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 have been posted on commons by V587wiki, exists all over the web[edit]

Example

Thank you for the notice. These are already being dealt with at Commons. De728631 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Still file remaining

File:WS-10 2.jpg

--Strak Jegan (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free magazine covers[edit]

Hello, folks. I understand that there is concern about using non-free magazine covers. But I also understand that much of this concern is about using magazine covers that depict photographs of persons. My question here is about literary magazines whose covers depict a scene from one of the stories contained in the magazine. As an example, consider the magazine cover shown here. Its cover depicts a scene from a particular story by a particular author (here, Clifford Simak). In the instant case, the cover has passed into the public domain for reason of non-renewal, but my question is -- what if it wasn't in the public domain? Could it still be used as non-free content in an article about that particular story? By way of background, I note that these magazines typically feature new (i.e., previously unpublished) stories and that the Wikipedia articles on the stories routinely identify the magazine (and issue number) in which the story was first published. Thank you for your attention to this question. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

From a non-free content stance, I would say that the use of a non-free image of a cover of the magazine that a short story appeared in is accept if:
  • The story is notable on its own (separate article) so that the cover image is being used as infobox or lead image.
  • That the cover art is specifically for that story. In the example image, if that art cover was not about the work "Time Quarry", and that it's only highlighted on the cover in text, then that would not be an appropriate use of that magazine cover for that story's page. But if it is about "Time Quarry", then that's fine.
  • That there's no other potentially free image that does a better job of being the cover art or illustrative of the work than the magazine cover. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I would change Masem's last point: A potential free substitute need not be "better" than a non-free image (except in the sense of being free). It need only serve the same encyclopedic purpose. —teb728 t c 00:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Let me clarify what I meant. Take a random story and I could argue that a free image of the author would be freer image than the magazine cover, but on the article about the story it's not a great replacement for that purpose (though the free image can certainly be loaded into the article body). On the other hand, say that the author did some illustrations themselves that are out of copyright but fairly represent the work (much like Lewis Carroll's illustrations for Alice in Wonderland); those would be a freer replacement for the cover for the article about the story. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
On a related point, I've lately uploaded a truckload or two of free sf magazine cover images to Commons. When an issue used an installment of a serialized novel as its cover story, I've added that image to the article about the novel, but not as the article's primary image. I don't see such magazine images as serving the same function (especially as to identification) as the image of the actual book does, and therefore leave the book cover in place (usually in the infobox), even if it is nonfree. Does anybody see problems with this approach? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I am assuming that you're basically putting it in the body, with some caption "Story name appeared first in Issue ## of Sci Fi Work"? As long as the cover image is free, this seems perfectly acceptable use. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I pretty much agree with the above, but would add that, when possible, it's a good idea to verify that the cover actually illustrates the work in question. All The President's Men was (partly) serialized in Playboy, but the cover rather definitely didn't represent the book, even though the cover text played up the book prominently. For sf/fantasy magazines like Galaxy, mentioned above, it's a good idea to check the issue listing at ISFDB. Here, for example, is a magazine cover which prominently mentions a story by Asimov, but the cover illustration actually depicts a story by a less-well-known writer who isn't even mentioned on the cover. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is important. I've come to learn that often in the 70s and 80s sci-fi books and magazines would often use imagery produced for-hire that had little to do with the work at hand (for example Ender's Game's cover is pretty much disconnected from the actual work), though obviously as the book's first cover, this is appropriate. In the case of a short story in a magazine, Hullaballoo's point is spot on. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • The problem is older than that. In the 40s and 50s, for example, artwork was commonly done standalone and purchased for inventory, and the editor would just pick any old painting that might more or less match something. (Or not.) Campbell used to point to paintings to authors in need of ideas, those of course matched well, and authors were sort of guaranteed the cover! Choor monster (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and advice. The points about checking on the validity of the illustrations are well taken. As a practical matter, I will not be writing articles on stories that I haven't read and, indeed, will be re-reading them as I finalize the articles. Doing that will place me in a good position to verify the appropriateness of the depiction. Thank again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What if the subject of an article agrees to use their picture?[edit]

