Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Click here to ask your question
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
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:Image 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 the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons 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.; {{GFDL-self}}), 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 Save page.
  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 ask your question" link above.
  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.

Images with unknown copyright and origin[edit]

Editor Osmond Phillips, a very new editor, has uploaded a number of images in the recent past, purportedly of notable American western figures. These images are all part of the so-called Phillips Collection. The collection of "over 200 photos" is reported to have been found by two individuals in the Downtown Antique Mall in Checotah, Oklahoma somewhere between 1995 and 1997. The images are claimed to be of famous Western figures including "Doc Holliday, Big Nose Kate, Wyatt Earp, Josephine Earp, Mattie Earp, the Clanton's, Johnny Behan, John Clum, Jesse James, the Younger Brothers, the Masterson family, and others." The owner of the images independently deduced "that the collection might have been compiled by Frank Phillips [who founded the Phillips Petroleum Company] because there may be photos of Mr. Phillips or his family mixed into the collection."

Phillips has uploaded the images to Commons stating that they were all taken prior to 1923, but Phillips has not provided any proof of this. I truly believe that some of the pictures are in fact of the individuals stated. The likenesses are very clear, though in a few instances, less so. I'd really like to help get the images accepted as valid. They are a wonderful contribution to the historic lore about the individuals who they are supposed to be pictures of. I think the collection itself is notable and may merit an WP article itself.

However, because Phillipes is the uploader of the images, it's obvious his simple declaration of their provenance, that the images are all pre-1923, and that they are of the people stated does not appear to be sufficient meet WP image use policy.


  • Phillips isn't the creator, so she or he can't release them into the public domain.
  • There isn't any evidence to conclusively prove the images were produced prior to 1923.
  • Phillips hasn't provided any sources to substantiate that the images are of the individuals named.

I've asked Phillips to provide some third-party sources to establish that the images were taken before 1923, or proof that the studio on the image closed before 1923, or other evidence. I suggest that he provide third-party expert opinion that the images are of the individuals named, or other evidence that the person's names were written on the images, etc.

As the owner of the images, if Phillips can clearly establish the authenticity of images of famous historical figures, Phillips could be greatly rewarded financially. Because this is a complex issue, due diligence is required.

What standards should WP apply in this instance? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Just a note that, no matter what the case, to be PD under PD-1923 the images would not only have to have been taken before 1923, but also published. US copyright law determines copyright based on year of first publication. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Authenticity above all else seems important here. Even if we can't support the date, but can verify these are photos of the people they are claimed to be of, that means where we lack free media we should be able to use these as non-free (at worst assumption) to depict the persons of those articles. If they do end up both authentic and pre-1923 or in PD, even better. How to judge authenticity is something that I'm not sure how WP can go about, short of either Phillips getting an ORTS statement to that regard (to protect privacy, etc.) or having an expert in the field review the pictures for authenticity. I would think that if this has been a find that has existed for some time and publically known, there would have been a great deal of interest in it before, as well, to judge that. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Convenience link to Commons: Special:ListFiles -- Asclepias (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Surely some of these image, if never published, are only copyright for 120 years, so images such as File:Dave Rudabaugh.jpg who died in 1886 and File:Johnny Ringo.jpeg for example should be in the public domain? Images for people who died before 1895 would all fall under the same situation but others are a different matter and need more verification. ww2censor (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That's assuming the uploaded image is actually Dave Rudabaugh. The provenance of the images is largely uncertain. Phillips hasn't yet revealed how they know if this image (and the others) are of the person named. This collection of images was found in a couple of photo albums in an antique store. Some of the images were loose and unmounted. No one has stated if they images were labeled or not. Should WP rely on the statements of Osmond Phillips as fact? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
That goes without saying but I suppose we need to say it. ww2censor (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
MASEM, if an ORTS statement were sufficient, do we need one for each image? And what would it say under these circumstances? — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 17:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
One ORTS statement would be sufficient to cover them all (they would all need to be linked in that message). I'm not saying that that's necessarily going to be the accepted statement but it would be start to discretely keep the person's information private to only the ORTS list but engage with them to verify the validity of the photos (and not that they may be actors or well-done photoshopped images). -MASEM (t) 17:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
MASEM, ww2censor, Asclepias, I've asked Osmond Phillips to join the conversation here twice. They've replied to my talk page instead. In short, they don't own the images, but have been hired to promote the collection. I'm not sure where this leaves this discussion, but it appears to me they have to obtain the OTRS email from the actual owner. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 03:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

PHILLIPS COLLECTION. OSMOND PHILLIPS The collection wasn't know to the public until recently. The second owners they have researched the collection for almost twenty years. The owners did not know what to do with it as far as getting the collection known. I was hired to promote it.

