## In a Lonely Place (1950 film)

Resolved: – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The images used in the article In a Lonely Place were taken from the trailer. But I recently noticed that the film itself didn't seem to have any copyright notice on it either. A check at the Library of Congress didn't seem to turn up any motion picture results, only soundtrack-related. Is this entire film in the public domain? More specifically, would I be able to upload images from the actual film, not the trailer? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 12:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A copyright notice may have appeared elsewhere on the film, eg the canister, so do not assume is is uncopyrighted because you saw no notice. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I wasn't sure if my question was bordering on being a legal question or not. I'll avoid using image directly from the film. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Determine as best you can the name and credit wording that the author specified in connection with the photo. Sometimes he stated it explicitly in an "attribution" line in the information box and/or in an introduction line with the license tag. If not, and unless stated otherwise, you can often assume that he wants to be credited under the name he indicated in the "author" field or in any other way on the description page of the photo. You may also find useful the suggestions in the "How_do_I_properly_attribute" section of the Creative Commons abbreviated FAQ.
2. Yes.
3. Your use of the expression "under fair use" is somewhat ambiguous. I assume you're still talking about the CC license, not the fair use notion of the U.S. Copyright Act. If so, the answer to your question seems to be the terms of section 4d of the license.
4. No, not with the by-sa license if it doesn't have a "nc" clause. That is an important point of free licenses. You don't need to contact the author if you do what is allowed by the license. You would need to contact him only if you wanted a derogation to the license.
-- Asclepias (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

## Request for takedown

Several IP's have been removing a photo and adding a takedown notice on Central Pacific 173, not really sure how to deal with this one. Should I ask them to use WP:CONTACT, WP:OTRS, or is this not how it should be done? Apologies for this thread being slightly out of scope of this board, but I know the editors here will know what to do. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

While this image is hosted on the commons, you may try asking for some help from User:Centpacrr, who has a connection with cprr.org (see his user page). I suspect this claim is copyfraud, i.e., claiming copyright over an image which is in the public domain. Even unpublished works are only copyright for 95 years from creation by anon authors or 120 years for known authors, per commons:COM:L#United States, so an 1864 image would have passed into the public domain in 1959 at earliest and 1984 at the latest. Some organisations don't understand some of the nuances of copyright law and make such copyright claims mainly based on ignorance rather than US copyright law. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

## Photos taken at a sports event

I want to upload one photo I took at Wimbledon 2011 and probably more if I find something else. The conditions of entry for the event state that audiovisual material recorded in the event may not be sold or used commercially unless authorized by the All England Lawn Tennis & Croquet Club, which organizes the event. However, Wikipedia requests that uploaded images should be free to use commercially, which would make the posting of ANY photo taken at Wimbledon a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please reply on which license should I select or if I should not upload the image at all, which I would understand as to most probably mean that every present and future photo in Wikipedia that has been taken in Wimbledon, and in many other sports events that have a similar policy, would have to be taken down. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrevino (talkcontribs) 19:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's your neck on the block: you are the one who has entered into a contract with the All England Club, nobody else. If you make your photo available without restricting it to be NC use only, as I understand it the All England Club has no recourse in law against anyone (including WP) who might use it; but they may have recourse against you, for breaking your contract with them.
Of course if you restrict it to be NC use only, Wikipedia won't accept it, and the upload page will ask you to select a less restrictive license. Jheald (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
That's correct, use of the photo is restricted to NC only except if authorized by AELTC, and Wikipedia won't want a photo with a NC license. The conditions of entry state "Still photographs, film, videotape or other audio-visual material recorded within the Grounds may not be sold or used commercially in any way whatsoever unless authorised by the AELTC". I believe this wording leaves the burden of getting authorization on the user of the photo; if I don't sell the photo and if I don't use it commercially I am complying with the conditions of entry.
The CC licenses state that "In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license: [...] Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights." Considering this provision which I hadn't read closely before, I believe it might be acceptable to upload the photo to Wikipedia with one of the allowed licenses like CC BY-SA but specify in the summary that the photo was taken under those conditions and so, besides the publicity rights of whoever is in the photo, the AELTC has rights on the photo as well. Therefore a potential user would be aware of the NC use restriction imposed by the AELTC, and that commercial use would require them to ask the AELTC for permission as well as the depicted persons who have personal publicity rights.Etrevino (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

## Greater London Authority images

These two images are claimed to licensed under either GFDL or CC by their respective uploaders: Image:GLA Flag.png and File:Greater_London_Authority_logo.svg. They are logos of this administrative entity - Greater London Authority. The Terms and Conditions page here: [1] restricts usage without prior request. I made an SVG version of the first image, but am not sure about the licensing so have not uploaded yet. They are simple text only wordmarks - are they copyrightable anyway? vlad§inger tlk 03:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to put my SVG under {{PD-textlogo}} for now. If there's a more suitable category, please put all of these images under the same license for consistency. vlad§inger tlk 03:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

## Tag for personal photo?

Hello,

The photo I've uploaded is a personal one. Please let me know the appropriate Tag to be used in such cases.

Awaiting your earliest reply. Thanks & Regards, Prakash C.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prax c (talkcontribs) 04:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why are sports uniforms like this considered copyrighted and not just a combination of typefaces and geometric forms. Surely, some uniforms may include creativity enough, like some tiger drawing, whatever. But when it's just a combination of where what colors go, isn't this just a case of trademark just like with {{PD-textlogo}}? --damiens.rf 15:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say the uniform is too simple to copyright as a 2D image, or uses no original work. Trademark probably still applies. However the person who drew this could claim copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

## Image at Boleto

The addition of copyright violations at Boleto made me look at File:BoletoBancario.png, which is an image used on the page. I'm no expert on image copyrights by any means, but due to the logo in the corner, copyright appears to belong to Bradesco, which is a bank. The concern I have is that the uploader claims not only to be the copyright holder of this work, but also that he releases it into the public domain, something I'm not sure a company would do. My question is, what is the correct method of addressing these concerns? - SudoGhost 15:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that is a Commons image, so here may not be the best place to discuss it. That said, I believe that the image is not eligible for copyright with the exception of the bank's logo, that could be hidden out. --damiens.rf 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to explore creating mixed media collage. I want to know laws pertaining to copying images in books and magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.6.134 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is for copyright questions relating to Wikipedia. We cannot give you legal advice about copyright issues generally. You should consult an intellectual property lawyer. – ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

## Is it a copy right image

The image has been taken from my facebook,I do not know it is copy right or not,please help me to solve this question,and which image is not copy right.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are referring to File:Ehsan Sehgal.jpg? Yes it is the copyright of the person who took the picture unless that person has specifically released it into the public domain or assigned it to someone else. – ukexpat (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