By Anna Frodesiak's initiative, I have been reminded of the desperate need for pictures in BLPs, so I asked a person about whom we have an article if I could use their picture. They gave me permission by e-mail (without actually specifying the exact picture yet); what is the next step? Does somebody need to confirm the e-mail? I want to make this process as painless as possible for the person, since they wrote that the hassle of the answers to the upload form already prevented them from doing this earlier. — Sebastian 01:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked for and received dozens of photos using mostly scenarios 1 and 2:
  • 1. Don't know them. Write to them. They say fine. I ask them to either upload themselves or email pic. They email pic. I upload with me as uploader, they as author. I tag with {{OTRS pending|year=2015|month=October|day=14}}. Email them User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS asking them to do OTRS. If they send the email, fine. If not, it gets deleted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • 2. Don't know them. Write to them. They say fine. I ask them to either upload themselves or email pic. They upload themselves. I tag with {{OTRS pending|year=2015|month=October|day=14}}. Email them User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS asking them to do OTRS. If they send the email, fine. If not, it gets deleted.
  • 3. Know them personally. Write to them. They say fine. I ask them to email pic. They email a pic. They donate the pic to me. I upload with me as uploader and owner. Done.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@SebastianHelm:Make sure you and they understand that they can't simply provide permission for photograph of themselves. We need permission from the copyright holder, which we presume is the photographer unless there is some evidence that the copyright has been transferred to the subject.
As an OTRS agent, one of the most common problems (typically occurring multiple times a day) is a person uploading a photo of themselves to Commons and sending in a permission statement to OTRS stating they are the copyright holder and releasing it. Sounds good but unless they've explained how the copyright was transferred from the photographer to the subject (or other explanations such as selfie or self timer), we have to reject the permission until that explanation is provided or they arrange for the photographer to send in permission.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I had a hunch about that and worded my copy of Anna's request accordingly; I just made the same change on her page here. In this case, the picture in question will be one the person paid for, so I would presume they bought the copyright, too. But I'm not a lawyer, it wouldn't be the first time I'd be surprised about legal matters being different from what common sense dictates. — Sebastian 23:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, this does get more complicated. What about the attribution? It always refers to the copyright holder, not the creator, right? What about the year? The picture may be a year or two old, do I need to worry about that and trouble them with that again to find out the year, or can I just write this year? — Sebastian 23:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You cannot simply assume that if they paid for the photo they own the copyright. Unfortunately, I have personal experience. A few years ago I saw a cartoon I particularly liked and arranged to purchase it. The fee was negotiated, I made the payment, and am now the proud owner of the original drawing of the cartoon. However, the package also included a notice that I was the owner of the original artwork but not the copyright, which means I could not reproduce it provided to Commons or use it on a T-shirt. (I have seen it on a T-shirt but it wasn't me.) Sorry to take so long, but I just want to reiterate that when they explained they purchased the photo you have to have them clarify that the purchase included not just the photos themselves but the copyright.
The attribution issue is generally easy. At the risk of oversimplifying, it is whatever the copyright owner wants. As for the date, it is nice to get it approximately correct unless it is relevant to the subject of the photo.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It is quite common for commercial portrait photographers to retain copyright. They sell a package of prints but keep the original negatives or digital files. Unless the photographer has transferred the copyright in writing, it must be assumed that the photographer or their estate holds the copyright. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, please re-read what I wrote above and look at the link I provided. I am not "simply assuming"; the text clearly requests for them to confirm that they are the sole copyright owner. If you feel that text is not good enough, please feel free to edit it there; this is a wiki, after all. — Sebastian 02:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Remember that it was you who said " so I would presume they bought the copyright, too". Sphilbrick — continues after insertion below
Sorry, I realize I did send out mixed messages; lesson learned. My intention with "presume" was just to muse; I felt that by rewording the mail, I was already one step safer than what others did, and reacted strongly because I saw your reply as another unexpected hoop I had to jump through. — Sebastian 06:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The point I am making and Cullen328 is supporting is that it is quite common for people to buy photographs and not realize that if the purchase agreement does not specifically include the copyright it doesn't come automatically. This is something that comes up several times every single day at OTRS permissions. If someone uploads a photograph of a bird or a tree or of some other person in claims they are the copyright holder, we generally accept it (although there are times we have to take additional steps to confirm) but if they send in a photograph of themselves we invariably ask for confirmation that the copyright has been transferred to the person providing the permission. We do not generally simply accept that if someone says they are the sole copyright owner they know what they're talking about. (Some exceptions: uploaders whom we've dealt with previously, professional photographers who generally understand the rules, obvious selfies).
Your proposed wording is fine, but if I receive that permission statement at OTRS and the owner name is the same as the subject of the photo, I'm going to follow up with a request for clarification, so you can make the process easier for everyone if you let them know that the permission statement should be supplemented with a clarification of how the copyright was transferred in the case the owner name matches the subject.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
My concern is to not burden the person with more red tape, so it won't make it better if you ask them. There are two options: (1) My hope still is that in this case, as it is a commissioned photograph for the promotion of the works of the subject, it is unlikely that the photographer would complain. But I have to trust your experience with that. (2) If there is a significant risk, and someone has to ask them, then I think it would be a smoother process, easier for everyone (except me) if did so. Would the following wording be OK? "I am very sorry, the process is more complicated than I was made to believe. It turns out, in addition to the form I already sent to you, Wikipedia also needs an explicit clarification of how the copyright was transferred. Moreover, it would be nice to have the approximate copyright year." 06:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
We do have email templates for that when we attend to OTRS tickets. On you other point, more often than not the photographer retains copyright even on commissioned works, typically the photographer grants a right to use which is not the same. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my question. I would like this section to be for the question What [a normal user should do] if the subject of an article agrees to use their picture?. For discussion of the email templates, please see c:Commons talk:Email templates, where I tried to focus on that side of the discussion. — Sebastian 07:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC), amended 07:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Be aware that Anna Frodesiak/OTRS now differs from the source Commons:Email templates. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna: The purpose of the "creator and/or sole owner" is for them to clarify which (or both) of the two the person email us is. And when they say they are just the copyright holder and not the creator, we ask for clarification on how they own the copyright. In some cases the creator asks for attribution, in some cases they don't. I think the Commons template is good as is and perhaps you could just transclude that template as it would reflect any changes (if transcluding here isn't possible, then make this page on Commons and do an interwiki redirect or something). —SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think there may still be a chance to improve the template. But I will post that's at c:Commons talk:Email templatesSebastian 06:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC), edited 06:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. To let you know, these both exist: Wikipedia:Donated artwork/OTRS form and User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS. I would prefer neither is transcluded, but rather I can do regular checks to see what's new at commons. This is because I give the link at IRC for the one in my space, and artists may be using the one at donated works. They sometimes click edit to get a copy of it and the transclusion will confuse them. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Anna, let's move this discussion to User talk:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS#Transclusion or copy?. — Sebastian 06:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Wilson A Head[edit]

