Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Excesive non-free?

Twelve (at last count) non free images on Aldo Zelnick - is this a "few" too many?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Book covers may be OK, but I think all the character images are too much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, looks like someone has now killed them anyway.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

this copyright was from bing images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamefreak45 (talkcontribs) 23:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What media are you referring to? —teb728 t c 00:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:1986NBAPlayoffs.png

Hello. I have some questions on how to source some NBA logos I put up, like the setup and how to make sure I've abided by copyright laws. This is one of the uploads: File:1986NBAPlayoffs.png. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbadefense1990 (talkcontribs) 08:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Answer the questions:
   Who created this image?
   Who holds the copyright to this image?
   Where did this image come from?
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I added Owner and Source parameters to the non-free use rationale and filled in the Owner parameter (who holds the copyright=the NBA). The Source parameter gives you a place to answer where it came from (replace my {{error}} tag with where you got it from).

is this original enough to copyright? I have seen numerous similar designs online...

is this original enough to copyright? I have seen numerous similar designs online...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/41212_138502459525615_138411876201340_208569_974707_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slinkysmommy (talkcontribs) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is.--agr (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Uploading a photo

how to upload a photo in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankajdandi (talkcontribs) 21:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

See Help:Files. —teb728 t c 02:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of Roleplaying Game Cover

Alternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
File:Alternity box cover.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to replace the image used on a wiki page illustrating the roleplaying game Alternity. I have an image of the actual Player's Handbook cover which more accurately depicts the game being described. Both pieces of artwork were created for the game system by the same gaming company. Can I replace the image (Alternity Box Set cover) with the Alternity Player's Handbook image and use the same copyright and free use justification? Would this image be okay to upload to the Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voidwidow (talkcontribs) 03:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Translating pages and linking to foreign language content

The following picture exists in the German version of the page Rosenheim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rosenheim_1860_A.jpg http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rosenheim_1860_A.jpg

The only way I could find to insert this into the English version of this page, was to download it and upload it as a new image. I then ran into the copyright question.

There must be a 'proper' way of linking from an English language page to a picture stored on for a page in another language???

I have been working on translating the German version of this page to English, as the English version seemed very empty. There are other links to German language only pages which I would like to use, but they do not work.

I have run into this issue before when working on translation of pages, but have so far found no simple solution. Note that pictures in Wikimedia commons are fine.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkingscott (talkcontribs) 12:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Both of these images appear to be in the public domain, though the German is not entirely sure and it looks like a lower resolution version of the enwiki file. You should just move whichever one you really want to use to the commons and then it will be available for all language wikis. There is no point in having the same file of different language wikis at different sizes unless there is a good reason. This image might also be useful to your article. However, some language wikis do not permit the use of any non-free images and some, like this one, do, so such images need to be assessed individually to determine if they can be transferred directly to another language wiki. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-derivative copyright

There's a very interesting letter from Frank Sintatra to Pulitzer-Prize-winning newspaper columnist Mike Royko on the "Antiques Roadshow (US)" website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/madison_200903A49_01.html with extensive additional documentation at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/madison_200903A49_ss.html#0

The letter is signed by Sinatra and has a copyright notice at the bottom that reads in full

"This material has been copyrighted may not be reproduced unless used in its entirety and and sets forth the following copyright notice

(c) Frank Sinatra 1976"

The letter was published in full by Royko in the Chicago Daily News on May 5, 1976 (and by PBS as a photo at the above website) I'd like to include the photo in the Mike Royko article and perhaps even on the Antiques Roadshow US article (to show some of the odd things they come up with).

The photo itself fulfills the copyright restrictions (entirety with copyright notice included)

It would have been a miracle if Sinatra renewed such a copyright, thus making the letter PD after 1990.

There should be few problems for the Royko article, at least, in using it as "Fair Use" but I'd prefer to use a more general license.

I'd think a "No derivatives" would be compatible with the original copyright, but is this allowed here or on commons? Smallbones (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No derivatives licences are not considered as free licences - any such image which did not have another suitable licence would be speedy deleted from Commons. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, works published in the US in 1964 and later did not need copyright renewal. —teb728 t c 23:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of images in books distributed by Project Gutenderg

The project Gutenberg copyright notice in the following three books states in part "... at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever" which makes me a little nervous ...

... and I have also already uploaded one of William Wiehe Collins' images to commons. I would like to upload more. Would someone confirm the copyright status of these 180 images please --Senra (Talk) 12:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg follows U.S. copyright law - because the books were published before 1923, they're considered PD, even if the original paintings are not U.S. works. Commons policy, however, is that works should be PD in their country of origin; because Collins died less than 70 years ago, his paintings are almost certain to still be copyrighted in the UK, and so shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. En.wp (here) is more like Gutenberg and just follows U.S. law, so you should be able to upload the images locally, tagging them {{PD-US}} and {{Do not move to Commons|expiry=2021}}. --dave pape (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
OK fair enough. However, I have never uploaded to En.wp before. Please direct me to the relevant upload page and guideline --Senra (Talk) 18:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Help:Images. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think I done it correct. See file:Ely the market place-1.jpg --Senra (Talk) 20:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks good! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Image gets deleted

Have been trying for months to upload ONE photo of my client for his wikipedias page. It keeps getting deleted. At this point, I am going nuts. I don't understand the tags and where to put them He owns ALL the rights to the photo. Please tell me exactly, step by step, which copyright to pick (he just wants the photo on the page and could care less what other people do with it), and where I need to tag the photo so it will never ever be deleted!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessamine37 (talkcontribs) 02:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, if you are working for someone trying to get information on Wikipedia, you have a conflict of interest and need to be careful to keep neutral point of view and that you are not promoting the individual because we are not an WP:NOTADVERTISING or a WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. We do not choose a copyright for you; the copyright holder must decide that and verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT with freely licenced permission and Donating copyrighted materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ww2censor (talkcontribs) 03:35, 5 December 2011‎
Perhaps this will help you understand: The {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license tag on File:ShaneAlexander.jpg is a perfectly adequate license. The issue is proving whether the copyright owner has granted that license. To prove that, follow the procedure outlined by ww2censor above. —teb728 t c 04:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I had previously voted for the deletion of that same file at PUF because of an unclear licensing status. Now Jessamine37 has informed me on my user talk page that they've sent a permission email to OTRS, so we should be on the safe side now. De728631 (talk) 12:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

copyright information for image: Charging_Bull_statue.jpg?wwparam=1323115271

Do you know if the following image is available to free use? Please respond to (Redacted). Thank you. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Charging_Bull_statue.jpg?wwparam=1323115271 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.142.4.32 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While the image is available under a free license, the underlying image is copyrighted. To see information on its copyright status, see File:Charging Bull statue.jpg - Wikipedia uses it under the fair use doctrine. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Solo movie

solo:movie.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masti 84 (talkcontribs) 02:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Do you have a media copyright question? ww2censor (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright on hired works

I have some really nice pictures that may be of use for Interracial marriage, Javanese culture, and Wedding photography. However, as I did not take the pictures myself (a person was hired to do so, using his own equipment), what would the copyright law on that be, both in the US and in Indonesia? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the contract. As a general rule, in the US, unless someone is your employee, then you don't own the copyright. The copyright to most wedding photography is owned by the photographer.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • And if the contract does not explicitly discuss copyright of the images, then it is assumed to be the photographer's? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes because copyright has to be granted in writing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik

How can I add a pic to Profile of Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik? Jaro1980 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have a freely licenced image, you can upload it, here or to the commons and then add it to the article Engineer Jameel Ahmad Malik. Click on the "Upload file" link on the left side of the page, then add the image by using the following code: [[File:Imagename|thumb|Caption to describe the image]] to the article. However, to me, it looks like the article does not pass the notability threshold for WP:POLITICIAN, so it may be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

File:These Days cover.jpg

Does this file pass the threshold of originality? If so could you transfer it on commons?--79.51.43.108 (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is not simply plain text and graphics, the graded and textured lettering was an original creative decision. ww2censor (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Official texts

Many country declare in their copyright laws that "official texts" are not copyrighted. Can we (in general) expect that

  • state emblems,
  • banknotes/coins,
  • stamps

are also "official documents", because they are defined in those?--Antemister (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily; country legislation differs. You may find it useful to consult commons:Commons:Licensing, commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and commons:Commons:Currency for individual country information though all countries are not listed. ww2censor (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, wanted to expand that list... Most copyright laws have a phrase like "any official text of a legislative, administrative or of legal nature, as well as official translations thereof" are not protected, only some laws also include explicitely such images. Those cases which do not mention images are the problem. The images are defined in a "text", but they are of course not a text. Perhaps there are court decisions on that topic, perhaps not. Sure, we are not be able the find a special court decision from Chad, Yemen or Laos. What should be the best solution here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antemister (talkcontribs) 20:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Public Domain, Canadian Crown Copyright and URAA Copyright Renewals

So I'm having a bit of an issue with some photos. I would like to upload them (and have for several years, uninformed). These images are all public domain in Canada, but possibly not in the United States, and this is what I need clarification on.

I know that the URAA came into effect January 1, 1996 and that all material produced in countries under the Berne convention (or with copyright ties to the US) that was not already public domain became was renewed to a 95 year term. I know that in Canada, material produced before January 1, 1949 is public domain, and that crown copyright expires after 50 years.

My question is, since the government explicitly states in their copyright policy that everything they produce is subject to crown copyright, and that this expires 50 years after it was produced, does this statement override the US slapping an arbitrary copyright term on it? - Does the statement by the copyright holder override the default copyright protection applied in another country?

