain on 1 January 2030. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I've reached out to Cooper Hewitt, which holds the Caldwell archives and has also published this image, to see if they have further insight on the copyright status of this image (in particular, whether it was published back in the 1910s).

http://library.si.edu/digital-library/collection/caldwell/introduction I'll update when I hear back. Kschlot1 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status conflict?

Yesterday FastilyBot tagged File:Logo of the Kokoda Track Foundation.png with "BOT: Tag file with copyright status conflict". I moved the file here from Commons a couple of years ago (after it was deleted on Commons) following the advice at the Commons deletion review, which is probably worth reading (along with the original deletion discussion). Note that I was not the original uploader on commons – it was uploaded by an empoyee of the Kokoda Track Foundation. The file is the logo of the Kokoda Track Foundation and consists merely of a PD image with "The Kokoda Track Foundation" in Calibri typeface below the image. It is currently tagged {{Non-free logo}} {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and {{PD-ineligible}}. This is likely why FastilyBot is unhappy with the tagging. I added the {{Non-free logo}} and fair use rationale based on the advice from the Commons deletion revue. The file should probably have stayed at commons, since I'm 99.99% sure it's public domain, but it was argued that adding the text could somehow make the entire logo protected under copyright in Australia. So, the question is: how should it be tagged? Leave it as is (and possibly tell FastilyBot to ignore it)? Remove {{Non-free logo}} (and possibly move back to commons at some future time)? Remove {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and {{PD-ineligible}}? Something else? Mojoworker (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd remove the PD-ineligible. The image is PD in Australia but because Australia is only 50 years from publication, compared to the US's longer term, it will not be PD in the US for some time. It cannot be stored at Commons since Commons follows US law, and requires the image to be PD in the US and host country to be used here, so having it here and marked non-free is fully appropriate. The PD-ineligible is the tag in conflict because the image actually fails that, the photographic part make it a potential copyrightable image (though the timing becomes an issue). --MASEM (t) 00:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is in the public domain in Australia if it was published more than 50 years ago. We only know when it was created but not when it was first published. It could be that it remained unpublished until the 1960s or the 1970s, in which case it is still copyrighted in Australia.