The image I had on the article "Dr. Wilson A Head" was removed. I would like to know why none of the followup images that I subsequently loaded to take its place have not been accepted to post on the article. These subsequent images that I loaded on Wikimedia Commons were personally scanned for me by members of Dr. Head's family and sent to me by email in the hopes that one of them could be used to go with the article. There is no copyright infraction with these images, as they were taken directly from the family members' own personal scrap books.

Katsheron (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Katsheron, did you do one of the steps Anna describes above? — Sebastian 22:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, SebastianHelm - Do I retry uploading the same image on Wikimedia Commons following that advice?

Katsheron (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ownership of an image, and ownership of the copyright are not necessarily the same thing, and very commonly involve two different people. Today, it is not uncommon for a photographer to give a photo to the subject and agreed to turn over the copyright, but in years past this was the exception rather than the rule. If person A takes a photo of person B, prints it and gives it to person B or person C for a scrapbook, the copyright holder is person A, except for those rare cases where the photographer transfers copyright. Just because someone has a photo in a family album one cannot assume they on the copyright. This is a royal pain, because many many people are willing to license the photographs and not at all happy when we press them for the permission statement from the photographer. In many cases they do not even know the identity of the photographer. In other cases they know the name but have no contact information. In some cases they may be reasonably certain the photographer is dead but unless they been dead for 70 years we still can't use the photo.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Author's Own Photo[edit]

Hello, I created a wiki page for Karen Dawisha, and have acquired 3 photos to upload. But I am confused about the question of licenses. Through correspondence with the author, I have received the following information: "...all three [photos] are in the public domain. The one with Putin is mine, taken with my camera. Head shot is public, taken at Miami U. I hold the copyright for my book [cover]."