There are a few photos that has the actual persons name on it. Others have relatives names on them and a few friends. We do have forensic results back on Josephine Earp. A article will be out the first of November if not earlier on her. We are only doing forensic analysis on Josephine Earp, Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, Big Nose Kate Horony, Jesse and Frank James, John Wesley Hardin and Billy the Kid. These are very high profile people. It cost a lot of money to get these analyzed by Professor Cary Lane.

Something to consider, the chance that anyone can find even one look alike in their life time has odds against them like winning the lottery. The Phillips collection has over 200 look alikes. The collection has another 100 photos we still have to research. Obviously someone researched the families of these people and purchased their photographs. The photography companies were in business during the of time of the people photographed. We also believe the owner advertised in National newspapers to buy Old West outlaws and lawmen. We do not submit any photographs unless we are certain it is who we say it is. We have a team of 8 people. By submitting a photo of someone that is not who we say it is can hurt the credibility of the collection. I have over 25 years experience in Western Antiques. There is over 80 years of experience on our team.

We are and will be completely responsible for what we submit.

We even have a group of photographs of Kate Horony, Doc Holliday's companion that will prove that the photograph that has been know as Josephine Earp in books for over 50 years and on the internet is really Big Nose Kate Horony. This collection has many interesting clues that will make a difference in the history of these people. Some of the ways we identify the people in the photographs. 1. Forensic Age Regression Analysis on high profile people by a leading Professor of Forensic Arts from John Jay College in New York. Professor Cary Lane teaches Forensic Arts used in law enforcement. 2. Visual comparisons of authenticated photos. We have a lot of experience since this collection is so large. We are using Professor Lanes suggestions to help identify the people. 3. Making sure the photography studio was in business when the person was there. 4. Checking the age and death date of the person at the time of the photo was taken to make sure it is possible. 5. Look for the name of the person on the photo card or a relatives name that it may have been sent to. 6. Try to match hand writing of the person photographed when there is writing on the photograph. 7. Identifying the extra person or persons in the photograph which is usually a wife, husband, family member, members or co-worker. Identifying more than one person in the photograph increases the odds dramatically. 8. Checking to see if the person could have been in the city when the photo was taken. 9. Contacting descendants of the family to see if they recognize the person from their family photos or possible resemblance. We have had positive results from a family member of the Jesse James and John Wesley Hardin photographs. 10. Check with museums to get their opinion on the people they specialize in. 11. Send out Press releases to find out more information on the collections origin and/or its individual photos. 12. Made sure the clothing worn in the photograph matches the style worn when the person was purported to be there. 13. Matching clothing and jewelry from other photographs of the person from the collection and authenticated photographs. 14. Comparing known locations of the persons travels with the collection photographs. 15. Noting how many photos we have of the person and family members in the collection which leads one to believe that they were purchased from the family. 16. Studying the type of photograph as to when the photograph process was available and when it faded out, regarding CDV's, Tintypes, Ambrotypes, Daguerreotypes, Cabinet Cards etc. 17. Look for identifying marks on the person such as moles, scars etc. that are know about the person. 18. Since Cabinet cards were popular for around 35 years, we also have to study different characteristics through the years of use such as color of card, artwork and print on the card, card borders and edges, the photographic paper, etc. to narrow down the span of 35 years.OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

 I also have a signed contract from the owners that allows me to promote the collection. I can submit a copy of the contract. OSMOND PHILLIPS (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
This all sounds like fairly reasonable steps to validate the photos. I think we would still want to make sure that we have documentation that this is what has happened which can be kept private/secured via OTRS so that all appropriate images can be tagged PD-old with the OTRS ticket number if the question arises in the future. But I would wait for additional input from others here before doing that. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
OTRS would indeed seem like the best way to go. ww2censor (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project (6973621).jpg[edit]