In the United States, it is probably in the public domain if it was published before 1946. If not, then the copyright expires 95 years from publication (if published before 1978). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, the organization was established in 2003, so it can be assumed that its logo was not published before 2003. If this information is correct, the photograph, used as one of the components of the logo, is in the public domain in Australia. And in the United States, if it was published before 1989. Commons considers that the addition of the name of the organization to a public domain photograph might create a derivative work copyrighted in Australia. The question for en.wikipedia is what is the status in the United States of the logo made from a public domain photograph, below which is added the name of the organization, and does it make a difference for the copyright status in the United States if that derivative is copyrighted or not in Australia. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Masem and Stefan2: not just published date, but for photographs, the created/taken date. See {{PD-Australia}} (and the link above that Asclepias provided), which has more detail. Note B1 – Photographs (where the author is known) : "PD in US if...taken prior to 1 January 1946" and E1 – Commonwealth or State government held photographs or engravings: "PD in US if...Technically material created prior to 1 January 1946}". I guess D "Published editions" (the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint) could apply to the "the Kokoda Track Foundation" text, but that hardly seems an "edition"... Mojoworker (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the issue is the photograph part - the text logo is not the issue here. The photograph, going by the Commons discussion, was PD in Australia in 1992. For the US, the US will only respect the PD nature if that photograph was originally published without failing to mark up or meet copyright requirements for the US (per [3]), since the image was PD in Australia before 1996. If the photograph was marked with copyright, then we have to wait 95 from its publication date (which seems to be at least around 2030-ish). Unfortunately, this factor does not seem to be known, and hence it makes sense to treat it as PD-Australia (it clearly meets that), but it is not a free image for en.wiki as stored in servers in the US where it remains likely under copyright, until we can prove the photograph failed to have the right copyright markings. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: This is confusing. At the {{PD-Australia}} template why are there two separate columns labeled "Copyright has expired in Australia if ..." and "As of URAA date material was PD in US if..."? Doesn't the last column imply that's the US status? Looks like URAA is Uruguay Round Agreements Act, FWIW. Mojoworker (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Because foreign copyrights are a mess, unfortunately. Here at en.wiki, we are looking to what the copyright is under US law. When it comes to works first published in a foreign country that we have reciprocal copyright agreements with (like Australia), we have to use the URAA to determine if the US treats the image as PD - just because the work is PD in the foreign country doesn't necessarily make it PD in the US. Hence for en.wiki's determination of free or non-free image status, we do need to look at the last column in the template. (I note that the Cornell link I included above does not consider specific country-oriented details, so let's stick with the template here). So obviously this is a B1 case (regardless if the photographer was a government employee), so the question becomes if the photograph was taken before 1946, which is not clear. If the photograph was taken before then, then we would consider the photo PD, and would treat the derivative logo as PD-Australia and PD-textlogo (removing the nonfree) but because AU has UK-like threshold of creativity, the complete logo can't be transferred to Commons. If the photograph was after 1946, then we would treat it as non-free with PD-Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Why exactly do you doubt the 25 December 1942 date documented unanimously everywhere for this photo, on Commons, at the Australian War Memorial and in many other publications? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't doubting it, I was unaware we had a date for the photograph part. If its documented 1942, then the photo is PD in the US as well as Australia. The logo that includes the photo and text is PD-USonly since the combination of a PD photo and typeface is not creative enough, but likely copyrightable in Australia under "sweat of the brow" originality. So we should treat it as free, remove the PD-Australia tag (since that only applies to the photo, not the derivative logo), add PD-USonly/do not copy to commons, and should be okay, documenting all factors relating to the photo itself appropriately. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that {{PD-Australia}} isn't entirely accurate. It says As of URAA date material was PD in US if... but it should say As of URAA date material was PD in Australia if... It is in the public domain in the United States provided that it 1) satisfies {{PD-1923}}, 2) satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}} or 3) it was in the public domain in Australia as of the URAA date (see the column in the template) and fell out of copyright in the United States for some reason before 1 March 1989 (then it's {{PD-URAA}}). c:Commons:Subsisting copyright describes when something did or didn't fall out of copyright in the United States before 1 March 1989. The main situation where an Australian work from the 1940s hasn't have fallen out of copyright in the United States is if it wasn't published before 1 March 1989. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not find a copyright notice in the 1943 book. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons does not seem to dispute the public domain status of the photograph, hosted on Commons. Commons questions the status in Australia of the logo made from that public domain photograph with the addition of a name. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The advice, to which you refer above, by one of the Commons users, was to upload the image to en.wikipedia either as non-free logo *or* as a public domain image with a combo of PD tags, it was not to tag the image as both a non-free logo and a PD image. I understand that you wanted to be safe, on one hand tagging the image as PD because that is what it is, and on the other hand tagging it as non-free logo, just in case someone would dispute the PD status, so the image could be kept anyway and be used in the article about the organization. In other words, you were telling the readers that the logo was certainly fine on en.wikipedia for one of the two reasons, although you were leaving the readers choose which. There's logic to it when seen like that, but that created the conflict noticed by the bot, because it's apparently illogical to tag something as both free and not free. It is a bit strange to see the explanation of why the image is actually in the public domain inserted into a template for a non-free use rationale. I agree with you that that logo would probably be public domain in the United States (as essentially a reproduction of a public domain photograph and the name of the organization in simple letters). It may be a stretch for Commons to consider that logo potentially above the threshold of originality in Australia, but even if it is, I don't think that would make it copyrighted in the United States if it is not above the threshold of originality in the United States. Another question could be to decide if the name of an organization is copyrightable as such in the United States, independently of the look of the letters in which it is written. To answer your question, maybe it is possible to just remove the bot notice and leave everything as it is. Or, if any tag must be removed, then make your choice between the two options, as has been advised by the Commons user. If, as it seems it is, that logo is in the public domain in the United States, then in theory the tag that should be removed is the non-free logo tag. Technically, the PD-Australia tag may not be necessary either, as the wording of the PD-ineligible tag may be inclusive enough to cover the fact that the logo is made from components that are all common property in the United States, the photographic component because its copyright is expired and the textual component because it is simple text in a simple font. But the PD-Australia tag could be kept too, although users will have to understand that it's there as additional information about the photographic element. Alternatively, if you believe it's safer, you could choose to keep the non-free logo tag and then remove the two PD tags. Either way, there's no certainty that someone will not decide to dispute the status. If it is tagged as non-free, someone may complain because it is actually in the public domain and so it should be tagged as public domain. If it is tagged as public domain, someone may complain because they're not sure if it is. I think your explanation in your own words on the description page is very good, so whatever you choose to do with the tags, I think you should keep the clear explanation. It makes things much easier for the reader. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm tempted to leave it as is, even if that means the {{Wrong-license}} tag stays on there, but I'll ask Fastily if there is an ignore setting for the Bot. Mojoworker (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Peștera Muierilor

Hi, I'm interested in using these two relevant pictures taken from this published journal article: Figure 1 and Figure 4 from http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17196.full. Is it ok to do so? Would this qualify as a fair use claim? Thanks, Fraenir (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what fair use claim you could make here. Please elaborate. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this, so that's why I'm asking. Thanks for answering my question.Fraenir (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

BAA Logo copyright correct?