The problem is that no one has a physical copy of a license for these photos, particularly given those taken with the author's own camera. She has given explicit permission, but can I post them? How do I answer wiki's questions about whether I possess a copy of the licenses, when there are no physical licenses in existence?

hannacarol

Hannacarol (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hannacarol: physical licences aren't an issue. What needs to be put forward to Wikipedia is the written consent of the copyright holder to the re-use of the images. There is a procedure for this laid out at WP:CONSENT. The two images from her camera are pretty simple, the book cover might be a little more difficult as in practice it tends to be the publisher who owns the copyright on the book jacket not the author. This would need to be explained in the email submitted. Nthep (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Image file Ginn Hale[edit]

This image was deleted recently because I had failed to make the copyright clear.

The image was sent to me by the owner specifically to add it to the Wikipedia entry. If I want to restore it, how do I explain that in the file entry, and how specific (for example re. name of the copyright holder) do I have to be?

liade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liade (talkcontribs) 16:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Liade: Did the copyright owner publish the image elsewhere? In that case, he'd have to put up a Wikipedia-compatible license on that publication. Tell him also about Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials; that indicates the various procedures for these situations.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

UK Open Government Licence for LIDAR data[edit]

With the UK government releasing high-res (2m to 25cm) LIDAR data of most of England, it makes it possible to create images of archaeological sites that there are no other free (libre) maps for.

I've just downloaded some data, and had a go (here for this hillfort), and am now having some doubts about whether this qualifies as a libre image, and if so, how to tag & attribute it correctly.

The data was downloaded here, and seems to be released under the UK Open Government Licence v3: any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks. ‑‑YodinT 22:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Just tag with OGL-attribution {{OGL-attribution}} --Aspro (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Cheers; following the links there I found more info on Meta (here), and the Commons template {{OGL3}}. ‑‑YodinT 10:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

How can I keep a picture up?[edit]

So today I posted a picture a friend of mine took this summer. I asked this friend if I was allowed to use it, and add it to wikipedia. He allowed me to, so I posted it to use in an article I am working on. It has been flagged now and will be removed if information is not added on the copyright. How do I source this image and stop it from being taken down? I intend to keep it on my article that is for a class assignment due soon. The image is File:Scugog soccer field.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKCWilkinson (talkcontribs) 21:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Because this is a public place in Canada (from what I read), we would need to have this image available as a freely licensed image (under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or in the public domain); those tags you can find at WP:ICT/FL and one would need to be added to the image. As your friend took it, it is up to him to make that call, which is where the difficulty comes in. If your friend wants to upload that image with a new Wikipedia account, that would be simplest way to get the image up on Wikipedia with the right attribution and free license tag. Another similar option would be if they put it on a website like Flickr where they can assign the CC-BY or CC-BY-SA tag, which then we can take as evidence to use here at WP. If neither works, you will need to have your friend send an email to the OTRS as described WP:CONSENT to allow you to upload the image and tag it with a free license.

How to upload?[edit]

How would I correctly upload this image found here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmando999 (talkcontribs)

@Catmando999: You wouldn't, I'm afraid. That looks like a non-free image of a living person to me, and per WP:NFCC#1 we don't use these usually.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Okay. I will try to find a better one. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 09:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this image sufficiently attributed?[edit]

Probably trivial, but I don't know my way around licensing etc. yet, so some guidance would be appreciated.