and File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project.jpg

Hi, Why would this be in the public domain? It is not 2D art, and AFAIK, Google claims a copyright over its pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. That image is a photography that faithfully reproduces something that looks like a table with a face etched in to me. It's too old to be still in copyright and making a faithful reproduction in photo form does not create any new copyright.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Yann that since the pictured objects are reliefs, photographs of them must be free (with a free license or in PD) to be accepted on Wikimedia, under the usual consensus. This brings the question what are the actual origin and copyright status of those photographs? Perhaps someone familiar with the relations between the Brooklyn Museum and the Google Art Project can tell more, but my impression is that they are from the Brooklyn Museum. Their respective pages there [1] [2] have no contrary indication, and that seems to allow the assumption that they are from the Museum and thus under the default status of the photographs of the Museum, CC-by 3.0 [3]. So, I would say those photographs are not in the public domain but under the free license granted by the Museum. If the files are uploaded to Commons, the template C:Template:Art Photo might be used, with the adequate status tags. On Wikipedia, an equivalent result can be obtained. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Both Yann and Asclepias are correct that these are 3D images but Jo-Jo Eumerus' reasoning is not correct as that would apply to 2D images. As 3D images of old objects you do however require the permission of the photographer which appear to be the Brooklyn Museum and they seem to provide that. However, curiously the museum on the one hand provide a Creative Commons licence cc-by-3.0 that we accept at the link given above but they contradict that licence in the statement on this webpage which has a commercial restriction that is a cc-by-nc-3.0 licence. ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Agh... The statement on their Copyright page was so clear that it didn't occur to me that they might have made a conflicting statement on another page. You are correct. There is a contradiction. We can't ignore it. It makes the free license statement useless. The files should be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Huh. Learn something new every day... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't think this is a case for deletion as much as a case for asking them to clarify their copyright policy. It could be a case for double licensing or of one page being wrong. If they stand by the noncommercial thing then it should probably be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed we should to clarify their licencing, not just for us but for them too. I decided to see if their copyright page was on the Wayback Machine and I see that between 2004 and 2007 their Creative Commons licence was a cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 but there is no record of any changes to the page between 2007 and 16 June 2015 when the revised licence cc-by-3.0 appears. Obviously they updated from 2.0 to 3.0 but it could be that the NC and ND was removed by mistake or their policy changed. Who will take on the task and make contact and what approach should be taken? ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This issue is resolved; the images are good as is. I made contact with the museum today and spoke with the Vice Director of Digital Engagement & Technology who deals with copyright issues. See the similar discussion on the commons at c:COM:VPC#en:File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project (6973621).jpg. ww2censor (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Zoran Zaev.jpg[edit]

An hour or two ago I uploaded an image of the Macedonian politician Zoran Zaev as File:Zoran Zaev.jpg, for use on the subject's page and on Macedonian general election, 2014, after plowing through the directions for using two templates and searching the web for free images. I explained my rationale on the File source page:

Unable to find any clearly free media. Most of the images I've found are either from commercial sites such as the BBC, Reuters, and Getty, or from sites in Albanian and Macedonian, neither of which I can read.

Just now NickW557 has left a boilerplate message on my Talk page, telling me

If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

Plainly, he didn't read the rationale I'd put there.

I had forgotten to add the "Non-free media rationale" templates to the two pages where I used it; I've gone back and done that. I just went to the description page and found

{{di-replaceable fair use|date=3 October 2015|1=Non-free image of living person is replaceable per [[WP:NFC#UUI]]#1. The test is not whether a replacement exists, but whether one ''could be created''}}

in the wikicode at the very top. I added

{{di-replaceable fair use disputed| date=3 October 2015| I am unable to find any clearly free media. Most of the images I've found are either from commercial sites such as the BBC, Reuters, and Getty, or from sites in Albanian and Macedonian, neither of which I can read. I live in the United States and am unwilling to go to Macedonia just to try to take my own picture of this person.}}

right underneath it, but that doesn't show in the display, so I have added the same text without template to the head of the Summary.

I can't figure out what the heck else I'm supposed to do. Would someone kindly tell me clearly? --Thnidu (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

PS: I know that the top of the page says to take fair-use questions to another page, but this is where NickW557 sent me and this is where I have gone. --Thnidu (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the problem is actually very simple. The image is non-free and we do not accept non-free image of living persons even if it is very difficult to find a freely licenced image. You may well have written what you consider is a decent fair-use rationale, but it will still be deleted because it fails the most basic tennet of our non-free media policy. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to understand the many of the issues non-free images have. ww2censor (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Thnidu: Hello. I did read your disputed rationale at the time of editing the page. Because of the options you selected when going through the upload wizard, the page was automatically tagged as a replaceable fair use image with the generic {{AutoReplaceable fair use people}} template, which doesn't provide the uploader with a very detailed reason for why the image is tagged for deletion. I read your dispute rationale, which stated, in part, I am unable to find any clearly free media. Most of the images I've found are either from commercial sites[...]. Based on your rationale, I decided to replace the generic AutoReplaceable template with a human-evaluated deletion template to address your rationale. That is why I stated The test is not whether a replacement exists, but whether one could be created.
Per WP:NFC#UUI#1, all non-free images of living people are presumed to be replaceable, with very limited exceptions in cases of totally inaccessible people, like prisoners. It doesn't matter if an existing freely-licensed image of the person can be found right now. What matters is that the person is still alive, and therefore someone could take a freely licensed image of them. Ultimately, after the 48 hour waiting period, my deletion tag will be weighed against your dispute rationale by an administrator who reviews the deletion request and they will make the decision. I hope this helps explain my process for modifying the deletion tag on your image. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 19:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@NickW557: Thanks for the explanation. That makes me feel somewhat better. But I wonder where those other pix on the election page came from? (I know, I can check their pages.) --Thnidu (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
All the other images on Macedonian general election, 2014 appear to be correctly freely licenced images not like your upload. You can review their sources on each image file at the commons. ww2censor (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: Ah, thank you! I will do so, in hopes of finding suggestions for Zaev. I was going to look at them, but other things (like the cat) have interrupted. --Thnidu (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians[edit]