I've just been looking at this BAA logo and it has the logo copyright tag on it. However I'm not too sure that it meets the threshold of originality given it is essentially just three letters and three triangles. Given that the Virgin Atlantic logo is deemed to not meet the threshold of originality and the fact that BAA no longer use it due to becoming Heathrow Airport Holdings, is the current copyright tag correct or am I correct in assuming that it does not actually meet the threshold of originality? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The UK has a much lower threshold of originality compared to the US; they use "sweat of the brow"-type determinations, so any creativity, like the green part of the BAA logo, would be protected by copyright. It would fall as PD-USonly. I also disagree that the VA logo is PD as well for the same reasons (the coloring on the wing aspect is unique enough to meet UK thresholds). --MASEM (t) 13:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Does the historical photograph rule apply to animals?

If I find an article about a famous animal who is dead can I use the same image rationale as I would for a person? I would assume so but I would just like to be sure.*Treker (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The actual article is about the animal? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I had this article in mind but in general as well.*Treker (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember the question ever having come up before, but in a full article about that animal, I see no reason to treat it any differently. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, we do frequently illustrate articles of deceased people with non-free images of them when no free ones are available, for identification purposes. I think the same logic can apply to animals for which no free image can be created or found.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you guys.*Treker (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

copyright question regarding the Carlos Cazurro image

Dear Wiki, I have been following all the necessary steps to correct the copyright question regarding the Carlos Cazurro image: Maureen Selwood ANIMAC festival 2008. Carlos has sent permission: I hereby affirm that I, Carlos Cazurro, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media attached to this eMail. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

We got an email saying Carlos has to send written permission!! This seems a bit strange. Can you let me know how to correct this? It is getting a bit difficult as Carlos lives in Spain and has been great in assisting this but doesn't know how to proceed. Please advise asap.

Thanks, Weebuefweebuef Weebuefweebuef (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is quite easy and physicial location is no problem. If Carlos Cazurro is the copyright holder then all he has to do is verify his permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT making sure to note the names of the image. I assume it was File:Maureen Selwood at ANIMAC International Animation Festival 2008.jpg which was deleted because no permission was verified, but if everything check out it will be restored by the OTRS team who deal with permissions. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Does copyvio apply to sandboxes?

If I copy-and-paste a large section of a copyright publication to my sandbox in preparation for paraphrasing, but then save the sandbox page before the paraphrasing, is this copyright violation? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, if the copyright terms are not compatible with ours. "Paraphrasing" also is often not a good idea because you can end up with a derivative work; c.f WP:CLOP.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In addition, it can be or lead to problematic WP:Plagiarism. Note, "paraphrasing" is a nuanced concept (used often rather vaguely in WP discussions) involving degrees from the original. In general, where possible, the WP writing process aimed for is putting it in your own words, while staying true to the verifiable idea. If actually paraphrasing, one should explicitly identify the original author in the text, itself. (In short, DrChrissy, what you describe seems poor process and can be problematic, under cv and plag)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks both for your help - I wonder if copyvio in sandboxes is widely known about. A follow up question, please. How do I find out if copyright terms are compatible with ours? I deal mainly with science articles, so, as an example, copyright in Elsevier science journals. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It can get quite tricky quite quickly. Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Licenses is the best I can find quickly. These days you'd probably be looking for a Creative Commons licence which permits commercial use - CC BY-SA. You'd need to avoid licences which have Noncommercial (NC) or No Derivative (ND) restrictions - see, for instance the foot of this CC page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If NOINDEX is used, so a sandbox no longer appears on web searches, is it then okay to use the sandbox to rework material containing copy violations. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. Publishing materials without the consent of the copyright holder is infringement. It does not matter where or how you publish it. Even NOINDEXed websites are publishing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

But that begs the question. Can it really be said to be "published" on the web if it is not publicly available through web searches? Even if it is in some sense legally published, then presumably it is still okay to work fixing copy violation in the sandbox providing the copied parts are enclosed in quotes. Could users be given truly private sandboxes, accessible only with their password, so they can use them for work on copyright issues? Is there any point where common sense can intervene, and Wikipedia editors can be given working tools to fix copy violations? Too often Wikipedia discussions on copyright and paraphrasing are met merely with rigid censorious judgements, and are not relieved or balanced with helpful and practical ways of actually dealing with the issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It can be said to be published if, by inputting a URL, the system returns a page with the information in it. Really. Please rest assured on that point. Indexability is entirely beside the point. "rigid censorious judgements". Yup. Copyright law is, err, law; not a cuddly thing. "Practical ways of actually dealing with the issues". Use a local text editor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