## Wikipedia palagiarised - what to do?

HI

I have a little problem. Do we do anything when Wikitext is taken and put onto a page which then claims it as their copyright and "all rights reserved?" Chaosdruid (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• One option is to handly it yourself using the steps described here: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process. Wikipedia's strong "DIY ethic" applies to policing its policies, which includes dealing with reusing content outside of Wikipedia (i.e. if you see a problem, you are encouraged to address it yourself rather then expect any "official" response from The Foundation). If you wish to bring something to the attention of the Foundation on the off chance they will deal with it, see this page, though I do not guarantee that the Foundation will act on this matter, rather you are more likely to get results if you follow the "Non-compliance process" I describe above. --Jayron32 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Cheers :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
So basically anyone is allowed to use, host, modify, or sell Wikipedia content, so long as they give credit, correct? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Under the terms of CC-BY-SA, any redistribution must be release under an equivalently free license, hence the "ShareAlike" bit. While this doesn't specifically bar anyone from selling Wikipedia content, it does bar them from claiming Copyright. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

## Is the text of a historical marker erected by a local government in the public domain?

Recently I quoted the text of a historical marker in a city park in Gainesville, Florida; my quote was deleted as copyright violation by someone who is a Wikipedia administrator and ambassador and so, I suppose, should know what is a copyright violation and what is not. Nonetheless, I find it hard so to believe that the marker falls into that category (especially since it's quoted in print in a book I referenced in the article in question) that I am bothering you to adjudicate on the matter.

The deletion is found via this URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hogtown%2C_Florida&action=historysubmit&diff=437872104&oldid=437214691

The dialogue between the deletor and myself is found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Donald_Albury#About_Deletion_of_the_text_of_the_historical_marker_in_Westside_Park_in_Gainesville.2C_Florida

I thank you.

Type to you later,

Lipsio (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Vince Lipsio

Without looking at the specific facts in your case, I'd say the general rule is yes, there is a copyright concern. I took a picture of a plaque to illustrate one historical site, and learned, to my chagrin, that it was a copyright problem. Works of the Federal government are usually in the public domain, but that isn't true for state and local government works.
It may be the case that the plaque uses material in the public domain, but that would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.--SPhilbrickT 21:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

So, even a photograph of the marker is problematic — fascinating.

If I were to obtain permission from the erector of the marker ("Sponsored by Alachua County Historical Commission in cooperation with Department of State 1975"), how would I go about attaching such permission to a Wikimedia entity? Or, if I obtained legal counsel on the matter? These are probably purely theoretical, as my time is limited, but I may try to do so some day, and thought to ask well in advance.

And, judging from the specifics of the comments entered with the deletion (URL above), it would seem that even quoting a state constritution or statute book is in violation of copyright law, but surely that can not be the case; if and where can authoritative rules be found?

Thanks,

Lipsio (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To communicate permission to Wikipedia, see the process set out at WP:IOWN. I don't think getting legal advice would help. Reasonable legal minds can differ on the same fact pattern. – ukexpat (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The problem of legal advice was not lost on me and I should have thought better of asking; however, the process at WP:IOWN is something valuable to me to know about.

Vincent J. Lipsio 19:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsio (talkcontribs)

## Image of Sunny Deol

This is an image of bollywood actor Sunny Deol, a living person. http://s.chakpak.com/se_images/22682_-1_564_none/sunny-deol.jpg

How do I know whether it is a free image that can be used on Wikipedia or not? In Google all images are available for free from all sites....and most celebrities like this have no problem with using their images. Can someone explain in simple terms? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevgeorge123 (talkcontribs) 06:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia holds itself to higher standards that most other websites when it comes to things with possible legal ramifications, such as copyright infringement. It is usually safe to assume that most images of celebrities that you find on the internet are not free to use, and that someone owns the copyright and cannot be used on Wikipedia, unless there is a clear statement that the image has been released into the public domain or on terms acceptable to Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

## RAAK Arts and Science College

RAAK Arts and Science College — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baskar mother (talkcontribs) 10:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a question relating to copyright issues on Wikipedia? – ukexpat (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

## A Neon Rome Photo

I posted a photo of the band A Neon Rome provided to me by the singer for insertion into the Wikipedia page A_Neon_Rome and I quite frankly don't understand how to copyright tag it. Please advise. Geoffrey Laxton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffreylaxton (talkcontribs) 03:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You must get the copyright holder, who is likely the photographer, Julie Bates, not the singer who gave you the photo File:Neon Rome.jpg, to send us their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT and they must release the image under a free licence. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

## Images keep disappearing from my page.

Hello I am Ron Schneider and have a copyright from Ethan Russell which was sent in by the person who put the page up. Here is one of the files Let the Money do the talking Is there a way to correct this so the image stays up?

thank you ron schneider — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmuseed (talkcontribs) 00:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The link you give, http://meandtherollingstones.com/images/stories/backgroundsepia.jpg, is not on Wikipedia. Has it been uploaded to Wikipedia? The watermark on the image says “©Ethan Russell. All Rights Reserved” Is Russell willing to license it under a license that permits reuse by anyone anywhere for anything? —teb728 t c 02:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
the image was uploaded by the person that created the page and I got the license from Ethan and was sent two other times for validity and I believe Ethan even sent something. I don't know if the image is still on the server or how to upload to it. Ethan Russell allowed me to put it up, since it is me..thank you for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmuseed (talkcontribs) 04:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
What was the name of the image and what article was it used in? If you can't tell us, we really can't help you easily. Are you possibly talking about the Ethan Russell article? This article already has three non-free album cover images none of which really pass the non-free content policy guidelines which claim their purpose is for critical commentary yet there is no such prose other than the facts these there album covers were photographed by Ethan Russell. What this article really could do with is a freely licenced portrait of the subject but if he is prepared to contribute an appropriately licenced image or two we will be happy to accept. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The image was [Mick_keith_money2.jpg] and it was in the header on the right with my profile. Ethan sent in the confirmation that I had permission to use the image on or about November 16, 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmuseed (talkcontribs) 06:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The previous upload of the file File:Mick keith money1.jpg was deleted 21 October 2010 because OTRS permission was insufficient. That might mean that the confirmation did not make it clear that anyone was allowed to reuse the file for anything. If it said you had permission to use it only on your Wikipedia article, that is not enough; Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. (For reference, the currently used image is File:Mick_keith_money2.jpg.) —teb728 t c 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

## File:Coral Nebula Aelita Andre.jpg

Hello, another editor has let me know that this image, which I recently uploaded, might not be fair use because it's a CC-licensed reproduction of an artwork. Is the image okay, or should it be deleted? If it should be deleted, can I upload a low-resolution version of it and use the {{Non-free 2D art}} license?