And a follow up if the answer is no: Does this mean I cannot release my own material, as I can only deem it public domain in Canada, but the US can stick its own term on to the work? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If the copyright holder - in this case Canada - says that it is public domain, then it is PD everywhere. Smallbones (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
If you own the rights you can release them in the USA as well as in Canada. (and every where else). In many countries you cannot make something public domain as it has no legal basis, but you can release rights, as in CC-0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
There are many details in your question that can be considered. I hope I will not confuse you. Canadian Crown copyright expires 50 after publication of the work (Copyriht Act, section 12), not after creation. That is one difference between the Crown copyright and the copyright on photographs authored by corporations. The copyright on a photograph authored by a corporation expires 50 years after the creation of the photograph (Copyright Act, section 10). Before the changes to the Copyright Act entered into force in 1999, the same principle of 50 years after creation applied also to the copyright on photographs authored by physical persons, hence the application of that principle to the copyright on photographs created before 1949 authored by physical persons. Note that that principle does not apply to works created before 1949 that are subject to Crown copyright, and it does not apply to works other than photographs, even if created before 1949 and authored by physical persons. So, today, to tell if the copyright on a photograph authored by a corporation is expired in Canada, one needs only to know the year of creation of the photograph; but to tell if the copyright on a photograph created after 1948, or on another type of work created at any time, authored by a physical person, is expired in Canada, one must find the year of the death of that physical person (Copyright Act, section 6); to tell if the copyright initially owned by a corporation, on a work other than a photograph, is expired in Canada, one must find the year of the death of the person who created it for the corporation (Copyright Act, sections 6 and 13) ; and to tell if the copyright on a Canadian Crown work (of any type) is expired in Canada, one must find evidence about the year of its publication. If a work subject to Crown copyright was created in 1950 but was first published in 1980, then the copyright on it would normally expire in 2031. About the government's statement that their material is subject to Crown copyright, that is all that it says. Consequently, the Crown copyright on this materail expires in Canada 50 years after its publication, by the effect of the Canadian law. To determine when the copyright on this material expires in the U.S. by the effect of the U.S. law, one must apply the U.S. law. Such a statement is not different from that of an estate who inherited the rights of a private author and who reminds that the estate holds the copyright in Canada for 50 years after the author's death. It does not amount to a statement that the estate renounces the remaining 20 years of its copyrights in countries where the copyright duration is 70 years after the author's death and where there is no rule of the shorter term. Similarly, the government's statement can't be extrapolated and interpreted it as if it were an official statement of release of the material to the universal public domain after the expiration of the copyright in Canada. Unless, of course, there is a clear statement of release into the public domain. For comparison, the agency in charge of the Crown copyright in the United Kingdom has declared that after the UK Crown copyright expires on a material, the agency will not enforce the copyrights that may subsist in other countries on that material. They effectively accept to treat that material as out of copyright everywhere. I don't remember reading a similar official statement from the Canadian government. So, strictly speaking, the statement to which you refer does not override the U.S. law. In theory, the Canadian government could enforce their copyright that subsists in other countries on material that is out of copyright in Canada, but I am not aware of cases where they did. In the absence of an official statement from the government of a country, people at Wikimedia Commons seem to generally consider that the duration of a government's copyright defined in a country's law amounts to some sort of tacit understanding that, after the expiration of its copyright in that country, that government will not enforce its copyright in other countries. Commons generally accepts files that correspond to this situation. I do not know what is the policy or practice of Wikipedia on that point. As for your last question, I concur with Graeme Bartlett's answer. You can do (almost) what you want with your own copyrights, including releasing your works to the public domain, or the equivalent, worldwide. On Wikimedia Commons, one recommended way of doing that is to do it with the text of the CC-0 declaration provided by Creative Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Trying to add a picture but don't understand copyright rules

Hi, I've read through your copyright rules for uploading photos, but can't make heads or tails of it. I do not know what I am looking for; how do I know if it is okay to post? I've found a suitable photo on Flickr, but even then am not sure. Can someone explain in plain language what it is that I am supposed to look for to ensure that my picture complies with copyright laws? Thanks. Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grhovane (talkcontribs) 18:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please post a link to the Flickr image. Otherwise see WP:UPIMG. – ukexpat (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, here is the link on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bubbahotep11/2785104991/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grhovane (talkcontribs) 16:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

All Rights Reserved

i have contacted Jeroen Paul Thesseling myself, and wanted to use the following photos for his Wiki page here.

  • He has already asked the authors for the permission for usage of these photos on Wikipedia, and they both granted it. However, the photos have All Rights Reserved tag. Can something be done for these photos to stay on Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance Vuk1992 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The copyright holder must verify their permission to us by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT and it must be freely licenced as Wikipedia only permission is not acceptable to us. The photos are individually credited to Daniel Horlbogen and Tomas Rodriguez Villegas, and unless they have contracted their copyright to the Flickr uploader (possibly a management company), it is the photographer's permission that is necessary because the Flickr account may not be the ultimate copyright holder. Even if they changed the "All rights reserved" tag to a free licence, that may not actually be accurate but thanks for asking and let's hope you can get the proper permission as they look like interesting photos. ww2censor (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • thanks for the quick feedback.

they have contracted their copyright to the flickr uploader, that is mr.Thesseling's managment account. What do i need to do now exactly?

Vuk1992 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

They need to change the license on the Flickr pages which still say "All rights reserved" to an acceptable license or follow the procedures at WP:IOWN to communicate appropriate permissions to Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

LOC and no known restrictions

This image at the Library of Congress has Leffler, Warren K. as the creator and does not list him in their list of artists. Is it PD, or at the least okay for Wikipedia? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I can think of no reason to think it would be PD: It would be PD if it were taken by a US government employee, or if it were published in 1956 without a copyright notice, or if the copyright were not renewed. But this photo is from the U.S. News & World Report magazine photograph collection; so it presumably is not by a government employee. And it is from a contact sheet, not a clipping; so it likely was not published. I can’t see it used as a non-free image since there are several free portraits at Commons:Category:Sukarno. —teb728 t c 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Australian photos from the 1940s

Could an expert join in at User talk:Lexysexy and perhaps re-tag this editor's uploads before they are deleted? Thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

They are al PD-Australia. The PD-Australia template need to be edited because it has some invalid stuff about pre 1996. The date is 1 Jan 2005. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Photographs for 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan

For 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan:

[1] This link has a photograph of the two officers killed in the incident. I've convinced the administrator to release all the website's images under creative commons license. Although this image has been posted to the forum part of the website, but by its members, and can be verified as correct from the news sources: [2] etc. The image is irreplaceable (incase the non commercial part stops it to be uploaded under free content and would have a fair use rationale as well). Can it be used? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Short answer is no. First, the CC licence at /terms is incompatible with the CC-BY-SA, which explicitly allows adaptation and commercial re-use. Second, the image on the forums is not theirs to license, as it belongs to either PakistanTime.net or the photographer and uploader, whichever prevails (unclear from your message). Third, the image is "irreplaceable" as an image of two now-deceased persons, but it is certainly not necessary to the understanding of the subject (see WP:NFCC #8). Best, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 16:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. As per the point you cited from WP:NFCC, the image is related to the understanding of who the commanders of the attacked post were which is the subject matter as well... does it fulfill the criteria on those basis? Another question, there are military honours/funeral images shared by most news sources for the incident which are all very much related to the subject matter but all would be non free content and irreplaceable. Can that have a fair use rationale? [3] --lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Likely not. Image use under NFCC is very strict and must be used only if their omission would be detrimental to the understanding of the subject. Company logos, yes. Image of deceased persons used on said person article, yes. Historical pictures that are the subject of the discussion themselves, yes. Irreplaceable images of significant one-time events (e.g. plane crash with its own article), yes. But funeral images only serve an illustration purpose, which is not critical to the understanding of the subject. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 16:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Got your point. Thanks! --lTopGunl (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Modified Wikipedia derived image

I assume that an image taken from Wikipedia in English, with the text then translated into another language for a Wikipedia page and expanded by myself can be donated back to Wikipedia.

Answer to <e-mail removed> or on talk. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E A S (talkcontribs) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not post your e-mail address on help pages, which are highly visible (unless you like receiving spam, see Email address harvesting). We do not generally communicate by e-mail. As for your question, could you be more specific as to which image your referring to? The image could be used here under the fair use provisions in US copyright law, in which case it is not ok to adapt the work. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 16:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot of a Video Game

I took a picture of a computer game I was playing and I want to use it in my article. Is this allowed? Also, how do I add copyright information about such a file, and what kind of copyright information do I need? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattlukes (talkcontribs) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Once the article is accepted, some images can be used on Wikipedia under the fair use provisions in US copyright law and the non-free content criteria. You may use an image of the game box cover, like in this one, and one image to illustrate the typical gameplay, like in this one; both of them must be low-resolution, have the appropriate copyright tag (cover, screenshot) and an appropriate fair use rationale. Fair use images cannot be used in articles that are not "live", so do not upload images until your article is accepted. Regards, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

/* Image tagging for File:PDB_protein_1sr4_(HdCDT).jpg */

Hello, I cannot find an appropriate tag from the options given in the drop down menu, so I placed the credit in the picture description as requested by the Terms of Usage of the PDB website. http://www.pdb.org/pdb/static.do?p=general_information/about_pdb/policies_references.html The image is available for both commercial AND non-commercial use, but is not associated with a specific Creative Commons license type.

Pellant1 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You have pretty well described the issues. The terms page you link to only permits free use of data files and molecular images from RCSB PDB Structure Summary pages. If this is regarded as falling with those terms then it looks like a {{cc-by-3.0}} would be the appropriate licence because they ask for attribution even though they don't specifically provide a licence under which they release the images. Perhaps you could contact them for clarification. ww2censor (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:R.E.M. - We All Go Back to Where We Belong.jpg

Does this image pass the threshold of originality?--79.50.43.5 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes the background is creative as well as the plain lettering. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agnes Monica at the Asia song festival 2009

Can I use this picture as a fair use for Agnes Monica article about her participation in the Asian Song Festival 2009?

http://www.google.com.sg/imgres?q=agnes+monica+asf&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbnid=WA4FOj56WhQ4WM:&imgrefurl=http://www.agnezone.com/news/32-agnes-monica-is-burning-on-2009-asf-.html&docid=JOAWipmyLeqHMM&imgurl=http://i34.tinypic.com/f04281.jpg&w=520&h=352&ei=mYzhTuGHA8nlrAeatMXtAQ&zoom=1&biw=865&bih=442

I believe this picture is from mydaily (Korea). It was used as a picture in their article, but no longer exist in their web page. If the rationale for a fair use is not enough, will it be okay to take a screenshot from an old video of her participation at the Asian Song Festival 2009?

Personally, I prefer this picture, as it comes out better than a screenshot. Could you notify me in my talk page if you answer my question. Thanks Awriterwrites (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Very likely not, for both cases. You could use the picture if her participation at the Asian Song Festival 2009 had its own article, or at least a significant section, of critical importance, in her article. This is not the case; and as far as I can see this image would be used mainly for an illustration purpose as opposed to a "necessary to understand the subject" purpose. As such, it fails the non-free content criteria. As Agnes Monica is a living person, there is a reasonable chance that one could come up with free pictures, thus there is no need to use non-free material, other than illustration (not a valid rationale). CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Licensing question - How do I release images for non-commercial use?