The image File:Mormopterus planiceps.jpg was uploaded and added to Southern free-tailed bat by an editor who is not the owner of the image but claims to have received permission by the owner to upload it here, provided it is credited correctly (see statement here). I see no reason to doubt them, but I wonder if the image will have to be attributed differently at Commons then (not just with a website ref). Can someone clarify? I have removed the image from the article until that is cleared up. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. You're right in that we need a proof of permission from the photographer. I tagged the image a Commons and notified the uploader. De728631 (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Public Domain of newspaper photos[edit]

Is a photo published in an Irish newspaper in the public domain? I haven't been able to find a reference in the Wiki pages to tell me.Garranes (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Garranes: Usually not, but you'd have to tell us which photo.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It's a photo of an artist taken at an art exhibition in 1994. Do you need more details than that? Thanks. Garranes (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • A photo made in 1994 is recent enough to be copyrighted. Unless the photographer put it in the public domain.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:If I get permission from the photographer to use it, how would I advise Wikipedia of this? Is there a way to post an email response? Thanks again. Garranes (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Check out WP:CONSENT. It has a more detailed explanation.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Can an image scanned from a book be classed as "Own Work"?[edit]

Example

The image appears to have been scanned from a book, which I've not yet identified and then edited to remove most of the text on the page. The editor then classed this as "Own Work" however I am not sure this falls under that category and may need to be deleted.

Graham1973 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Nominated for deletion. Thanks for reporting. Yann (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

How to upload?[edit]

Is there a way I can correctly upload this image found here? If not, is there any photo of him I could upload to Wikipedia? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

the copyright page on the Albany website lists the conditions under which the content can be reused. As they specifically exclude commercial reuse then the only way would be with written consent from the council as per one of the later paragraphs. Nthep (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Nthep:

Okay. I will know put this question out there:

Henk van de Ven[edit]

Are there any good pictures of him I can upload? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Usable?[edit]

I have a question about this image. I'd like to upload it to Wikipedia for the article for Lucy Addison, but I was unsure about the copyright. The book was published in the 1920s and it's currently hosted at the Internet Archive. It looks like it's been republished, but I know that this does not always mean that the images would be copyrighted.

Do you guys think that this would be in the public domain? The re-release of the book appears to be copyrighted, but I'm not sure if that's for the book itself or the things that the publishers added. I know that the book Wuthering Heights is in the public domain, but print books will still have copyright notices so I'm unsure on this. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Images published in the 1921 book can be uploaded to Commons with the status template "PD-1923". Although the book unfortunately does not provide information about the illustrations, it is reasonable to assume that they were published with the consent of their respective copyright owners. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Good to know! I'll try to get this uploaded sometime tonight or tomorrow. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Professional Photos[edit]

For copyright were do professional photos fall.

I have a an image of Dal Dhaliwal given to me by her and the photo was taken by her photographer. Where does this fall under copyright.RockinWebsites (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Just ask Dal Dhaliwal if she would ask her photographer to email in an Commons:OTRS to us for that image. More specifically, to fill in the template in the box here Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries, then cut & past it into an email and send to : permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It would also bring the photographer's work to a wider audience. Without that, we can not use the image.--Aspro (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mansfield Smith-Cumming[edit]

There are multiple images of Mansfield Smith-Cumming, a British man who died in 1923. Are these eligible for inclusion in the article about him? If so, what specifically would be needed on the file page at Commons? ―Mandruss  23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please I need assistance here[edit]

Please iIneed assistance on creating page here. Most of my work here are being deleted and I don't know why. All the information are true and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesoro77 (talkcontribs) 10:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You should probably ask for help at the Tea House.--ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Image of Titumir[edit]

I uploaded a image of Titumir, a Bengali hero who was fought against British and Bengali landlords few days back. Now, I found the image in a popular newspaper in Bangladesh. Newspaper doesnt have a clear description of his image. What to do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amfmaads (talkcontribs) 11:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Question on copyright of images from the 1920s/1930s[edit]