Thank you, Armadillopteryxtalk 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a tough one. It is a free image, but its sole intention is to partially reproduce a copyrighted work of art, so it's a derivative work of a non-free piece of art. But {{Non-free 2D art}} doesn't really work either, since it's not 2-D. It's kind of a sculpture, or at least it has a 3-D element. So I think we can only allow it if it passes our non-free content criteria, and I don't think it would. Very sad.
There are many freely-licensed photos of copyrighted sculptures that people try to upload, and I'm not sure what the recent thinking is on that, but this photo should be treated like those others. – Quadell (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. I do have a question to add now. The artist classifies it as a painting, as does the gallery her work is in, and although this work has not been mentioned by name in news reports, the media have generally referred to all her works as paintings. If I provided a link to either the artist's website or to the gallery's website with this work called a painting (or with all the works called paintings and with this one presented in a collection on the same site), would that be sufficient to qualify it as 2D art?
• Artist's website (The top right corner says, "Painted at ... "
• Gallery website, which refers to the painting as "acrylic and mixed media on canvas." I don't know whether "on canvas" overrides "mixed media" or whether "mixed media" overrides "on canvas."
All of the works by this artist are paintings with small objects affixed to the surface. I know of similar images of her work (photographed by the same person and with the same license) that you can find here, here, here, and here. Do you think one of these would be a better choice?
Thank you, Armadillopteryxtalk 12:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly gray area, whether this is 2D or 3D art. I don't think it affects the status of the work particularly, though, since the underlying work is copyrighted. I think we would treat it the same, whether it was 2D or 3D. – Quadell (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so do you recommend that I remove it from the article and tag it for deletion? Or, should I try out the non-free 2D art license with a low-res version and see what happens? Armadillopteryxtalk 14:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, I think I'd better let someone with more recent IFD experience than I have give advice there. – Quadell (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

## Email me the files?

Can someone please email the deleted files File:Epoch Chinese.jpg and File:Epoch Malaysia.jpg to my email address (dingbatrofl@yahoo.com) so I can make low-res images? Thanks a lot. 66.108.223.179 (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

So...can this be done or no? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Epoch Malaysia.jpg already exists. As for File:Epoch Chinese.jpg (deleted), wouldn't it be easier to upload a new screenshot? If you'd still like the file e-mailed to you, create an account or log in, and I'll use Wikipedia's "email user" function so I can be sure it's your email address. – Quadell (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place but, I recently uploaded an image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Battlegrounds_2_Logo.jpg Which I have been given permission by the owners of the BG2 dev game, and theres even a topic on their forums (bgmod.com/forums look for wikipedia) that says I have permission. I wrote on the image page that I had permission from the owners but still an admin posted one of those msg to tell me to get permission. I already got permission so I do not understand what I have to do! I also tried making myself some kind of tag or something, but I am new to this image copyright thing so I am not sure about anything im doing in that page. Could someone help! aaaa! Mpcpro (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to upload an SVG badge/logo for MathJax from the MathJax site but then came to remember that Wikipedia only accepts inferior resolutions for copyrighted logos. Three questions here: I presume it would be acceptable to upload the 128x128 PNG (bitmap) version of the image for illustration in the MathJax article? Second, given that the image is being provided for users to express their support for/admiration of MathJax is it acceptable usage to include the PNG version in the design of a WP:userbox? I would like to create such a userbox for my/to promote my User:Nageh/mathJax script. Third question, if the purpose of non-free content is to support illustration purposes (e.g., for logos) then why wouldn't it be allowed to upload high-resolution images provided that they are used only for such illustration purposes? Thanks for your help, Nageh (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

1) How large does it need be to use in the infobox the article without being grainy? It can be that large. 2) Per WP:NFCC#9 a non-free image may be used only in an article—never in a template or user page. (But for your userbox you might eliminate the jacks piece, spelling MathJax with an x, making a PD logo.) 3) A non-free image may be used only to significantly increase reader understanding (for example by identifying the subject of an article); it may not be used merely for illustration. Since your logo may be used only in the infobox, there is no need for it to be any higher resolution than is needed there. —teb728 t c 08:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

SVG logos are OK. Infinite resolution is usually not a problem for logos as whoever owns the logo wants it reproduced accurately. And usually logos do not have extra information revealed as they zoom in. But the logo should only be used on the article about the organisation wit the fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

## 1907 Louis Ferdinand.jpg

This file is a later photo of Louis Ferdinand, in adulthood. It is used on two different websites, the one listed in the description page and this one: http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/germanpoliticalleadersLO-LZ.htm without any claim of copyright or indication of the original source (not the creators of the websites). It resembles a promotional headshot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbp (talkcontribs) 10:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The image File:1907 Louis Ferdinand.jpg is being used to identify the subject in the infobox and being a non-free image it must comply with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines. This requires a fair-use rationale for each use (per #10c) but there is already a freely licenced image File:Louis ferdinand c1930.jpg in the article Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia, so the non-free image fails the very first criteria, i.e., it is replaceable. We can only keep this image if you can verify it is freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

## Microsoft Flight Logo and Screenshot

Would it be a copyright violation to upload the Microsoft Flight logo and one of the promotional screenshots and use them in the article for the product here on wikipedia?

Thanks

Hughes-MDflyer4 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, non-free images (such as logos and screenshots) can only be used in articles if they pass our stringent requirements listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. In practice, a low-resolution logo will almost always be acceptable in an article about the specific product (though not in other articles). The image will need a Non-free use rationale, of course. A screenshot may or may not be acceptable, depending on how well it passes criteria #3, #8, and #10.
For a good example of a logo and screenshot that are used in an acceptable way, see File:Microsoft Word 2010 Icon.svg and File:Microsoft Word for Mac 2011.png in the Microsoft Word article. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the info! Best Regards,Hughes-MDflyer4 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

## Grammy image

Can I get help with if this image is okay or not? File:Phoenix-grammys-385.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoralDebauchery (talkcontribs) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a orphaned non-free image with no rationale, so will be deleted. The use of any non-free images must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria. It looks like you were trying to use the image in Wolfgang Amadeus Phoenix but it would likely not pass the have non-free criteria and you have replaced it with a free image. ww2censor (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

## File:Kraljević Proglas.jpg

I have no clue what to do with File:Kraljević Proglas.jpg. Is it free? Is it non-free? Does it belong in the article if its not free? Please advise. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The "permission" listed is clearly wrong. I'm not sure which country's copyright laws would apply, but it's safe to assume that it is copyrighted. Since it's an image reproducing copyrighted text, I don't think there's any way it could pass our NFCC, so I think it should be deleted as a copyvio. – Quadell (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

## Possibly wrongly tagged

I am not particular up on the whole copyright process, so hopeing someone can point me in the right direction from here. It appears unlikly that those two album covers are under a free licence as claimed by the uploader. Fair use I'd say personally - where do I go from here? Agathoclea (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the license tags, which is usually the next step that you do. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Agathoclea (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