Hey,

I know the guy that took and owns the rights to these pictures. I'd like to try and convince him to post them to the commons, but I think he will want to maintain the commercial rights to the photos. In other words, he'll want to allow folks to " copy, distribute and transmit ", as well as remix/adapt, but not to " make commercial use of the work ". Can someone advise on how to upload images under those conditions? Thanks! NickCT (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok.... After a little research I think I want to use a "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". I can't figure out how to call this out when uploading to the commons..... Can anyone give me a step-by-step? NickCT (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
We can't accept that license here. Wikipedia content must be released under a CC license that does not contain an exclusion of commercial re-use. That's not negotiable, I'm afraid. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
That's disappointing..... These images would have looked good on Lennon.... Thanks for the info. NickCT (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
No joke; but rules are rules. I can sympathize with Sammons' point of view, though; great shots. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

All my pictures, including with references have been deleted from my page, Engin Akyurek

Dear Anyone:

Can someone please help or explain why all the pictures in our article have been deleted?

I have been trying to get help for this article, of a Turkish actor, and frankly, wiki has to be the most confusing thing I have ever seen!

Please, someone, help us, for we spent hours finding these pictures and putting them up, including their tags and any relevant information.

EAUFC EAUFC (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel you have spent so much time looking for image for the article you are writing. It appears the images you uploaded have been found on the internet and/or are not freely licenced. The vast majority of internet images are copyright and we do not accept any image where there is no verifiable evidence that a free licence has been given by the copyright holder. If you can show such evidence exists, get the copyright holder to send us their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that I wrote for editors like you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed them from the article (and tagged them for speedy deletion) as they are almost certainly copyvios. It also appears from some of your edits that you are a fan club editing under a single user name. That is not permitted. Each individual should create their own account. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Need help with user

User:Nicholasmajestic has uploaded many images all which he claims is his own [4](even logos of bands and album artwork). I found one of the images being own by Getty and speeded it. But, I know the others aren't his but I can't find where he got them from. So, I have no clue what to do, since I never really patrolled images before.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at a few and they seem dubious to say the least. We need more eyes on these please. – ukexpat (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
For the album covers, if they have their own article, you can fix those by adding a suitable fair-use rational and tag. Finding some other dubious images can be a pain, but if the editor is proven to be a copyright violator you can still nominate the images for deletion even if you can't fins a source but at least try using Tineye, Google image search and Flickr before giving up. ww2censor (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Using Drawings of Copyrighted Material in Documentary Video

I am making a documentary video and trying to cut costs for rights and licensing fees of visual materials such as newspaper headlines and images. If I use a --drawing of, or a representation of (graphic rendering, etc)---an image, will I still need to pay for the rights?

For example, if I wanted to use an image of President Obama on the cover of New York Times, but instead of using the actual image of the NYT, I created an original image that --referenced or was based on--it...i.e.: drawing of it, or an altered image as graphic rendering...etc.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.254.21 (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a WP specific question, which is generally what we handle here, but the quick answer is no; taking your photograph of the copyrighted work makes it a derivative work of the original work, and thus cannot be considered free. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright and fair use

I want to upload this media file to Wikimedia Commons. It says the image is from the Virginia State Police. I want to verify that it is indeed copyrighted and also to know if it qualifies for fair-use under {{Non-free mugshot}}. Thanks in advance. -- Luke (Talk) 17:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the image is attributed to the Associated Press/Virginia State Police on the source page, so it is copyright. Using themugshot tag would depend on how the image would be used; it must still comply with all 10 non-free content criteria policy guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, first, do not upload non-free images to Commons, only locally via Special:Upload. Second, yes, this image is likely copyrighted by the Virginia State Police, and yes, it would probably be a valid use under {{Non-free mugshot}} if there was an article on Ross Truett Ashley, which is unlikely. I'd say wait until the AfD on the shooting ends, if it's a keep, then write a significant section about this Ross Ashley guy, and then it could be safely used. Right now if the picture was added to the shooting article, it would run afoul of NFCC #8, because Ashley is not discussed extensively in it. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 17:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I was exactly going to do wait until the AFD discussion is over. It would be pointless to upload it and then not be used in any article. -- Luke (Talk) 17:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

John Hancock College Preparatory High School

Can I use the picture of the school found here: http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Pages/school.aspx?id=609694 for an article on this school to use in the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviusoraculum (talkcontribs) 20:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not unless you get permission from the copyright holder. Going out and taking a new photo yourself would likely be easier because you can release it under a free licence that we can use. ww2censor (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Human fat

Hello. I have translated the article Human fat from the German article Menschenfett revision 20:39, 12. Okt. 2011 without mentioning it accidentially. Can someone plesae import the revision history of the German article into the this article. Thanks in advance! --Bullenwächter (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a {{translated page}} tag to Talk:Human fat. That is the accepted way to credit the authors of the German article. —teb728 t c 02:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I personally prefer {{Translation/Ref}}, which is what I did with PPCLI (even though I'm one of its authors on frwiki too). Both are technically fine to comply with licensing requirements, but I feel the latter is more relevant because frwiki (dewiki in this case) was used not only to make a derivative work, but also as a source for said work, and should be acknowledged as such in the reference section. Just my 2¢. :-) CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to change my tag. —teb728 t c 05:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all --Bullenwächter (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Freedigitalphotos.net

Freedigitalphotos.net has what they call "free" pictures; the terms of use are here. Are these OK to use on Wikipedia? I suspect not as there is a requirement to place a link to the website on the same page as the image, which would be fine on the File page but not in the articles it might be used in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This page would appear to require attribution wherever the image is used and that is not something we do, while this FAQ says the image are still copyright of the creator, so it seems they are not acceptable to us. ww2censor (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question at the Help desk

There's a Help desk thread on a copyright question. It's beyond me. Anyone? -- John of Reading (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved by TEB728 (talk · contribs) -- John of Reading (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use image in Ruislip

Hi, I'm doing a GA review of Ruislip, which includes this image. It states it's used under fair use, but I'm not sure this is correct - and also fair use includes a clause about the image being 'irreplaceable', which I'm not sure it is, given that there seems to be no reference to it in the actual text. Could someone check and clarify things for me? Many thanks! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Depending on photographer was, the image might even be in the public domain by now. That said, it's a historic photograph and if it has a valuable educational purpose, it certainly could not be replaced by a new photograph. — Coren (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
On Wikipedia Commons this would be licensed as {{PD-UK-unknown}}. When the copyright extensions came into force under a European Directive, we in the UK, did not retrospectively bring 'images' of this period back into copyright protection. Therefore, it could be upload to Wikipedia Commons and thus be made available to all projects. --Aspro (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Mars

Hello,

I would love to upload a photo to Bruno Mars Wikipedia page. It is work from the owner of a photographer I know, who has given me permission to release it under a free license here on Wikipedia. I don't know what to do next in order to upload the image? What do I have to do next in order to upload the photo after a photographer I know said that it's is okay for me to use the photo on Wikipedia. He told me he knows nothing about Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovingCaringReading (talkcontribs) 06:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If it is free you can upload it to commons:upload. But you should get the photographer to follow instructions in WP:IOWN to confirm permission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Did he give permission for use only on Wikipedia, or did he give permission for reuse by anyone anywhere for anything including commercial use and modification? Despite your mention of a free license, it sounds like you are talking about permission for use only on Wikipedia, in which case we can't accept it. —teb728 t c 07:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

School Logos

Can I use the logos for the school and its music program from the school's webpage on the school's Wikipedia page? The school logo is here: https://sites.google.com/site/womitchellschool/ and the music one here: https://sites.google.com/site/womitchellschool/class-websites. I have not been able to find any information regarding restrictions on the school board's website. Amarite1 19:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarite1 (talkcontribs)

You can use the first image for an article about the school, but nothing else. This particular image is copyrighted and can only be used under Fair Use. The second image consists entirely of letters and a rectangle and, therefore, does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright. However, it may still be trademarked. If it does not ever have a trademark, then the image falls into the public domain and can be used where ever you wish.
If you need help in uploading, properly tagging, or using these images, please contact me on the talk link at the end of this line. Buffs (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Custom made logo for an event

A user has recently uploaded several logos of NBA Finals and NBA Playoffs for the year 1986 to 1995 and 2010 to 2011 (File:1986NBAFinals.pngFile:1995NBAFinals.png, File:1986NBAPlayoffs.pngFile:1995NBAPlayoffs.png, File:2011NBAFinals.png and File:2010NBAFinals.png). According the uploader, the logos are custom made. He/she wrote "Custom made" as the source for the logos and added the details that he/she added added the year and the word Playoffs to the NBA logo. My question is, are these logos suitable for use in the yearly NBA Finals and NBA Playoffs articles? — MT (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The NBA logo presumably is still copyrighted, in which case this is a derivative, and probably not authorized. Only genuine logos would serve a useful purpose. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
If the NBA logo is copyrighted, then are derivative works like this allowed in wikipedia? — MT (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Nope. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, can someone delete the following files, or perhaps tell me how to nominate them for deletion.
Also, what about File:2002NBAFinals.png or File:1985NBAPlayoffs.png that the uploader claimed that he/she cropped the logo from ebay listing? Are these allowed? Note that the all his/her uploads are similar and there is still more of those. Thanks. — MT (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The 2002 logo seems to be appropriate for the NBA finals article, and just needs to be used appropriately. The 1985 playoffs logo doesn't seem to have a copyright notice displayed and doesn't have a registered copyright as far as I can tell, so it looks to be a PD image under the provisions of {{PD-US-1989}} Buffs (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted those from the above list which are tagged as "custom made", since that's another way of saying "derivative work" (i.e., clear-cut copyright violation). The others must be nominated by the Wikipedia:Files for deletion process. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the help, will nominate the rest of them. — MT (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have more questions. I just realize that those 10 NBA Finals logos (from 1986 to 1995) are tagged with Template:PD-textlogo. As non-copyrighted public domain image, are they allowed? Also, I don't know whether these custom made logos are similar to the ones that the NBA actually used in those years. I'm a little bit confused on what to do here. — MT (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
OrangeMike, these look like PD-text to me, so there is no risk regarding copyright infringement; I see no copyright related reason for deletion. However, it does concern me that these may be trademarked and, while they are PD, they still have some minot legal restrictions. I think, in good faith, we should try to represent logos and not make our own for articles, BUT if someone wants to make a derivative and use it on their user page, we can't stop them. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

usage of copyrighted image

Hello, I uploaded File: Portrait of Hervey White by Bolton Brown.jpg for use in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hervey White. The image has been deleted. I tagged it as "non-free 2D content." I received a hi-res file, and permission to publish it, from the museum who owns the image. However, in the spirit of not making copyrighted content available to all, I reduced the resolution so the image would be unusable for print media. I am unclear on where I need to indicate my "fair use rationale." Please answer via my talk page...Thank you.Pastrychick (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastrychick (talkcontribs) 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have an appropriate (ie for all purposes, not just for use on Wikipedia) release from the copyright owner, please communicate it per the process set out at WP:IOWN. If it is acceptable, there will be no need to worry about fair use etc. – ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You date it to c. 1920. Do you have a more precise date for when it was first published? If it was published in the US before January 1, 1923, the portrait is {{PD-US}}. If it is not PD, and it is not free-licensed as described by ukexpat, put the non-free use rationale on the file description page. I have provided a mostly blank template there for your rationale. —teb728 t c 09:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to take that one step further. There are a variety of PD US templates which may apply. Check them as well. Buffs (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Book covers for works still in copyright