The article about the 1964 film, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians has an external link from the Internet Archive. However, when you click on the external link to see the film on IA, there is a message that reads:

"ATTENTION – PLEASE READ BEFORE VIEWING OR DOWNLOADING THIS ITEM: The uploader of this film has labeled it as in the public domain in the United States of America. But this film may not be in the public domain in the rest of the world. The copyright for this film is owned by STUDIOCANAL in all countries outside of the United States of America where copyright subsists and all rights are reserved by STUDIOCANAL. Per Internet Archive’s Terms of Use, users assume responsibility for ensuring that their viewing and/or any other use of materials on is legal in the area/country in which they use it."

I'm well aware that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. At the same time, I'm also aware that Wikipedia is a website that can even be used outside of the United States. Therefore, is it a copyright violation to have this IA external link in the article? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, because the enwiki servers are located in the US, so as the statement says it is in the public domain in the US but it also says, for non-US viewers that: users assume responsibility for ensuring that their viewing and/or any other use of materials on is legal in the area/country in which they use it. which means non-US must take responsibility for their own decisions. ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Colors in map of Israel Railways[edit]

How critical is it that our map of the Israel Railways (File:Israel Railway map Hebrew English sb.svg) lines use the same colors as the original, copyrighted map (at Keep in mind that the colors are neither any marking on the actual infrastructure (trains, stations, etc), nor the names of the lines (unlike the MBTA lines, where the colors are, in fact, both). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that can create some concerns about derivative works. The amount of creativity required to make something copyrightable is very low and shared colours that don't serve an ulterior purpose may create some derivativeness. I am not an expert in this matter though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The Lodger[edit]

I have come across an article from The New York Times implying that the 1927 Hitchcock film The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog is still under copyright. The article says, "Oddly, even though Hitchcock’s early films have rights holders, that does not appear to have stopped versions from going on the Internet. The 39 Steps, The Lodger and others are online as supposed examples of public-domain works." There is currently an external link from the Internet Archive on that particular film article. Is this video link violating Wikipedia's copyright policies? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Short answer, yes, it's a copyvio link.
Long answer: The Lodger and several other of Hitchcock's films produced in Britain did expire in US copyright terms by 1996 though remained copyrighted in the UK, as while the US did ratify the Berne convention in 1989, it did not ratify a specific section that would have extended the copyright. Instead, in '96, the US did pass the URAA which restored copyright to any foreign films that were still copywritten in their home country as of 1996, of which many UK Hitchcock films did apply.
This would still require the copyright owner (Carlton and UGC) to submit a list of films that would be entered into the federal register that once in place, would require any persons selling public domain versions of these films in the US to stop selling those within a year before any copyright prosecution would be considered. Carlton did that in 1997 [4] with the UK Hitchcock films including the Lodger. As such, the expiration of this film is not until normal copyright term. (This page [5] is a great explanation of what has occurred). Ideally we should let the IA know that this is a non-PD work, pointing to the above links as the problem. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: In that case, do you recommend that all Internet Archive external links currently found on the Hitchcock film articles be removed from Wikipedia? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This logic only applies to those that are produced in UK; the link above has a comprehensive list that can be backed up via the links to federal registers (any film on that list, we should not have an EL to the IA version of the film). I do not know off hand the copyright status of US Hitchcock films though that same link does cover those aspects. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to this list, correct? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ignore that question; that was rhetoric. In that case, I will remove those IA external links from those film articles. Thank you again. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Photos from issues of Life magazine with expired license of 28 years[edit]