But are password protected pages legally published? Web design applications allow users to develop applications on the web before formally "publishing" them. Why can not Wikipedia do the same for its content builders? Working with a text editor is not the same thing as working in a Wikipedia sandbox which interprets wiki markup. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's called copyright. It's the action of copying that is problematic. It matters not whether there's a password or not. And in the case of sandboxes, there is not a password. I appreciate that a text editor is second best. Such is the protection of intellectual property: it brings with it costs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit more nuanced than that. Making copies for personal use is (mostly) permitted. I can photocopy a book I have. I can even go to a library and photocopy a book I don't have. I can even upload that copy to a web drive. I can even send that copy to you by email. Here it's content on the internet that's behind a password and accessible to more people than me, but it's not considered publishing. If I start to hand out that web drive password to enough people, or send that email to a dozens, then it turns into publishing instead of personal use, though I gather that this varies by jurisdiction. For a legal definition, see c:COM:Publication. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

So then it would be legally possible for Wikipedia to provide established users with personal sandboxes with viewing rights restricted in such a way that they can rehabilitate text with copyright issues. The foundation won't of course, because the idea they might do something to facilitate content building is not part of their culture. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagishsimon said above "It can be said to be published if, by inputting a URL, the system returns a page with the information in it." Does this mean if a WP article contains a copyvio and an editor comes along and edits the article (unrelated to the copyvio) and then saves it (i.e. publishes it), that editor is violating copyright? DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

IambakeyOkuk.jpg on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Iambakey_Okuk

This photo is in wide circulation and I believe it should be considered public domain. I received a copy from Iambakey Okuk himself before his death in 1986 along with some other I will scan and add to the article. How should I mark these photos to satisfy the copyright conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisryder (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Being "in wide circulation" implies nothing about the image's copyright status. For reasons why an image might be in public domain, see WP:PD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)r

Copyright status of book cover image File:The_Last_Raja_of_West_Pakistan_(Cover_Photo).jpg

Hi, I spotted this image File:The_Last_Raja_of_West_Pakistan_(Cover_Photo).jpg recently and I opened a discussion with the uploader (Abhinav619) on their talk page (See here). The uploader says the original copyright holder has released the image into public domain and he has a written permission. However, the image is tagged as "Own work" and the permission is not evident here. I'm not very well versed with IUP but I feel either the licensing needs to be corrected or the evidence needs to be checked and stated on the file page. I'm not sure what are the next steps - use OTRS? Can someone else help out with this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please guide me on this? I will share the written declaration that due permission had been provided. The owner is non well-versed with Wiki, hence passed the image to me to do the needful. Abhinav619 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Abhinav619 (and Lemongirl1942). I think perhaps a couple of things need to happen to resolve the situation. The image tagging should describe who the work was by - so Own Work changed to the illustrator's details. The written declaration needs to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and a template {{OTRS pending}} placed on the image's talk page ... all this is discussed here. Make sure the email references the image by stating the URL of the image on wikipedia - presumably commons, if it is public domain. The idea is that the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team satisfy themselves about the permission and add an OTRS ticket onto the image talk page. Everyone goes home happy. I'm sorry, Abhinav619, that you're being dragged through this, but Lemongirl1942 is absolutely right to police claims of public domain applied to images which do not appear on the face of them to be public domain - i.e. are within the class of images which we expect to be under copyright. I hope it all works out well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Image taken from a newspaper or official website of that person

What if I don't know who holds the copyrights but is taken from a newspaper or official website of that person(Governor of the state in my case)? How do i remove the tag after answering the questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haldipoor (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

KML representation of text description

My objective is to be able to provide accurate boundaries for Australian wine regions (Australian Geographical Indication). These have a textual legal description, such as the one found at https://www.wineaustralia.com/en/Production%20and%20Exporting/Register%20of%20Protected%20GIs%20and%20Other%20Terms/Geographical%20Indications/New%20South%20Wales/Southern%20New%20South%20Wales/Tumbarumba.aspx The website provides a map as an indication of where the region is, as a Google Maps mashup. From the page above, I could click on "view in a larger map" then from the resulting page, use the menu to "Download KML". I deleted the text and uploaded the remainder to the KML page corresponding to {{Attached KML}}. The result shows the boundaries as I intended in the WikiMiniAtlas, however I am uncertain on whether I have stolen someone else's intellectual property. If I have, I need to find guidance on what steps I must take myself to create a copyright-free version of the text description that can display on the WikiMiniAtlas (and/or a locator map). My current proof-of-concept is visible in the mini atlas at Tumbarumba wine region. I hope this is the right place to start asking. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)