File:1982_Hymnal_of_the_Episcopalian_Church_of_the_USA.jpg

I have a series of questions, and some of them may become moot depending on the answers to the others. This image used to be associated with the article The Hymnal 1982, but there might be a few issues with it, copyright being one of them.

1) The hymnal depicted in the image (Which, by the way, is not the 1982 Hymnal -- it's the 1940 Hymnal) is still in copyright, all rights reserved by Church Publishing. I'm really not sure if this picture's copyright status is correct. Does a picture of a the cover of an in-copyright book qualify as creative commons? If not, should we untag it for transfer to Wikimedia Commons?

2) Even without the copyright question, is it useful? (I'll need to explore where to go to ask that question, as I'm guessing this isn't the right forum.)

3) If it is still useful, and its copyright status is correct, I would appreciate it if someone could drop by my talk page to help me figure out how to get the file name fixed to correct the inaccuracy. (As stated earlier, this is the 1940 Hymnal, not the 1982 Hymnal.)

Thanks! X-Kal (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

1a) Yes. The license relates to the photo. The pictured cover does not contain anything copyrightable, so it's not a problem. The contents inside the book is not reproduced on the picture, so it's not a problem for this photo either. 1b) n/a.
2) You are right, the question is for another forum. But the question may have two aspects. One aspect of the question is "Is the picture useful in one or several specific articles?" and it would be for another forum on Wikipedia (talk pages of the articles in question, talk pages of relevant projects, ...). The other aspect of the question is "Can the picture be useful for someone somewhere, including but not limited to Wikipedia?" and it could perhaps be discussed on Commons.
3) See Template:Rename media it you want to rename a file on Wikipedia. But in the present case you could just directly move the file to Commons under a new name.
I'm not sure if the current orientation of the file is correct, but that's something else.
-- Asclepias (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your answer, Asclepias. You have been very helpful, and I know what I need to do from here. Thanks!!! X-Kal (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Raja Telugu Movie.jpg

File:Raja Telugu Movie.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masti 84 (talkcontribs) 08:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your question? Are you talking about File:Raja.jpg? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Golden Medal of the Academy of Arts of the USSR.jpg

Hi, File:Golden Medal of the Academy of Arts of the USSR.jpg is tagged for deletion for missing evidence of permission. Could you please recommend what kind of permission and from who is needed. Thanks. -- Ashot  (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The seal on the document is a copyrighted image (as is likely the entire document...but my Russian is quite weak). You would need permission from the Academy of Arts under an appropriate license in order to use this image on WP. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Buffs (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Change needed in WP:C

I originally posted this on the talk page of WP:C, but I'm re-posting here to get a wider view on the subject

The following phrase needs to be changed in WP:C as it does not reflect the realities of copyright law with respect to the public domain.

  • "Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf."
    This should be rephrased into "Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are usually subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed are in the public domain. Copyrighted images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf." Under the old definition, it gives the impression that a photo published in 1922 would somehow be copyrighted, but under the rephrased rule, that photo is properly accounted for and can be listed as a PD image (anything published in the U.S. prior to 1923 is automatically in the public domain).

This nuance is properly reflected in the first sentences of the same section:

  • "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed."

I understand we want to discourage copyright infringement, but we must account for media that fall into the public domain and not give users the false impression that some creative works are copyrighted when they aren't. Buffs (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I should have been more clear: I'd make the change myself, but the page is locked from all editing. Probably need an admin to make the change. Buffs (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture Query

I uploaded this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GongLi-UBX.jpg I got it from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GL13.jpg I re-sized and turned it monochrome for a User Box. I got a bot msg that I forgot to add a copyright tag. Is the edit I made to add the copyright sufficient? I couldn't find a way to copy everything that was written on the original image, but I did get the license right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quandrax (talkcontribs) 12:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. I made a few small edits to more concisely get the info on there. For future reference, I recommend clicking the link which will take you to the Wikipedia Commons and copy the information directly from there. Good work! Buffs (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Utah History to go"

At the "Utah History to Go" contact page, (http://historytogo.utah.gov/contactus.html), it says "Material in the Utah History To Go site may be reprinted for non-commercial, educational, or media use. All that is needed is to acknowledge the Utah State Historical Society." Does this mean that images from the site may be used on Wikipedia? And if so, what is the appropriate notice?Naraht (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't accept non-commercial use only. Freely licenced at Wikipedia means that anyone can use an image for anything, do anything with it, even make money from it. However, some of their material may be in the public domain due to age, i.e. pre 1923 US images, or lack of copyright notices during certain periods. If you have specific images in mind just ask again. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Excellent advice! It all depends what you want to use. It is not at all uncommon for people to "copyright" something they don't have a right to copyright or for people to misunderstand what the copyright notice means (If I create a webpage with a bunch of commentary and include a picture of the Mona Lisa, but put a copyright at the bottom of the page, I didn't suddenly get copyrights to the Mona Lisa, only the text). Buffs (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm specifically looking for images of the more recent Utah governors like Norman H. Bangerter in office from 1985-1993. The image at http://historytogo.utah.gov/people/normanhbangerter.html appears at least 4 times on the web including both there and at the University of Utah (utah.edu). But the image of Banerter at http://archives.hud.gov/local/ut/goodstories/2005-11-17.cfm would be acceptable, right?Naraht (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It all depends on what usage you intend. Period photos are preferred regarding individuals. For example, if you are talking about someone's experience as a child actor (like Shirley Temple) then a a photo of this person in their late 60s really isn't appropriate.
In this case, if you want to use a photo and talk about what he did as governor, then a photo of him AS the governor would be ideal. If you are talking about his work since he left office, the photo of him in the White House might be more apropos.
It is also worth noting that works published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice, and where the copyright was not later registered, are in the public domain. You can do a search of the copyright records here: http://www.copyright.gov/records/ If you don't find any record of that image and it was published prior to 1 March 1989, then it is in the public domain.
It would be best if you could upload both since the article may expand after you are done with it. Commons likes images like these that are useful. Buffs (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

IMAGES FOR BOOK

My name is Bob Cohen and my book entitled "The 50 Greatest Players in New York Yankees History" is scheduled to be released this coming April. I found three photos on your website I would like to use for my book, but I first need to contact the individuals who hold the copyrights to all three images before I can use them. Would you be able to supply me with the contact info for each person. I have listed below the images I would like to use, and the people who I need to contact. I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can give me on this matter. Thank you.

Image: Winfieldspring.jpg Author: 5329 Image: Don Mattingly Strikes Out.jpg Author: jimmyack205 Image: Bernie Williams.jpg Author: Googie Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.245.18 (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All we know about the images is what it says at the file description pages: File:Winfieldspring.jpg, File:Don Mattingly Strikes Out.jpg, and File:Bernie Williams.jpg. You may be able to contact User:Phil5329 and User:Googie man through the email links in the sidebars of their user pages. For jimmyack205, you may be able to contact him through the photo’s flickr page, but you might need to become a flickr member to have access to his flickrmail. —teb728 t c 00:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike Starr

Hello,

Last night I offered to upload a photo of Mike Starr if anybody is willing to share while I was on the Alice in Chains Message Board. Today I got word from a fellow boardie who says she knows one of Mike's immediate family members that they just might take me up on the offer. If they do give me permission to upload a photo of Mike, what steps do I need to take to go about showing proof of permission? Call me dense but I find the jargon in the copyright permission section a bit technical. I was wondering if someone could be so kind as to explain it to me as if I was still in grade school. lol. Shaneymike (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing about donated images that are copyright is that any permission given must be freely licenced and the copyright holder must verify their consent. So if you can get someone to donate an image of Mike Starr, the copyright holder, usually the photographer not just the owner of a photo, must email their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. You may also find it helpful to read Donating copyright materials. To help with your lack of copyright knowledge you can read my image copyright information page. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Shaneymike (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

?