I've been working on Marilyn Monroe's article, and am looking for images to illustrate the section about her childhood. I can find several photographs of Monroe as a child (she was born in 1926 so I presume mostly taken between 1926–1935), but have no idea about whether these kinds of images are copyrighted? Presumably none of them were copyrighted at the time as they would've been just normal childhood photos taken by family members, yet Getty Images is confusingly making money by licensing them: http://www.gettyimages.fi/photos/marilyn-monroe-child?assettype=image&excludenudity=false&family=editorial&page=1&phrase=marilyn%20monroe%20child&sort=mostpopular I'm currently in the process of taking the article to FA level, and an image of Monroe as a child/teen would be a wonderful addition. I've read through the WP guides to copyright issues, but still don't trust myself on this topic. Any help would be appreciated! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@TrueHeartSusie3: Hi,
It depends about publication. If they were not published until recently, they are still copyrighted. If they were published without a copyright notice, or the copyright was not renewed, they are in the public domain. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
So if I find a magazine from let's say early 1960s with an image of Monroe as a child, it shouldn't be copyrighted, unless there is a copyright notice in the magazine? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
Possibly yes. See c:Commons:Hirtle chart or File:Copyright rules chart 2014 - Peter B. Hirtle, Cornell University.pdf for details. Yann (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Rapid KL Logo.svg[edit]

Seems to me that this should be {{PD-textlogo}}. Any dissent/objections? Useddenim (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems like text, yeah. The underlying SVG may be copyrighted though - in this case we might need a freely licensed rendition.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested change to main image for Heroes Reborn (miniseries) article[edit]

I noticed that there's a comment on the talk page of this article mentioning that the image currently used in the article as the series logo is actually a fan-made image and not the actual logo, as its description and fair use rationale state. The talk page comment also includes a link to the main NBC page that has the actual logo, and I'd change this myself but I'm not at all familiar with working with images on Wikipedia, and since the desire is to change a preexisting image it seemed complicated. Can someone with more experience please swap the logo out for the correct one? Sorry if this isn't the right place for requests like this. Just hoping to get the attention of someone who knows how to do this. —2macia22 (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Detroit Industry Murals[edit]

The Detroit Industry Murals were painted in 1932 and 1933 in a public location, which qualified them for "publication" under contemporary US law. Were paintings subject to renewal at the time, and if so, when, and how would the renewal have been made known? Like with books, would the painter have had to renew them in the 28th year, and would the renewal have been published in a normal place like the Catalog of Copyright Entries? I'd love to undelete the full-resolution editions of File:Rivera detroit industry south.jpg and File:Rivera detroit industry north.jpg and re-mark them as {{PD-art}}. In case you're wondering, I've checked the full-resolution editions without finding copyright notices, but full-resolution is still small enough that we can't be anywhere close to sure. Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Best to create new image or try to use official one[edit]

Hi, this may be the wrong place to ask, but I'm trying to determine how best to handle a chart depicted in a novel. The chart has two different forms, and is a representation of something similar to Morse code. Form 1 and Form 2. As far as I can tell, there are no online copies of the original chart except on sites like Tumblr, and I'm assuming that those copies are probably not good for meeting Wikipedia's copyright standards.

Is this a case where I should try to create an original representation of the chart (using some kind of painting program)? Or can the originals be scanned from a copy of the novel or downloaded from Tumblr? I'm not sure if the format and design of the original chart is important enough to use the kind of fair-use rationale that applies for logos. The information it displays is definitely important for the article it will be used in. Thanks for help with this complicated question. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

biology[edit]

TOXANOMY living organisms like cocraoch, house fly termite clasication are kingdom1, phyllum2,class3,order4,family5,genus6,specimen7 COCROACH CLASICAFICATIOM 1 animalia 2arthropoda 3insecta 4dictyoptera 5blattidea 6periplaneta 7peripluneta Americana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.143.83 (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Adblock image[edit]

i would like to upload a specific adblock image white list photo the white list image is at the pagefair blog does it meet fair use criteria--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

http://blog.pagefair.com/2015/adblock-joins-abp/

Most likely not because it is information that could easily be conveyed by text alone. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Meeting the no free equivalent criterion. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

[Untitled][edit]

I am writing a Wikipedia article about a singer. Can I take an image of him from one of his facebook photos?115.164.210.131 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Most likely not. If you gave more specific details, I could take a look at the case. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)