## Image from 1942 Flight Magazine

Are images from a 1942 Flight magazine still under copywrite protection? Is using an image from that magazine fair use if it is the only source for the image? Regards, 07:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Which country is this published in? if it is UK then images could be used if the photographer is unknown next year when it is over 70 years old. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
In some circumstances, Flight Global have expressed a desire to make their archive material more available. I suggest you ask at the WP:Aviation Project about Flight photographs. You may find you don't have to wait til next year.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Update (did a bit of poking around) - the last discussion on the subject (on an editor's talk page, an example of a image from Flight via Flightglobal with a copyright statement, and a category on commons. Whether this serves to inform or confuse.... Forgot to ask, did you have particular image in mind? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Graeme, Yes, I do have a few I would like to use. I am working on an article about aircraft engines of that period, and found a photo of the Ford V-1650 engine, along with some other low production experimental engines. The pages were photocopied and made available as PDF files on the website at http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/ there are several pictures of rare engines in the May 7, 1942 issue. Regards, 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Being a UK publication, UK copyright laws apply which depends on whether the author is known or not. Either way 70 years or 70 years pma applies. The permission given in the discussion linked above appears to be a non-commercial and wikipedia only permission which is no acceptable to us so unless Flight releases the images under a free licence I doubt we can use any image newer than 70 years old. It would therefore appear some of the commons category images may not be properly licenced at all despite the release statement at the top of the category page. It needs discussion over there. ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I was involved in the discussions with the editor of Flight International who created an account here for the purpose of discussing image use. He was very willing to release virtually all of the archive for commons use but AFAIK the offer was never taken up due to complications which is a shame. I have seen a commons category for Flight archive images but I think it was created in error. I have uploaded several aero engine photographs from the archive and tagged them as non-free fair use, File:NapierJavelin.JPG is an example. None have been questioned so far, the key thing is to prove that these images are the only ones available (if an engine exists in a museum but we have no images of it then non-free can't be used). Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

## use of an image

I asked a question about getting permission to use an image, now I can't find my way back there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.106.127 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you give us some clues so we can help you. If you asked a question some time ago you may need to search the archives above. ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
If you asked the question in the past month, you may be able to find it in this archive. BTW, one of the many advantages of having an account and editing logged-in is that you could use the contributions log for that account to find a past contribution. —teb728 t c 21:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

## 3D artwork?

File:5babushkadolls.JPG and File:3babushkadolls.JPG can go to Ffd as orphaned - but I would like to know first if such photos would be considered as a copyvio of 3D artwork. I suspect someone bought them and took a photo. Now if this was a 2D painting, it would be easy to decide. It's not something one would expect to see permanently fixed outside, so I ruled out freedom of panorama.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If the subject is a copyrighted work, then this is a derivative work of a non-free piece of art, and should be treated like File:Optimusprime-timelines.jpg (i.e. probably not used at all). If the doll design is not under copyright (e.g. if it was created in the U.S. before 1978, and does not include a © symbol), then there's no problem. If we don't know, we have to assume the design is copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
That's about what I thought. Thanks  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

## Freedom of panorama inside a building

If, for example, I were to take a picture of a food kiosk inside a mall, would that fall under freedom of panorama or another law? Would such a picture (taken in Indonesia) be useable on Wikipedia? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well... a food kiosk is not copyrighted, so it wouldn't apply. But if it were a copyrighted sculpture or painting, that's when "freedom of panorama" would matter. Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama doesn't have any information on Indonesia, I'm afraid. – Quadell (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
To quote Arsonal:

Article 23 of the 2002 copyright law has something similar to a freedom of panorama:

Unless agreed otherwise between the Copyright Holder and the Owner of a creative work in the form of a photograph, painting, drawing, architecture, sculpture and/or other artworks, the owner shall be entitled to without the consent of the Copyright Holder to display the work in a public exhibition or to reproduce it in a catalogue, without detracting from the provisions of Article 19 and Article 20 if said work of art is in the form of a portrait.

The copyright holder would be the work's original creator. The owner is the person who is reproducing the work using the forms mentioned above (I think). Articles 19 and 20 deal with personality rights if you take portraits of persons. You'd have to take this section up with the folks at the Commons if you want a definite answer on whether or not freedom of panorama can be derived from this. (I think it can.)

I am not even remotely a copyright expert, so I am unwilling to add something similar to the Commons page. Thanks for the help, time to go to the mall :-) Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
As I read that law: If an owner (like a museum) owns a painting or sculpture, the owner has the right to display it publicly and to publish a photo of it in a catalogue of its works. The law doesn't seem to apply to a right of a third party to photograph the work, and so it is not applicable to a food kiosk inside a mall or the like. —teb728 t c 01:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a good thing we can discuss it then. I have the pictures already, but am waiting for a clear decision. If there was nothing in the law regarding freedom of panorama (under any name), would the automatic presumption be that it exists or that it doesn't exist? Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

## File:Turnaroundstages.jpg

Hello Wikipedia,

I just added this file File:Turnaroundstages.jpg on my sandbox to test, how this works. The source of this turnaround process is: Boyne, G. A. (2006): Strategies for Public Service Turnaround: Lessons from the Private Sector?, in: Administration & Society, Vol. 38, No. 3 (July 2006), pp. 365-388. (p. 371). I put this information under the image I created in PowerPoint. The original version of this process is to find on page 371 of the source i named above.

1. Does this mean, that I need to put the reference outside of the picture as well? 2. The article also mentions on the bottom of the first page (p. 365)-->" © 2006 Sage Publications" Is this also a relevant information I need to put there or just the source of the scientist article?