Today, I re-uploaded the pictures for Jeroen Paul Thesseling article that were deleted not long ago because i haven't provided Wikipedia with permission proof. However, one of them was once again deleted, this time i do not know for which reason. Permission was provided, License was provided, Author was named, so was the source. Vuk1992 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason is stated in the deletion comment. For details about what type of permission is required and about how to request it, please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The problem is not only the nature of the permission, but also it could be who it comes from. Many of us here are not sysops and we can't see all of what you had written on the deleted page, in particular the links to the source and to the permission, but from your other uploaded image, I assume that you refer to this flickr page. But that "permission" is from the account "management jeroenthesseling.com", whereas the photographer is Daniel Horlbogen. That could be a problem, unless "management" has acquired from Horlbogen not only the right to use the picture, but also the rights to freely dispose of the copyright on this photo. If "management" has not acquired those rights, then "management" can't license the photo. Unless proven otherwise, it should be assumed that Horlbogen kept the copyright. The photo could be in Horlbogen's own gallery and his FAQ states clearly that the photographer retains his rights. In this sort of situation, you should certainly contact Horlbogen directly and ask him what he thinks of that flickr page and if it is true that the right to license his photo belongs to "management jeroenthesseling.com". -- Asclepias (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I recall seeing this image previously, perhaps on the commons where I review Flickr uploads for acceptable licencing. This image clearly fails our licencing criteria because of its non-commercial use restriction. However, there are four images of Thesseling on the commons that you can use which are freely licenced and don't have the problem this one has. ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Cover for a Nintendo DS game

File:Tamagotchi Collection Nintendo DS.PNG

User:ImageTaggingBot left a message on my user talk about the license tagging... I really don't get what to do x_x

Help? Oh, and Tamagotchi Collection doesn't exist yet. working on it in my userspace or whatever it's called

User:Umbreon126--「talk」 ~from 02:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I tagged it {{non-free game cover}}, which solves the "license" tag problem. But I also tagged it as an orphan file since it is not on any article yet. —teb728 t c 02:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Non-free images, such as this, are only permitted, per the non-free content policy #9, if they are used in mainspace articles and at the moment you are using it in your user subpage which is the reason you got a deletion notice. If it is deleted before you are ready to publish it in mainspace, just upload it again, or ask for it to be restored, when the article exists. ww2censor (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

image source

image keep asking for image source, unable to understand, anyone please help.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chai-des-Mistelles-1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.55.167 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The uploader at the same time claims to be the photographer, and says these photos came from Bacardi Global Brands. The copyright status looks pretty dubious. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this will help you understand about image source: The source is the place where you actually found the images. For example the source of File:CocktailBeauty-1.jpg (which was also uploaded by Rizwanchand) is http://www.noillyprat.com/EnjoyingNoillyPrat/NoillyPratBottleAndGlass/NoillyPratBottleAndGlass.aspx#section1. From knowing the source we can verify the permission. For example the permission of CocktailBeauty-1.jpg is “All intellectual property and database rights, in our Site, and in the materials published on it, including but not limited to trademarks, designs, logos, text, images, audio and video materials, look and feel and software (including code, interface and website structure) (“Materials”) are owned by us, our subsidiaries, affiliates companies and/or any of our partners (“the Owners”). The Materials are protected by intellectual property laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved. You may not remove any copyright or other proprietary notices from any Materials on our Site.” —teb728 t c 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Its own by and created by Bacardi Global Brands to be used on one of their brand page at wikipedia which is Noilly Prat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizwanchand (talkcontribs) 10:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is clear enough. But has Bacardi Global Brands granted explicit permission for use of the photos by anyone for anything? Wikipedia requires that permission for their use here. —teb728 t c 01:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture from review website

The website states that the image is directly from the Telegrapgh, it is of the new Wii Family Edition. Because it is a scan from a newspaper source, is it free of use?

Website: http://www.t3.com.au/2011/08/19/nintendo-wii-family-edition-streamlined-console-revealed/ Direct Link: http://www.t3.com.au/files/2011/08/Wii-family.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrel (talkcontribs) 05:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not! The newspaper retains all its copyrights to what it publishes. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding copy rights for upload images

Hi how to get copy rights for upload image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhanam88 (talkcontribs) 20:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the image from? What makes you think Wikipedia has any right to use it? If it is something you found on the web or in a printed work, we likely can't use it. —teb728 t c 00:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Criminal Minds

File:Criminal Minds Title Card.png I'm fairly sure this doesn't qualify for copyright, as it consists entirely simple geometric shapes and text, much like other logos, but i just want to be 100% sure that I'm right (and get someone to make a SVG of it). hbdragon88 (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

definitely pd text. 70.115.252.108 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
This is marginal but for me this passes the threshold of originality because it is not just plain text, the spotlight style lighting chosen by the creator was a creative decision which could not be said for plain text such as this logo. ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you let me know the following photographs comply with Creative commons attribution licenced

--Jenith (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't. You cannot apply a CC licence unless there is an explicit statement from the copyright holder that they release it under that licence. In this case, the website says all rights reserved at the bottom. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Not just that, but at the bottom of each page it states: Copyright © Cinefundas Media LLP. All Rights Reserved. ww2censor (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
We have an OTRS ticket for Cinefundas, but I'm quite uncomfortable with that, so I've opened a discussion at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Cinefundas_OTRS. —SpacemanSpiff 13:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Well spotted SpacemanSpiff. That OTRS ticket certainly appears to be rather suspect and needs more investigation. ww2censor (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Also can you please confirm the following OTRS tickets for CC open licensed permission

--Jenith (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Lower resolution photo

Under what circumstances an existing 5MB big photo of a living person (OTRS permission for use verified and archived) can be replaced by a lower photo of still very good resolution having at the same time the 5MB photo deleted? What conditions should be met? Thank you --★ Pikks ★ MsG 18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about a lower res/smaller version of the same image, ie one that has been uploaded over the original image (with the same file name) or the higher res image being replaced in an article by a lower res different image of the same person (with a different file name)? – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
same image with the same filename --★ Pikks ★ MsG 19:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, then with OTRS permission for use verified and archived I can see no reason for the replacement. What is the filename so I can take a look, just in case. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Glamourina1 - I would like to find a solution. There should be some way to have the big image deleted? --★ Pikks ★ MsG 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete a high resolution image that has a valid release in OTRS. Other users of Wikipedia content may have a use for the high res copy. You may just want to create two names for the files, like photo_name.jpg and photo_name_hi_res.jpg. Why should this image be removed? -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do you want the higher res image (File:Glamourina1.jpg) deleted? Another user at Commons has restored the higher res version of that file and created a lower res version at File:Glamourina (small version).jpg. – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
But you "would like to find a solution" to what? Is there a problem? In general, there is no reason for replacing a higher resolution of an image by a lower resolution of the same image. I can think of exceptional situations where it might be done, but it would depend what the reason is. I see that it was you who tried to overwrite the file. So it would be easier to discuss the matter if you said exactly what you have in mind. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your messages. The image is only used in one article only. The issue is that the copyright holder (the subject) prefers to keep the high resolution version in order to avoid the detail enlargement of the picture for aesthetic reasons. And then it looks like that a clothing company is interested in buying the rights for the high resolution image - but it is not confirmed yet. I know and I agree that the rule is to keep the high resolution image. However I would like to see if it is possible to have it deleted exceptionally since the lower resolution image is still a very good one and the image is not used in other articles or works yet. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Near as I can tell, the copyright holder has released it under under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. That means anyone can copy, distribute and transmit the work and/or adapt the work provided they attribute the work to the original author and must distribute further resulting work only under the same or under a similar license. That means they've effectively relinquished control of this image. If the clothing company wishes to purchase the rights to the image, I'm afraid both the seller and buyer are out of luck. This image is in the public domain.
As for the rest of the image reduction, I see no reason to reduce it. Can you explain why it needs to be reduced? A higher resolution image is almost always preferred. Buffs (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I see, you are right the photo is now under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. However to answer your question there is no legal/copyright reason. It is just the subject's of the photo kind request. If acceptable yes, that would be good. If not it would be ok too. It looks like that the person that uploaded the large image didn't have a clue that the image won't be resized automatically. I know that the photo can stay in Wiki forever, but I also know that it can be replaced by the lower resolution one, because it is also very good quality. Please tell me if this is enough to have the 5MB photo deleted, if not, please inform me under what circumstances it can be exceptionally done. Thank you --★ Pikks ★ MsG 23:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not in the public domain -- copyright still exists with that type of Creative Commons license, just with liberal permission. If someone uses it without proper attribution as specified in the license, or does not make clear that derivative works are *also* freely available under the same terms, then they are committing full-blown copyright infringement. (Note that using the image in an article does not cause the rest of the article to be a derivative work, most likely -- just works incorporating and adapting the photo itself.) Companies may well want to purchase the image from the author directly so they are using it under a different license without those requirements. But, the author probably could not sell an exclusive license, since the CC-BY-SA is given to *everyone*. But, if the original permission was a mistake, i.e. they did not intend to license the full-resolution version and was not aware that was the one uploaded, then that should be correctable since it's only been a month. The image is at Commons though, so the higher-resolution file should be nominated for deletion there, and preferably a clarifying permissions email would be sent to OTRS again. Uploading a lower-resolution version on top would in most cases be considered vandalism, as there is no way to verify who the uploader actually is, particularly when they are different from the original uploader. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is possible to specify a low resolution image in the OTRS permission. I did that for the Ed Roberts photo. "Spencer Smith of Smith's Studio, 5417 Main Street, Eastman, GA 31023 releases this low resolution copy (232 by 300 pixels) under a Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 license."
We should encourage professional photographers to contribute to the Commons and still allow them to make a living. Uploaders should make sure the image resolution matched the contributing photographer's expectations and needs. If a high resolution image is uploaded by mistake, there should be a procedure to replace it with a lower resolution. This idea that licensing is absolute, perpetual and invariable will not win friends with those contributors who don't understand the convoluted Wikipedia and Commons processes. If a mistake was made it should be fixed. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Having the photo here does not stop it from being licensed to others such as clothing companies. It means that exclusivity is not guaranteed. Also this image was not relased to the public domain and attribution is required. Rights can still be sold that do not need attribution. The uploader can request deletion at commons, but the request does not have to be honoured. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Pikks, from you comments I'm trying to discover some reasonable reason to delete the high quality freely licenced image and notice your comment that: "It is just the subject's of the photo kind request". So are you suggesting that Glamourina's manager gave permission for the use of the high quality image without the permission of the subject? If so that would appear to be a difference of opinion or lack of communication between Glamourina and her manager and not for us to get involved with. In that case she would be in touch with the OTRS team, or have her manager do so, to refute the permission given by her manager but I doubt the manager would have given such permission without Glamourina knowledge or consent. The OTRS team are rather diligent so if they approved the permission there is unlikely any problem with it. ww2censor (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you all. It is much more clearer now. There was a clear agreement that the image can be used, however I am convinced it would be a good idea to add a sentence in the OTRS email which says that the image will be used at its highest resolution and the same file uploaded will be available, thus containing all the EXIF information available that will become public as well. The manager wrote to OTRS already asking for using the lower resolution and removing the big one, however no reply received. The permission was given to upload the image. The uploader of the big Musicfanz1 didn't tell the manager that it will be used as is, otherwise Musicfanz1 would have been provided a smaller one. As soon that the subject and the manager noticed the big image with full Exif they would like to use the image with little lower res. and having that image deleted. It is not a must, they are ok to leave it, however once again, if something can be done to satisfy their request, I hope it can be done. What do you suggest at this point? --★ Pikks ★ MsG 07:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"" One more detail. I have just read here. And it looks like that "You can stop offering your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not affect the rights associated with any copies of your work already in circulation under a Creative Commons license." Do you think it applies for this case? --★ Pikks ★ MsG 08:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The copyright holder is under no obligation to supply it again with that license. But if other people have a copy then they can continue to make it available to others. The copyright holder can still sell it as I mentioned above. If information has been leaked in the exif then the commons administrators may be willing to clean it for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Right, thanks. If somebody has it already can continue to use it under the same license. However according to this can the copyright holder request for the big image to be removed? --★ Pikks ★ MsG 09:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
@Buffs, it's important to note, this is NOT in the public domain. It's copyrighted. It just happens to have been released under a specific copyright licence which is compatible with our requirements
@Pikks, sorry, but that isn't what [11] says. It emphasizes that "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable." - that's the key phrase here. The next part says, "you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license" - and Wikimedia Commons is just such a case, where someone has obtained the work under an appropriate licence. "You can stop offering your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish" - indeed, you can; you can stop offering it (elsewhere). But you cannot stop someone else from keeping it, under the copyright terms granted when it was donated. It "will not affect the rights associated with any copies of your work already in circulation" - including the one on Wikimedia's servers.
I think you've understood that, fundamentally, the person donated that image, explicitly giving permission, and therefore cannot "take that back". There is no obligation whatsoever for a request to "take it back" to be honoured. As Graeme points out, that does not stop anyone (including you, or the subject) from selling the image for profit. Glamourina could sell it; so could I (as long as I gave attribution).
Of course, they could ask for it to be deleted; the best place for such a request is, I think, by email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org  Chzz  ►  10:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I wrote to that address. Waiting... --★ Pikks ★ MsG 16:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Just because "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable" does not mean we have to keep the image on Wikipedia/Commons. The image was uploaded by a first time user who made a mistake. We should encourage professional photographers to contribute to the Commons and still allow them to make a living. The copyright holder of this image will be hesitant to donate any more images and will tell other photographers of their treatment here. The reluctance the correct mistakes like this on reinforces the outside world's view of Wikipedia, a hostile place for newcomers. The donor made a timely request to have the mistake corrected so we should help out. Pikks should make to request a deletion at Commons:Deletion_requests on behalf of the donor. I will support this. We need quality images from professional photographers more than we need strict compliance with our byzantine rules. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. What's the link for the request? Who else would support it? --★ Pikks ★ MsG 16:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Here is the link. [12] I will be away for a few hours but I can help you write the request. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated the hi-res image for deletion. [13] -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This problem has been resolved; the high resolution images (File:Glamourina1.jpg) were deleted. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