Can I use those photos [6] of Life magazine even if their licence is expired? See c:Category talk:Life (magazine).--Vagrand (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The list of issues on the category talk page is a relatively recent addition by a user. You may decide if you trust that list or if you check personally. But it seems consistent with some other discussions. So, if we assume that that list is correct and that the copyright on this issue was not renewed as a whole by the publisher of the magazine, it does not mean that all its contents are out of copyright. As can be seen in the credits page for this issue, some parts of the contents were already copyrighted by other sources external to the magazine. The copyright on some parts of the contents may also have been renewed independently from a renewal of the magazine by the publisher. I assume your question is about the photographs by Dmitri Kessel (1902-1995) on pages 21-27. Some external sources say that he was a staff photographer for the magazine at some point, but the impressum on page 16 in this particular issue does not list him in the list of the staff photographers of the magazine. For what it's worth, Getty images sells licenses for some photographs by Kessel from those years in Greece, from the Life picture collection [7]. For better certainty about the copyright status of his photographs, you may want to check copyright renewals in his name and maybe look for more information in newspaper articles and books about him and his works. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
On page 21 it says that he is Life War photographer. So he belongs to the staff of the magazine. I think that the magazine owed at that time the copyright of the pictures because Kessel was an employee, that's right?.--Vagrand (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
He certainly took war photographs for Life. But what was the contractual status at that time? He is not in the list of the staff photographers. Anyway, if, after research, you conclude that the photographs are out of copyright, I suppose Commons would accept them. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Help tag uploaded media[edit]

I uploaded this file this evening: File:Guide_to_the_Literature_of_Photography_and_Related_Subjects.pdf but was not sure how to properly tag it. When I first uploaded it I was unsure of the license, but I later found a tag identifying it to be public domain. Was not sure how to adjust the description/tags so I added the note as a comment below the existing license tag. I'm sure this is probably not properly formatted and am hoping someone can fix it / properly format it for me. Thank you.

David Condrey log talk 08:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Groningen in 1930[edit]

Hi! What macro or template can I use to specify the source of an image? I am trying to provide source info for File:Groningen_Grote_Markt_1930.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmsma (talkcontribs) 17:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

First we do not know if this photo was ever published but even if it was published in 1930, then URAA would kick in because it was still in copyright in 1996. The normal term of 70 years pma would be 2000, so the copyright tag is incorrect and the source page does not provide any copyright information. Unfortunately this needs to be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

How do I delete a .jpg I have uploaded by mistake?[edit]

I don't see an obvious delete option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremysale (talkcontribs) 18:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jeremysale. I believe you need to have an administrator delete the file for you. This can be done by adding the template {{db-g7}} (click on the blue text to see how the template works) the top of the file's page if you satisfy the conditions listed at WP:G7. If you're not sure how to do this, post the name of the file here and an administrator will help you or add {{admin help}} to your user talk page or the file's talk page and administrator will post there. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Creative Commons permissions question[edit]

Hi - I posted an image yesterday (File:Bryan_Johnson_2015.jpg) that was originally published on Flickr with a CC 2.0 license. (I included a link to the Flickr page with the image.) I was under the impression that the CC 2.0 license gave me permission to republish the work elsewhere, but the image was marked for deletion and I was asked for proof that the creator agreed to release it. I'm a little confused - can somebody clarify for me? Thanks so much! (Update - I just added the CC 2.0 tag to the image file - does that help at all?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueHorseshoe (talkcontribs) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The copyright tag looks valid. Imma call Steel1943 here to explain.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The free license tag was added after I placed the speedy tags; when I tagged the image, the speedy tag was valid. I have now removed the speedy tags. Steel1943 (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: Oi. Seems like I misread the history. It did read to me like you tagged the page after the license tag was there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While the Flickr tag does look correct the image has no camera details in the metadata and the Flickr user has only uploaded two images. This is always highly suspicious and I will normally question the veracity of such Flickr images. Some people will steal an image from somewhere, upload it with a free licence to Flickr and then upload it here even though they are not the actual copyright holder. At the time there was no licence tag and no permission which is why the image was tagged by Steel1943. Actually it looks like this image was copied from Facebook and is attributed to Randy Murray Productions not a Flickr account called OS Fund (people can basically name their Flickr account anything they like), so we would like to have an OTRS verification for this one. It may be valid but who knows for sure so I am going to nominate it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't 100% sure. I didn't think that all images uploaded to Flickr were automatically granted a free license. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I don't know who Randy Murray is, but I'll email the group and see if I can get explicit verification. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueHorseshoe (talkcontribs) 00:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Asking is always a good idea because you cannot be told yes if you don't ask. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)