Thanks for your help. Regards Den.geg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Den.geg (talkcontribs) 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Referencing isn't the issue. The source of the image has a copyright notice that also covers the image, so it is a copyright violation and we cannot host it on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Concur with ukexpat, image deleted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Take another look at that: It sounds to me like the user redrew the figure in PowerPoint. (As I recall, the figure wasn't all that original anyway.) —teb728 t c 17:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it still a copyrighted design? So wouldn't a recreation be a copyvio? – Quadell (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It should be possible to represent this diagram in a non-infringing different way rather than a slavish copy, eg by correct spelling of words, different wording, different font, different way to put number, line styles can differ, or different lengths and angles. I would also suggest saving this as a .png format rater than a .jpg. Not being able to see the original I can't see how different it is already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I would think the content is still creative material (and therefore copyrightable), not mere facts. This isn't a representation of a map or chemical process; it's a novel interpretation of how organizations succeed and fail, in detailed steps that would not be chosen in the same way by someone else looking at the same underlying data. (The original image comes from this paper, by the way.) – Quadell (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If you are right, the figure would be so unique that it would be impossible to create a free replacement. So, are you saying that his ideas are copyrightable as opposed to just their expression? Idea-expression divide seems to say otherwise; is it wrong? Frankly, when I saw the figure, my impression was that it might well be {{PD-ineligible}}.teb728 t c 07:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Idea-expression divide is correct. The idea that some organizations rise and others fall according to a pattern that can be represented in a flow-chart -- that's not eligible for copyright protection. This specific set of steps, with these names, in this order -- well, that could be copyrightable. It's a grey area, since there aren't that many words or steps involved, and a judge might well rule the work ineligible if push came to shove. Or he might rule it's as eligible as a 20-word poem (which you cannot represent in an image in a different font with a different border and claim you're in the clear). It's grey area, but I don't think the risk to WMF is worth it, especially since copyright is explicitly claimed by the author. – Quadell (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of the 35 images in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles&user=Kehz99 - all uploaded in 2009, I've just tagged 10 as blatant copyvios. I am beginning to suspect that they are all bad - however I can't find a match to all of them (yet...). Do we assume that the rest are fine? or propose all for deletion? Every file says I (Kehz99 (talk)) created this work entirely by myself., which is obviously untrue.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very suspect. You might consider listing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys as well. – Quadell (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
It's now Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations and I will add a report to address the non-orphaned images.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
None of the remaining photos return suspicious hits from TinEye. However, after examining some of his deleted uploads (File:Yorubaw.jpg, File:Awara Mountains.jpg, File:Yaraduagreen.gif, File:Abujah.jpg, etc.), many of which are similar to the remaining photos, I don't think we can be confident that any of these are legit. I would recommend nominating the lot of them at WP:PUF, with a link to this discussion. – Quadell (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The ones which are also orphans, I have listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 July 12. – Quadell (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. I've gone off of TinEye, it's never that comprehensive. One can now drag an image onto a Google Image search box (in another window) and find much better matches.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not know that! Thanks for the tip. After trying a few times, I'm sold. – Quadell (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

## three questions

1. A photo is posted by a U.S. Senator on his official Senate web site (www.Soandso.senate.gov). It has a captioned photo credit which reads “Photo credit: Some Guy, Office of Sen. Soandso.” Ordinarily I would be correct in saying this is an official government document and I can place it in the Commons under public domain, correct? What if the photo includes in it a copyrighted image which is visible but does not occupy more than a minor portion of the frame? 2. A photo is taken by an unknown photographer and given to the subject of the photo, who published it on his blog and sent it to others without attribution. The subject is now deceased. I have been unable to find any images of the subject in public domain. Can the photo be used on Wikipedia in an entry about the subject himself? I believe the image meets the ten policy criteria for non-free content, but the author remains a mystery. 3. I do not understand policy and practices regarding use of images which are uploaded directly to the English language version of Wikipedia. How is this done, and why would one choose that over the Commons? Are the requirements different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.91.82 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

1. No, employees of a senator or his office are not necessarily themselves employees of the federal government directly. It is only an official government document if it is an official of the government, and an employee of the senator does not necessarily qualify.
2. Possibly allowable under WP:NFCC if the subject is deceased and there are no freely availible photos, a single non-free image with a proper fair use rationale and copyright tag may possibly be allowed.
3. Commons should be used for any image which is freely licensed (public domain OR licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA.) Generally, locally uploading directly to English Wikipedia is used for images which aren't elligible for uploading at Commons, and for which a valid claim of fair use (all parts of WP:NFCC are met) exists. --Jayron32 18:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
1. Did not think of it that way and I'm a little surprised. Is this argument is not persuasive-- that the work is made for hire and thus the rights devolve to the employer, who is a govt employee performing official govt work by having the image made and posted, and therefore it belongs to the public domain?
2. Thank you, I hope others agree.
3. I can't find instructions for uploading image to English Wikipedia, though I have read many pages of instructions about the tags, criteria, etc. Can you point me to an upload page? All I can find is one for logos. Thanks so much for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.91.82 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Regarding 1. You may be right. The whole "Work by a government employee done as part of their government duties" or however it is worded seems more restrictive than many people want to make it out, so I tend to be overly cautious in those areas. Regarding #3, on the left, if you open the "toolbox" link, you can select "upload file" which will bring you to the Wikipedia upload wizard. Its pretty user friendly, so long as you fill out ALL of the correct fields and select the correct tags, you are good-to-go. --Jayron32 22:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Re 1. A lot of work done in a legislator's office is not "Work by a government employee done as part of their government duties" within the meaning of the statutes. The photo may have been paid for by the legislator's campaign fund, or may have been taken by his cousin the professional photographer, or by his advertising agency. "Work for hire" is also a trickier concept than many people believe. Always err on the side of caution. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC) (son of a photographer and sometime legislative candidate)

## Someone else's photo of possibly copyrighted material

I want to use this image to illustrate the section on that particular video in the Das Racist article. I don't know the copyright on the poster in the image, but I don't think that matters because it qualifies as fair use. (My first question would be that it does, right?) However, what do I do about the copyright on the photo itself? Do we need a free content license? Or do the limits of fair use sufficiently restrict the use of the photo and so make the copyright on the photo itself irrelevant? Thanks! -- Irn (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can't see the image based on that link. But in general, if you found an image on the internet, it's probably not free. If that's the case, we can only use the image if it passes our 10-point criteria. Most images do not pass those criteria. – Quadell (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this link will work better. Basically, it's a picture of a promotional poster for a video that I want to use in the section on said video in the group's article. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as fair use. The question is regarding the copyright of the image itself. I'm not asking if the image is free; I'm asking if I need a free content license to use it. -- Irn (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia prides itself on being a "free-content" encyclopedia, Wikipedia has much higher standard for what non-free images we allow than most websites. Even if it did qualify as fair use, that's not good enough; it would have to pass our non-free content criteria, or it would be deleted soon after you uploaded it. As to your question, you don't have the right to license it under a free-content license, because you don't hold the copyright to the poster. Only the copyright holder can do that. – Quadell (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you see the image? I'm pretty sure that it meets the ten points and qualifies as fair use regarding the promotional poster. In order to use this image of that poster, do I need to get permission from the photographer to license it as a free-content license? Or does that not matter if the other criteria are met regarding the content of the image? Am I not making sense? I'm pretty sure use of the promotional poster would be fine. However, my question arises because it's a photo of said poster and not the poster itself. Or, put differently, if the content of the photo qualifies as fair use, does the photo, too? -- Irn (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I had misunderstood. We're dealing with a photograph of a poster, which is not just a slavish copy of the poster, but also includes lighting, background, an angle, etc. This gets complicated. Is there any way you can acquire a scan of the poster itself, without other complicating factors? Then you could simply tag it {{Non-free poster}}, leave a rationale, and be done with it.
If not, then yes, you'd have to get the photographer to release the photograph under a free license (or agree to release it into the public domain). I mean, a non-free photo of a non-free poster could be replaced by a free photo of a non-free poster, so a non-free photo of a non-free poster would fail criterion #1. If the photographer agreed to license the photo under a free license (e.g. cc-by), then you would need to clearly tag the image with both {{cc-by}} and {{Non-free poster}}, explaining that one tag is for the poster art and the other is for the photograph. And it would be treated as a non-free file.
It doesn't help matters that this particular poster arguably uses content that copyrighted by Nintendo... – Quadell (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
There we go; that's what I was trying to find out. (: Sorry about the confusion. Thanks. -- Irn (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

## Copyright tag for a personal photo

Hi,

What "Copyright Tag" should I use for a personal photo to be uploaded/added to my user account?