DOWNLOADING SONGS FROM YOU TUBE?

CAN I LEGALLY DOWNLOAD SONGS FROM YOU TUBE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.116.56 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we cannot give you legal advise about this topic. You should consult an intellectual property lawyer. ww2censor (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Amundsen photo on the front page

File:At_the_South_Pole,_December_1911.jpg

This photo was taken by Roald Amundsen. Photographs are protected in Norway for 70 years after the death of the photographer. Amundsen died in 1928, so the photo was no longer protected in 1998. Probably the page should be updated?  Mammux  ►  14 December 2011

In the US, where our servers are located, it would be considered PD (that is, it does not enjoy US copyright, but does have Norwegian copyright). We go by US copyright law at en.wiki, and thus it is appropriate. Note that the image is not at commons (it's not universally unrestricted) and marked with a flag to indicate the limitations on it. Now I know that main page images are to be free, but I don't know specifically if we limit them to commons-free or US-free. That's something I need to check on. --MASEM (t) 14:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The OP says the photo was taken by Roald Amundsen, but according to the image discription page and the source cited there, it is by Olav Bjaaland (1863-1961). —teb728 t c 21:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I though it was just published by Bjaaland. Still, I would think that this image is in the public domain in Norway because the Norwegian Copyright law (§43a) specifies that images not considered to be "works of art" become public domain 50 years after creation, provided that more than 15 years have passed since the author's death or the author is unknown. (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting. I'm not sure whether Norwegian or British law is applicable. It was taken by a Norwegian out of Norway but published in London. —teb728 t c 07:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) I asked about this at Commons:Commons:Help desk#Tough copyright question. —teb728 t c 08:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The reply from Commons pointed to article 5(4)(a) of the Berne convention, which says, "The country of origin shall be considered to be" "in the case of works first published in a country of the [Berne convention] Union, that country". So the country of origin is the UK, and the photo is under copyright until after 2031 = 70 years after Byaaland's death. —teb728 t c 04:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

PD in the UK, but not the US?

I was uploading a map from a 1924 publication (in the UK) by the seismologist Charles Davison (1858-1940), choosing the {PD-old-70}} tag, when I noticed the warning that there would need to be evidence as to why it is also PD in the US. At this point I became rather confused as I attempted to work out exactly how the law applied. So I cancelled the upload and came here for clarification. Mikenorton (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If the copyright expired by 1996 then it would be PD in USA as well. Between 1990 and 1995 the work would have been public domain in the UK. From 1995 to 2010 back in copyright in the UK and public domain from 1 jan 2011 again. In this totally idiotic situation the US still says that copyright applies in the USA. The US politicians who passed this law are stupid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I had come to that conclusion , but it seemed so unlikely that I thought that I must have misunderstood it. Thanks Graeme - so just another 24 years to wait.... Mikenorton (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Rita M.Gross

User:Gakuro uploaded an image of Rita M. Gross [14] which was on it's side. I may have done this incorrectly but I downloaded it and changed it's orientation, [15] but how do I sync the the copyright details of one with the other?Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There was actually no need to do that at all because the image is hosted on the commons where a bot can do the rotation for you and it is has been tagged for that. Now there is a free image here which is unavailable for other language wikis and this image can be moved to the commons but then there will be duplicates. If you were in a hurry you should just have rotated the image and uploaded it over the other one on the commons and remove the rotation request. ww2censor (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done The commons image has been rotated and local duplicate deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lobue-storefront.jpg

I was given this photo by a family member who took it for my use. It was not taken by a professional photographer and the subject is expired since 1985. How do I attach it to my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bman's Blues Report (talkcontribs) 07:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You should get the family member to grant you all right in the photo in writing. Then you are in a position to grant a free license. In a complicated situation like this you should describe why you own the copyright, attribute the photographer/author in the correct way and grant a free license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Chennai Dost

File:Chennai dost logo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennaidost (talkcontribs) 17:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a question about this image File:Cdost.jpg which is hosted on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Logo question

How can I upload an image which is copyright protected because it is the official logo of an organization, but it is necessary for proper identification of the organization? (I checked and there are several which were accepted, such as IBM, Google, Microsoft, and many other). However, I loaded an image which is the official Logo of an organization and I got a "speedy deletion" notice. I will appreciate your suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMRMX (talkcontribs) 23:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there are many company logos hosted here; some are used under the fair-use claim with a fully completed fair-use rationale, such as File:Logo of PADI.svg, but only if they comply with all 10 non-free content criteria policy guidelines or they may be so simple that no copyright can apply, such as File:Microsoft wordmark.svg, though images like that may be trademarked. Non-free logos are usually only permitted in the infobox for that organisation's article as identification. I cannot see that you uploaded any images or were warned about any images you uploaded. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

License Tagging for a Photo I Uploaded

I got the following message on my talk page:

"It was really helpful of you to upload File:City US 14 (Yellow).jpg. However, in order to keep and use new images, they need to have a license.

If you can edit the description page and add the appropriate license, that would be great. If you're not sure how or need help, please ask at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you."

How in the world do I do this? I have never had to do this in the past, when uploading pics on Wikipedia.

If someone can help me, that would be great!  :-)

Allen (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For the image File:City US 14 (Yellow).jpg, you got a deletion notice because you did not add an appropriate copyright tag to the image. Besides which the source given indicates you copied it from a website without any evidence of permission from the copyright holder. You could go out a take a new photo which you can licence freely and if you follow the upload procedure fully you choose the appropriate licence during the upload, otherwise you add it later just like any other edit is made. However, most images found on the internet are copyright to someone and this image cannot be used without permission. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Images published in 1959/re-published in January 2011

Since these images were created in the United States prior to 1963, they should be in the public domain, but I'm not sure. 1, 2, 3, 4. HurricaneFan25 — 21:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If they were published in the US in 1959 with a copyright notice, and the copyright was renewed, they would still be in copyright. —teb728 t c 00:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Uh, the thing is that the copyright wasn't renewed / no clear indication; the material given was used for scholarly purposes by a student at the university. HurricaneFan25 — 17:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
A fair use or for scholarly purposes would not renew a copyright or give the copyright to the scholar. So if it it public domain, then it is public domain no matter who uses it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous copyright tagging - US focus for works originating and residing outside US

I have noticed that many images on Wikipedia are labelled with a copyright notice that could be questionable. Aditionally, Wikipedia tries to maintain a strict (and just) copyright policy. And rightly so. However, I hope I can illustrate my concern with the following example:

Let's take a classic painter like Rembrandt. Let's take one of his paintings like the "Portret van Haesje v.Cleyburg 1634" that can be found on the Rembrandt page.

Now, the copyright notice with this image states:

This image is in the public domain because under United States copyright law, originality of expression is necessary for copyright protection, and a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law. The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of originItalic text (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection).

This image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923 (see the template documentation for more cases). Other jurisdictions may have other rules, and this image might not be in the public domain outside the United States. See Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details.

 

Not being a copyright, a legal, or a IT expert, I am somewhat puzzled by this. As far as I know, Rembrandt was a Dutch painter. The painting is currently the property of the Dutch 'Rijksmuseum" in the Netherlands. Yes, it is old. Yes, I have noticed that Wikipedia information declares the location of its servers as in the US (although GeoTool always gives a Dutch URL/ IP for my Wiki pages). But...