Prakash C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prax c (talkcontribs) 07:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what you want. If you don't care what anyone does with the photo, and want everyone to be free to use without even crediting you, you can release it into the public domain by tagging it {{PD-self}}. If you want people to have to credit you, you can tag it {{cc-by-3.0}}. If you want your photo to be protected in the same way Wikipedia's articles are protected -- allowing copying, but with certain minor restrictions -- you could use {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. In every case, be aware that you're giving permission for anyone (not just Wikipedia) to use the photo without asking you first, so long as they follow certain restrictions. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

## Saraswathi Enterprises

the company was started by Ramakrishnana in 1984 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saranyap43 (talkcontribs) 10:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is the place for questions about copyright. – Quadell (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

## Image of unknown publication of a person who died in Estonia in 1919

That pretty much sums it up. I'm writing an article about an Estonian bishop/saint, and found an image of him here (scroll down, find the PLATON entry, click "Photo of St Platon"). No idea who published it, and when. Taken in either Russia or Estonia. The subject died in 1919, but I'm concerned about the non-US origin. What do you recommend - Commons, fair use, ...? Thanks, --JaGatalk 18:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly PD in the United States, and can be tagged {{PD-1923}}. But on Commons, you would have to show that it's PD in its country of origin as well, and it may not be. Russia's copyright is extensive and retroactive. So I'd host it here. – Quadell (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! --JaGatalk 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

## Image of Mark Alan Stamaty

Hi, I would like to use an image of Mark Alan Stamaty that's from his website. Link: http://markstamaty.com/ Go to the link and then click on Bio. The image I want to use is the 2nd from the top down. Please notify me on my talkpage if you reply but don't put the reply on the talk page, put it here. Thank You!KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that photo is copyrighted, and unless the copyright holder (usually the photographer) explicitly releases the photo under a free license, we can't use it on Wikipedia. If you would like to e-mail the subject or photographer and try to get them to do so, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how to do that. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

## Is this image a copyrighted work of art?

During a peer-review the reviewer queried whether this image was a copyrighted work of art. Out of an abundance of caution I removed it but I would like to use the image in an FLC and so I'm coming here with the question. Your guidance is appreciated. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. According to Gold medal#Olympic Games, the design stayed the same from 1928 through 1968, and minting is done by the host country. The U.S. hosted games between those years, and (by my understanding of the term "publish") the design must have been published in the U.S. before 1978. There is no © symbol on the medal, so I'd say it's public domain in the U.S. Perhaps it's PD internationally as well, I don't know, but I'd say it's safe on en.wiki. – Quadell (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

## Who owns this photo?

This photo is claimed by Corbys, Getty and Associated Press, what makes me suspicious it's likely to be in the public domain. Has anyone seen anything similar? --damiens.rf 14:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suspect it is a copyright violation by all those photo agencies and would still be under copyright, or whatever the South African law says for stuff from 1960. Photographer is unknown. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
South Africa is currently under the Copyright Act of 1978, which grants photographs a copyright of 50 years after their first publication. See section S.3(2)(a). If this photograph was first published in 1960, it entered the public domain on January 1, 2011. – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
P.S. You can use {{PD-South-Africa}}.
P.P.S. Corbys, Getty, and AP should all be ashamed of themselves. – Quadell (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
But {{PD-South-Africa}} is not enough to keep an image on Wikipedia, right? --damiens.rf 20:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, damn. The URAA. I hate that agreement!
Okay, that agreement said that if a work was PD in its source country in 1996 then it's PD in the U.S. But if it was still copyrighted in 1996, then the U.S. considers it life+70, even it's host country said it became PD in 1997 or whenever. This photo presumably became PD in South Africa this year, so you can republish it in South Africa... but the U.S. considers it copyrighted until 70 year after the death of the author.
But here's the thing. This photo was taken right after a massacre, by someone in South Africa. No one knows who, and no one claims it. (I know this because if someone claimed it, Corbys, Getty, and AP wouldn't try to pass it off as their own.) The copyright must (presumably) be held by the heirs of the photographer, if any, but this information has probably been lost to time. It's in copyright-limbo in the U.S., and will be until 2055 (when copyright for works of unknown authorship expires in the U.S.), despite the fact that it will have been PD in South Africa for over 40 year at that point. Until then, any company can (practically speaking) do anything they want with it, including (apparently) claim it as their own, without fear, since there's no one to sue them. But here at Wikipedia, we don't work that way.
It's obviously a non-replaceable photo of a historic event, and no PD-equivalent can ever be made. I think we can use it under our non-free content criteria. – Quadell (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree it passes NFCC#1, but what about NFCC#8? We do pretty well in many other articles about massacres and the like without pictures of dead bodies. The photo conveys emotion, but not really visual information that could not be passed on as text. --damiens.rf 16:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that a photo of a massacre is "contextually significant" in an article about that massacre. – Quadell (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Note that Getty credit it to "Keystone". I believe that is Keystone Press Agency, a major agency for press photographs at the time, still in existence today. Corbis say it comes from the Hulton-Deutsch collection, so they would be acting as agents for Getty. AP in effect just says "credit it AP" -- does that mean AP are claiming to own it, or just mean that AP want it known that it is available from them?
I would agree that the photo does add very significantly to user understanding about the massacre. But what is the NFCC #2 position? Jheald (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the AP appears to be claiming ownership, since there is no known actual copyright holder to contest the claim. Getty, AP, and Corbis all want you to pay them to use the image. In my opinion, our use does not compete with the commercial opportunities of the copyright holder, because the best evidence is that several companies falsely claim ownership, and there is no known copyright holder to profit from it. (The companies attempting to profit from it are not actually the copyright holders.) – Quadell (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

## Image in a draft question

I'm currently working on creating an article for a company. I have a long way to go before it will be moved into the name space but and this is my question I plan to add the company logo which is copyrighted to the page do I need to wait and upload it when I create the article in the name space or can I go a head and upload it with the appropriate copyrights tags. An answer is greatly helpful If the person that answers this could answer it on my talk page or leave a talk back that would be great.--Dcheagle 04:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You can't use non-free images in userspace; thus if you uploaded the image now, it would be removed from your userspace draft, and because it would not be used in any article, it would be deleted then. The best thing to do is wait until you have the image in main article space before uploading the image. You can use a free placeholder image in your userspace draft if you need it. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok thanks that's what I thought ill hold off on uploading it then.--Dcheagle 00:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

## Original printing in 1918

http://www.archive.org/stream/johnkeatinghisfo00keat#page/n7/mode/2up

printed 1918, scanned September 4, 2008

has a picture which I'd like to use in the page of its subject, John Keating (soldier, land developer). Can I do so without getting any more specific permission? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Internet Archive seems to be having problems at the moment, and I can't see the photo. But any photo that was first published before 1923 is public domain in the U.S., and can be tagged {{PD-1923}}. In that case, you don't have to get permission from anyone. – Quadell (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do it and hope that it's OK. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

## Montreal Logo

The logo of the city of Montreal is tagged with {{Non-free logo}}. The city's website states that all textual and visual content is "exclusive property of the city and is in the public domain," but then goes on to list the terms that must be followed for reproduction. Is it safe to assume that those terms are meaningless if the website is in the public domain? Should the image be retagged with {{PD-author}}? --Eddie (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this is from Canada, there is no option under law to make something public domain as in USA, so you will have to assume that restrictions apply as stated. Public domain on this site may just mean that it is available to the public. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Undoubtedly the page originally was written in French, and the translator probably does not understand the meaning of “public domain” in English. If I understand correctly, du domaine public can mean just “public”. In other words it the statement intends to assert Crown copyright. Indeed the restrictions seem to describe just that. —teb728 t c 04:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, alright. That makes sense. Thanks for the info! --Eddie (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

## fair use question

on the pirated movie release page. we cant use screen caps for examples of pirated movie releases becuase it says that it doesnt meet the fair use criteria. but isnt the fact that this is not for profit meet the fair use critera? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathwitafireinside (talkcontribs) 20:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-commercial use is only one of several factors in determining whether a use is "fair use" including: the use must also be "transformative"; and it must not harm the value of the work (as pirating does). See Fair use#Fair use under United States law. In any case, Wikipedia sets a substantially higher standard for non-free content here: In addition to satisfying "fair use" law, use of non-free content must satisfy all the conditions at WP:NFCC. —teb728 t c 22:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

## Pictures

How can I add an image without copyright and not being deleted? Dasilva123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasilva123 (talkcontribs) 14:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean. If an image has no copyright at all, it may be in the public domain for various reason. If an image has no copyright notice on it, that does not mean it is without copyright. We assume all images to be copyright unless verified as freely licenced and most images you find on the internet don't have copyright notices but they are copyright images and we can't use them; if you upload them they will be deleted. In some instances, copyright images may be used under the fair-use doctrine, but such images must comply with all 10 non-free content guidelines. Images that are freely licenced or comply fully with NFCC will not be deleted. You may find it useful to read image copyright information page that I wrote for editors like you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Permissions Manager:

Pearson Higher Education seeks permission to reprint material for which we believe you hold the rights. Please see the attached link for the material we seek. A permissions letter is available and ready to send. If you are not authorized to grant any or all of these rights, I would appreciate your letting me know the person we should contact to request the rights.

Daniel Gall

Main_Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djgall3 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Wikipedia articles are already licensed under two free content licenses that permit reuse, provided that you abide by the terms of the respective licenses. (If you wish to use images, be sure to look at the image description pages as they contain different terms than the articles themselves.) Neither the Foundation, nor any individual person has the ability to give you a letter of permission as most articles are the work of numerous editors. --B (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

## upload image to footballers profile on wiki

The image is on the footballers club website. How can it be uploaded by referencing the website it came from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.165.35 (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It can't. That would be a violation of the copyright held by the photograph's creator. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Assuming that the footballer in question is still alive (so a free photo can be added), The image cannot be uploaded unless it has been released under a suitable license by the copyright holder. Where is the source?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

## Using photos of no-longer-living authors

How definitely identified must the original source be to allow use of what appear to be publicity photos of deceased authors? I've turned up a few collections of photos related to article subjects I've been working, but so far have limited the images I've added to cases where I'm reasonably certain not only that the image is a dust jacket photo (or, occasionally, magazine illustration) used to promote the publication of the author's work, but can also identify the specific dust jacket (or magazine issue) it comes from.
As a general matter, do I need to be able to identify the source with that specificity in order to use a nonfree image? I've come across similar images on publishers' websites, not associated with specific titles, and feel reasonably comfortable in using such images. Does anyone see a problem with these (assuming there's no contraindication, like a copyright notice for a third party)? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A source just means that, a source. No matter if it comes from a book cover, the publisher itself, or elsewhere, as long as the source is identified, there should be no issues. The only problem I can foresee running into is depending on how long the author has been deceased. If it is recent, then using non-free images is going to be tougher than someone who died, lets say, 10 years ago. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

## Public domain in Indonesia

This is not a question about a particular image, but rather about recent changes in the language of PD-Indonesia templates. In particular:

Was the change to {{PD-IDGov}} appropriate? Are both templates necessary? What should happen with Category:Indonesian Government which, at a minimum, needs to be renamed? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. This was done by User:Indocopy, who hasn't edited since May. I left a message on his talk page anyway, but I doubt he'll return. His last edits were to a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (See this version), where he had a spirited disagreement about Indonesian copyright, and he seems to have left angry.
I don't know enough about Indonesian Government copyright to have an opinion, but this deserves more eyes. – Quadell (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Public domain, which will hopefully attract more attention. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose one can make an argument that by enacting a law that says "There shall be no infringement of copyright for...", the government of Indonesia has disclaimed foreign copyright in addition to domestic copyright, but I think that that's dubious. The rest of the Indonesian copyright statute is clearly using "copyright" to refer to domestic Indonesian copyright; there's no reason to believe that in this clause alone the word also encompasses foreign copyright.

So my take is that "public domain" is incorrect, with respect to U.S. law. A residual question is, can we rely on this statute as an assurance that "reproduction of the work is permitted"? My take is that it's probably safe to do so, based on Indonesia's apparent policy as reflected in this statute, not based on the statute itself as a matter of law. But if the Indonesian government ever asserted copyright contrary to this interpretation, Wikipedia would be required to honor that.