The official position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that all reproductions of public domain works should be considered to be in the public domain regardless of their country of origin (even in countries where mere labor is enough to make a reproduction eligible for protection)

So I guess, in a nutshell, my question is: how is it possible that, especially since Wikipedia scrutinises and emphasizes correct copyright tagging and notices, classical works of non-US artists (e.g. Rembrandt) that are not even physical in the US, or the property of any US person or institute, seem to be OK tagged with copyright notice as given above. More specifically, this notice seems to transfer a position by Wikipedia that "Well, in the US we are covered. Could be that it is not in the US, but that is fine, nobody cares. As long as everything for the US is in order. We do not follow up, investigate, or stipulate anything further, because the US is taken care of".

Don't get me wrong! I would regret it immensely if people could no longer learn about the great treasures of the world, and if the images of these could not be shown any more through Wiki. But... the impression could be easily be raised that Wiki focuses only on the US situation and pays no attention to the properties of the rest of the world.

QSeymore (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as you specifically mentioned a Netherlands copyright perhaps you should know that under their laws copyright extends for 70 years pma, per commons:Commons:L#Netherlands. Rembrandt has only been dead for 340+ years. Other country copyright periods are listed on that page too. ww2censor (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer ww2censor! Like I said already, I am no expert, and my question for me is more of a philosophical nature. Reading your answer, I agree with you. But then again, I never disagreed with the principle you mention. That is why I asked whether copyright notices for these kind of works (i.e. any non-US person, institute, or work not the property of an US entity) should not be tagged with a non-US, country specific tag? So in the Rembrandt example, a Dutch copyright tag stating that Rembrandt is dead for more than 70 years, hence... After all, Dutch copyright/ law seems to be applicable here, since it has nothing to do with the US. So why do we see US tags referring to non-relevant US (copyright) law everywhere all the time? Please forgive me for focussing on Rembrandt, he is just an example. It could just as easily be Leonardo da Vinci or Ma Yuan QSeymore (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
You are failing to distinguish between the artists' copyright in the actual work (expired everywhere in Rembrandt's case) and the copyright of the photograph, which probably still exists in the Netherlands (as it would in the UK). But thanks to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., "a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work" does not have photographer's copyright in the US (slightly simplifying the state of the case law in both UK & US). Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The law that's relevant is the law of the user. A user in the US must obey US copyright law, and only US copyright law. Since US copyright law is based on the date of publication for older works and does not have the rule of the shorter term, a Dutch work can be in copyright in the US and out in the Netherlands, or vice versa. Since the Wikimedia Foundation is an US-headquarted organization, it has to follow US law.
We could follow all country's laws, and include works only by authors dead at least 100 years and published before 1923. That would require the deletion of a number of images. Worse yet would be to try and fit our fair use pictures around universal law; we would probably have to delete all fair use pictures.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Photos of gravestones

This past weekend I was in Los Angeles and visited Holy Cross Cemetery, Culver City, where I took photos of the grave markers of a number of notable people (Bela Lugosi, John Candy, Darby Crash, Sharon Tate, and several others). Would there be any copyright issue if I uploaded these photos to Wikimedia Commons for use in the articles about these individuals? I ask because I know that statues, buildings, paintings, etc. are considered copyrighted works and thus photos of them are not allowed on Commons (excepting very old statues/buildings/etc.). I don't believe this applies to gravestones, as there is a category for gravestones on Commons (and one for walk of fame stars), but I wanted to make sure before I go uploading anything as I have no idea what copyrights may apply to gravestones, if any. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(Non expert view) Depends how much 'art' is in the grave marker.. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Most of them are just engraved text, some have simple designs like a rosary or christ figure. 1 or 2 are a litte fancier (Lawrence Welk's has a design of a conductor and musical bars [16]). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

'Free' images of non-free subjects

Recently, concern was expressed that some images that were nominally tagged as both 'free' and 'non-free' were being mistakenly identified as having an 'incorrect' licence.

As a result of some talk page comment on this, {{Photo_of_art}} got created, and at my request was reworded to it's current form. The {{derivative}} template is also felt to need revision in light of the above.

This issue has been brought up here because the issue of 'free' images of 'non-free' works needs a clear outcome. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sidney Edward Daniels - UK free or non-free rationale

Hello, well, I've uploaded a picture of Sid Daniels, File:SidneyDaniels.jpg and I don't know what to do. I can use it as non-free rationale since Daniels has died in 1983 and it's a small picture. But I also believe that it falls into the UK Public Domain because, since the author is unknown, it's public domain after 70 years of being taken. It was taken in 1911. For now, I used the non-free rationale. Which one should I choose? Thanks. Nienk (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

120-year-old image from a non-copyrighted book

Hello! I've got a line drawing scanned from a book (How to play the 5-string Banjo, by Pete Seeger) that I would like to upload to the Commons, and I have a two-part question about its acceptability. First, the facts:

  • The following is quoted from the preface (1954 edition): "The first edition said ‘Copyright 1948’. This we fear, was a falsehood. The necessary four bucks were never shelled out. Furthermore, upon reflection, and with the good example of J. Frank Dobie of Texas, it is not copyright in 1954. Permission is hereby given to reprint, whenever needed."
  • The source of the image itself is cited with the caption: "From Converse's Banjo Tutor, 1892"

So, it's an image that, because of its age, is in the public domain, from a book that is not copyrighted. It should be OK, right? I would appreciate another opinion. Thanks. Braincricket (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, when or if I upload it, should I cite the Pete Seeger book, or the Converse book, or both? Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The way you did it looks fine to me. Fut.Perf. 23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Library of Congress Country Studies

According to the article, the Country Studies are in the Public Domain. But: The books published between 1978 and 1988 claim © United States Government. Hmm, I (from Germany) know that the US Government does not copyright their works. Are there exceptions from that rule. The older books (before 1978) do not have a ©-symbol, but some claim that "Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any porpose of the United States Government". What is the copyright status of those publication. Is it possible to upload them on Wikisource?--Antemister (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The US Government doesn't copyright their works. However, if a non-employee of the US Government creates something and transfers the copyright to the US Government, the US Government can hold the copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Albany Parks & Recreation photos

The list of parks in Albany, Oregon has a great deal of images that are claimed to be in the public domain and but lacking important information. Some of these are on Commons and some are not. (ex. File:Bryant-1.jpg, File:Eleanor Hackleman-1.jpg, File:Maple Lawn-1.jpg) It doesn't feel right to just mass-nominate all the list's photos for deletion. Any ideas on what's the best approach? Jsayre64 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think mass deletions should not take place. None of the images in Albany Parks & Recreation appear to be properly licenced. I have tagged the three local images as missing permission and the commons images should be tagged likewise. There is no evidence any are in fact US federal works as they are city parks not national parks which might well be PD. They are easily replacable with verifiably free images. ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, it's a deal then, now that I've got an experienced second party in agreement. I'll start tagging them for deletion. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Company House

Hello.I've uploaded picture of Company House from a government site of Iran.I also added these information:

This picture is nominated for deletion because of lack of copyright knowledge.I couldn't find any information about its copyright status.Pictures which are belonged to government sites are free or not?Regards--Shervin Noor (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This freedom only applies to US government publications, and Iran copyright will depend on their law. This transition to PD seems to be 30 years after publication for legal personality if you believe: template:PD-Iran. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

ownership of image

I created the image of AAEMFC on microsoft powerpoint and now uploaded it on wikipedia. I have been getting the message to identify the author. not sure, how and where should I write that the image was made by me. file:AAEMFC.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuelcell14 (talkcontribs) 21:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The usual method is to insert the template Information in the description page and fill in the parameters, with the help of the template's documentation. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added the "information template" to the image. Now all you need to do is fill it out. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Newtown area graffiti and street art

Could someone comment on the images at the title page? I think all those photos are technically without permission of the artist, as they are 2D artworks. I hunted around and http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/3525355584d00168563bdf.pdf says "You will generally need permission to photograph other public art, such as murals."  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No reply, so I'll tag 'em.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

very small portion of the back of a baseball card: fair use?

I wrote the portion of the "Practical Usage" section of Ternary numeral system which deals with the use of the ternary numeral system in baseball statistics. The image I uploaded (File:JamieMoyerInningsPitched.jpg) was a tiny portion of a baseball card which included only a portion of 1 column of numbers. It was promptly deleted even though I claimed Fair Use based on the "small portion" justification. The statistics themselves are not copyrighted, but the image is an important compliment to the article because it shows a real, practical use of the ternary system in everyday life. That really seems like fair use to me. There is no alternative to getting my point across than showing something that was published in print. Tzadik (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Working on the assumption that the ternary system is used for baseball stats is a a true statement, you don't need an image to show this, only a source that confirms that this is how some baseball stats should be read. You are describing a practical use, but you're running into several problems with non-free media, in that a column of numbers is nearly always replaceable by text or a free image, and that the point you are making doesn't need illustration as long as you provide a legitimate source. --MASEM (t) 20:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
you should have claimed a PD-simple too simple for copyright if you only copied a minute part. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

So weit die Füße tragen - Image (which rationale for PD)

File:BauerJMSoweitdieFuessetragen2.JPG‎ Hi, - I uploaded the above image in the article on Cornelius Rost, which is in Germany in the Public Domain, and so I tagged it as PD as well. But I can't find an appropriate rationale. I'm now using the Fair-Use rationale. Which one is to use? regards--Bylot (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no need to upload that image at all because the image used on the German wiki is hosted on the commons as File:BauerJMSoweitdieFuessetragen.jpg and you should use that one. We try to avoid duplicates. BTW, the image is either used under a fair-use claim because it is copyright or it is in the public domain so it is free; it cannot be both. I have tagged it for deletion because of the commons image and placed that on in the article. ww2censor (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, - thanks. Sorry, I'm not so familiar with ALL the Wikipedia-rules.
No problem with deletion. regards--Bylot (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Question on Image Tag

Hi, I was wondering if it is OK to use the {{PD-Art}} for File:Michelangelo - Sistine Chapel ceiling - Lunette "Hezekiah - Manasseh - Amon".jpg. Thanks, Magister Scientatalk 05:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Images from great uncle

Hey all,

I inherited a couple photo albums from a great grand uncle. Going through them I found one that contains a fairly impressive collection of images of the Panama canal being constructed. I my grand uncle was photographer. I'd like to release to the commons. Can someone advise on copyright concerns here? Obviously, not my own work, and the author has not been dead for more than 70 years. NickCT (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Find who inherited the author's rights of the photographer. If it is you and if you are the only heir, just upload the photos to Wikimedia Commons with the free license of your choice. If it is not you or if you are not the only heir, ask the copyright holder(s) if they agree to release the photos under a free license (you can suggest to them the specific license you think they will like). If they agree to the release, ask them to upload the photos to Commons, or upload the photos to Commons and ask the copyright holder(s) to confirm the chosen license for those photos with a clear declaration through the OTRS procedure. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Sounds like this is going to take some research. Thanks for the response. NickCT (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of hi-res in history

Landfyoung (talk · contribs) is asking for help at User talk:Landfyoung. As I understand it, he's willing to grant a CC-BY license for the low-res version of the image, but wants the original hi-res upload removed from the history. Is this do-able? -- John of Reading (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There's already a tag on the description page about the deletion of the 2008 version. The 7-days period is over, so now you can ask any sysop to delete that version. After that, the smaller version can remain in fair use with a fair use rationale, or if the copyright holder prefers to release it under a free license, she can do that. (Or I suppose she could specify that she does not object to the use of the higher resolution version in fair use.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding an image taken by photographer friend

I would like to add an image of a historic marker to a Wikipedia article. A friend, who lives near the site, took the photo and sent it to me with permission to use it with the article.

I understand how to list it on the page but am confused about copyright tags. Can anyone please give me some advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoke321 (talkcontribs) 14:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking because your friend took the photo only he can decide under what licence to release the image. It is not that we don't believe you but many uploaders make false claims about images they upload. We appreciate your honesty. Your friend can decide to release it into the public domain or require attribution and the most usual copyright tags for these are {{PD-author}} or {{Attribution}} but it would be best if he confirms his permission by emailing our OTRS team directly by following the procedure you will find at WP:CONSENT. In the meantime you could upload the image, fill in the {{information}} template completely and also add the template {{OTRS pending}} to the image file to let us know permission will arrive. It can take some time for that to be processed. Hope that helps. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Screen shot and intro/splash screen?

I've added a screenshot to Dragonriders of Pern (video game) but I'd also like to add something to the info box. Can a splash screen appear in the same article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Box art is nearly the universal infobox image for a video game; if there was no game box, then a splash screen would work, but as this appears to be a boxed game, then you should stay with that. Yes, it will be non-free but that's acceptable per NFCI#1. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

":"File:3 Minutes World Silence Logo.jpg

Why is myy wikimedia logo is not accepted at present? I have had several emails, via Wikimedia from user magogtheogre from you on my email address (<email removed for privacy>). This user has also written to me via my talk page on Wikipedia, querying a few things, which I thought I afterwards corrected on 20 December, 2011.

I received an email from your Permissions team, signed Scott Cameron, on 21 December, 2011. This said that I had given permission to use this logo - File:3_Minutes_World_Silence Logo.jpg under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)License). This logo is also on my website http://www.worldsilence.com title page. Signed Mary Cassini User:Aweaver2, 20 December 2011.


I hereby give authority to Wikipedia and Wikimedia permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA/3.0 License.

Mary Cassini, creator and owner of 3 Minutes World Silence webpage http://www.worldsilence.com The index page of this website contains the 3 Minutes World Silence image, which I also created.

Note: I would like to get this matter corrected on your websites before January 1st, 2012, as I am at present sending out media releases acknowleging your co-operation.

Mary Cassini Aweaver2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweaver2 (talkcontribs) 02:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you think as a result of communication from Magog the Ogre that the logo is not accepted, you can contact him/her at his/her user page or email. In any case do not send out media releases acknowleging our "co-operation." Wikipedia does not "co-operate" with events; rather it allows articles on events and other subjects that have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Also I have removed your email address above to protect you from being bombarded by spam. —teb728 t c 04:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a question; seems the bot needs to be fixed

Please see my talk page. Kernel.package (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The bot is correct: All images MUST have an “image copyright tag.” The fact that you can’t find a suitable one may indicate that the image is not usable. Do I understand correctly the use is only to provide a reference for the article? If so, the scan is not needed: you can simply provide a footnote to the article, citing the newspaper, date, and title. If it has some other use: Exactly what permission did Marrison grant? If it was only for use on Wikipedia, I’m sorry but Wikipedia accepts permission only which allows reuse by anyone for anything including commercial use. If he has granted that kind of permission, enter the tag corresponding to the specific free license he granted. See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle his permission. If he has not granted a free license, sorry but we almost certainly can’t use it. —teb728 t c 21:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Tag Trouble

I am having trouble picking a correct tag for this image File:Donut-shop-serato-2lp-slipmats.jpg (LonerXL (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC))

    • Thank you so much(LonerXL (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC))

Naim Zeqiri

Dmv .Naim Zeqiri i lindur me 02.10.1980 ne komunene e vitise kosove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmvnaim (talkcontribs) 04:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, you were born on 02.10.1980 in Viti, Kosovo, but do you have a media copyright question?
OK, keni lindur në 02.10.1980 në Vitise Kosove, por ju e keni një pyetje autorit media? —teb728 t c 05:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Referendum poster

Hi! I would like to use this image in Croatian independence referendum, 1991 article. The image depicts a promotional poster used by the Government of Croatia in the run-up to the referendum. Does that image fit fair use policy and should it be then uploaded to the en wiki as "historically important photo for fair use" or in some other way? At this time I don't know who the author of the poster was. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it appears that the poster is not copyrightable under the Croatian law. Article 8 Section 2.1 of the Copyright Act says that official works published in order to inform the public are not subject to copyright protection. I'm unsure what type of licensing should be applied in the commons though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I found Template:PD-Croatia-exempt in the meantime at the Commons, so that question is no longer wanting an answer. Thanks anyway!--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

PD Logos?

I have a question regarding five similar logos:

If I understand correctly, {{PD-textlogo}} should be able to apply to the first four, but not the fifth due to the styling of "Jr." Is this interpretation correct? Chris857 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Even handwritten fonts are non-copyrightable, and ergo, just the "JR" part alone would technically be PD due to lack of originality. The overall logo, on the other hand, consists of a lot more creative elements than what we'd normally like to call PD, but it's at the cusp of that. I would call it non-free to be on the safe side. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Omission of notice and violation of agreement?

I have read Copyright Act of 1976. If published in 1978 without copyright notice, does omission of notice violate "All rights reserved"? Does "All rights reserved" qualify as "expressed written agreement that works bear prescribed notice"? For example, 1979 photo of Taxi and 1981 Luke and Laura General Hospital photo do not have the copyright notice, but it bears "For editorial use only. All rights reserved. Is that a written agreement that works must bear a notice? --George Ho (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Under the 1976 act, I'd say use of this material here would be a copyright violation, since that wording doesn't come anywhere near matching any kind of CC licensing permission, far less that we require. Is that what you're asking? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Quadell has a good page detailing US copyright in understandable langauge where he writes that: If a work was first published in the U.S. between 1978 and March 1, 1989, and it was published without a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain only if the author failed to subsequently register that copyright. This can be determined by searching the U.S. Copyright Office Online Search. Besides which the written notice "all rights reserved implies copyright over an image even if no actual © symbol has been applied. ww2censor (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
So "all rights reserved" implies copyright and a written agreement that a work bears notice, correct? Per http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf and http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.pdf, omission of notice violates "all rights reserved", correct? Quadell's info is possibly incomplete to me. --George Ho (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC) --George Ho (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Metropolitan Cathedral image

Hi, Many thanks for pointing out [see below] that I have not entered all the licensing information necessary. I have now done this to the best ofmy ability. The Image concerned is mine. I have not registered Copyright anywhere but I took the photo on my camera and I have entered the date and my name in the relevant boxes. Is this enough? Thanks, Gastao

  • I have edited that image-page and set permission = CC-by-SA 3.0, and source={{own}}, with ISO-format date=2009-08-25. However, you might wish to change the license, as permission={{PD-self}}, to indicate there are no restrictions on image use. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Gastao,

The Wikipedia page "User talk:Gastao" has been changed on 29 December 2011 by MGA73, with the edit summary: Notification: tagging for deletion of File:St Mary's Metropolitan Cathedral Edinburgh.jpg. (TW)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gastao&diff=0&oldid=456240188 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gastao for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MGA73

Note that additional changes to the page "User talk:Gastao" will not result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and visited the page.

Your friendly Wikipedia notification system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gastao (talkcontribs) 10:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

However writing in your name as permission does not add a necessary copyright tag. You need to actually use the template {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} to display it, if that is the licence you want to use, not just write in a tag name as Wikid77 did. If that is the licence you want to use, please add it as shown above or ask here and we will did it for you but you must confirm the licence for us. We cannot decide that for you. ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright clearance question

File:Antagonist 4.jpg File:Antagonist LOGO 3.jpg File:Antagonist LOGO 2.jpg I have permission to use the images, from the creator of the Antagonist Movement. How do I cite this so that it does not get flagged for removal? Kbrzoznowski (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The permission that you are stating that you got from the artist (sole use for Wikipedia) is not a free-license compatible format; the images would need to be cleared for reuse and distribution by anyone. Thus, these are non-free files. You can still use them, but they would first have to be tagged with {{Non-free 2D art}}, and you would need a proper non-free rationale for each use of each image. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
If these images are non-free (File:Antagonist 4.jpg, File:Antagonist LOGO 3.jpg, File:Antagonist LOGO 2.jpg), try that advice conjunctioned with {{non-free with permission}}. --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

family photo

Hi, I have a family archives photograph to import, from the late 1800's, to add to an existing article (Thomas Treadwell Stone). I am unsure what copyrights/other issues apply to this. There is no copyright on the photo, but I don't even know if there were copyrights during that timeperiod in the US...I could use your help... Cajohnson56 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC) cajohnson56

Was the photo ever published publicly? If not, then according to this chart File:PD-US table.svg, it may be public domain:
  • If you know the author, then they need to have died more than 70 years ago, or before 1941.
  • If you do not know the author, then the images need to be at least 120 years old (1891 or earlier). If you don't know the exact year of creation, it is probably close enough.
However, if the photos were ever published, then it may get more complicated. Chris857 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Notice

Uploaded a file and thought I would be prompted to provide copyright information, but was not.

I am not sure how to do that.

Here are my crude attempts: File:HHCalendar.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeakycatta (talkcontribs) 11:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Actually the image tagging bot did tag the image. Anyway, I added the {{information}} template but you need to fill in the missing details. Who made the image and when was it made? Was it made from public domain information or is based on copyright information? If you made the image from public information then say that you are the author and all should be fine. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)