In sum, the old wording was incorrect, and the new wording is an improvement and I feel is satisfactory. Unless Wikipedia prefers to play it completely safe and not rely on the Indonesian policy at all, the new wording is fine. If Wikipedia policy requires ironclad assurance, its policy on Indonesian works of government should reflect that and the template should be deleted; but I think that goes too far. TJRC (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about this template at the Commons, we were trying to come up with the definition of this. From the US Copyright Office, it says "copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner." So this means to me that they will not go after websites that uses the materials listed in the copyright law. So I agree that using public domain is incorrect also and this template should be marked as non-free. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems absurd to me for a number of reasons. The arguments above depend on several dubious points, in my estimation.
(1) The government of Indonesia has, under Indonesian law, disclaimed all domestic copyright to its works, and "domestic" (Indonesian) copyright is the only copyright that Indonesia has the power to dictate. They can't dictate how the U.S. would respond to a (hypothetical) copyright claim, but they've explicitly disclaimed copyright by law as much as their own law has the power to do so. If one argues that "There is no provision in U.S. copyright law to divest foreign governments of U.S. copyright, even if the foreign government does not claim copyright under its own domestic law", that's technically true, but there is also no specific provision to allow me to divest copyright, even if I disclaim it. But {{PD-self}} is still valid. My own statement disclaiming copyright is good enough, even if there's no explicit provision in the law for that, because it's a common-sense decision to take my statements at face value. Shouldn't we take Indonesia's claims similarly?
(2) Otherwise, one would have to argue that just because Indonesia might retroactively claim copyright in the future (but has shown no indication of doing so), and then in that case the U.S. might (but has not done so for any government) honor the Indonesian Government with a copyright it has not claimed... because of that extremely unlikely future scenario, that we should treat it as copyrighted now, that seems an unprecedented level of copyright paranoia to me.
(3) If TJRC's interpretation is correct, then no U.S. government works are safe to publish on Wikipedia, since the U.S could (hypothetically) sue in the UK court system to prevent publication in that country. But that's ridiculous. The U.S. has not done so, and has shown no inclination of doing so. No one would support the removal of {{PD-USgov}}, and this situation seems no different to me.
Am I misunderstanding the situation here? – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are, let me try to clarify. When I said, "There is no provision in U.S. copyright law to divest foreign governments of U.S. copyright..." I did not mean to imply that there was no way for a foreign government to divest itself of a U.S. copyright. As you point out, a foreign government is situated the same as any individual, and free to disclaim copyright. I am saying that it does not happen by operation of U.S. law, and that it actually requires such a disclaimer, just as it would with an individual. So, yes, you can use {{PD-self}} for your own works; as can the Indonesian government.
So is the Indonesian statute such a disclaimer, equivalent to {{PD-self}}? I don't think so, for the reasons I noted above: the Indonesian statute is directed to Indonesian copyright, not to non-Indonesian copyright, and specifically, not to U.S. copyright.
On your point (2), let's back up. You refer to retroactively claiming (U.S.) copyright, but that's not the correct way to look at it. The question is whether the (U.S.) copyright was ever disclaimed at all. The idea of retroactively claiming assumes that it was disclaimed, and then that disclaimer is being revoked somehow, and that's not the case. In this case, there is no disclaimer of U.S. copyright and no issue of retroactively claiming it after such a disclaimer.
On point (3), Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, and U.S. law applies, so works of the U.S. government are safe to post. If the servers were hosted in the U.K, they, yes, we would be relying on the U.S. policy not to assert its copyright; the House Report cited above clearly shows that the U.S. statute applies only to U.S. copyright, and the U.S. retains its rights with respect to non-US copyright. Under this hypothetical, I think such reliance would be safe, but it would be as a matter of policy, not as a matter of law.
Clearer? TJRC (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I do understand a bit better, and I appreciate the explanation. I think I understand how Indonesia could (in stark contrast to its apparent stance) sue in U.S. court for copyright infringement, even while disclaiming all copyright in Indonesia. Wouldn't that strike you as extremely odd though? One independent nation disclaiming copyright on its own works under its own law, and then turning around and suing under the laws of a separate country for violation of copyright on the same works?
I would think a parallel case would be if a UK subject published photos on a website, claiming "I do not claim any copyright on any of these works under UK law, and I release them into the public domain." Anyone reading that would know he meant to release them {{PD-user}}, and I'm sure that's how it would be tagged here. Of course it's technically correct to say "He didn't rescind copyright under U.S. law! He specified UK law! He could still sue in U.S. court!" But that would be silly, wouldn't it? It's clear that he's intending to rescind copyright, and has shown no inclination to try to enforce copyright in the U.S. -- in fact, his statements indicate the exact opposite! Isn't the case for Indonesia?
You're obviously very knowledgeable about international copyright, and I appreciate you lending your expertise. I hope I'm not being difficult or dense. I just want to avoid a situation where Wikipedia is avoiding a whole set of useful images where the authoring government wants them to be in the Public Domain, simply out of a disproportionate sense of caution. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't realized all that. Thanks for the analysis. – Quadell (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

## Licensing an Image relating to the Philippine government

I need your help in finding a license for the image I uploaded. Here are the details:

• The image came from a governmental website of the Philippines.
• The website is the House of the Representatives of the Philippines (www.congress.gov.ph)

I think the image I uploaded belongs to the public domain because it was made by the Philippine government. These are the licences that I think that is subject to the image:

— for works whose copyrights have already expired, released into the public domain, or ineligible for copyright as stated by Philippine copyright law.

—for official public documents (or portions thereof) made in the Philippines of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature

I thinking that the first one is not subject to the image because it was a work of the Philippine government. But the second one, only applies to public documents or portions of them made by the Philippine government. So I'm thinking that the image doesn't belong to any of those licenses.

According to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293), Section 176, all of the works of the Philippine government should not be copyrighted and belongs to the public domain except when an author of the work complied, published and copyrighted it and was given to the government and the government was permitted to receive and hold copyrights. There some links about these: [2] [3]

And the {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}} license is subject only to the public documents made by the Philippine government and not subject to other kinds of works of the government like images. So I think the Wikipedia should make license for the all kinds of works of the Philippine government replacing the {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}} that only subject to public documents.

I wish this will happen. Thanks!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janbryan (talkcontribs) 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence of 176.1 However, prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for profit is problematic. Files must be free for any purpose. Thats why {{PD-PhilippinesGov}} will not happen, or only for those works of legislative, administrative, or judicial nature. --Martin H. (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Martin H. , I understands you but at least Wikipedia should make a license covering not only public documents but also images and kinds of work of the Philippine government and the image I uploaded is from the House of Representatives of the Philippines website. And this is for education purposes.--Janbryan (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated two pictures for deletion db-f7 as fair use rationale is not valid, images are replaceable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

## Free?

Is the image [4] free? I want to upload it and use it exclusively for article about Laura Shigihara. ColderPalace1925 (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no copyright identification, we have to assume the image is non-free. And because Laura is still living, we cannot use a non-free image since a free image can be taken of her to replace it. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Try yourself! Take an image of her! ColderPalace1925 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Masem is unlikely to do so. However, many celebrities have been photographed by Wikipedians, and those photographers have released those photos under a free license. It could happen for Laura Shigihara as well. Good luck! – Quadell (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

### Three easy steps to take an image of Miss Laura

1. Go to PopCap Games "territory".
2. Ask PopCap Games for George Fan
3. Ask George Fan for Miss Laura.

Successing probability: 99.9989% (perhaps 100%)

## Taking pictures in nature reserves

See User talk:Drilnoth#Not for financial gain... Simply put, the question is: If someone takes photos in a nature reserve, can the reserve claim copyright on the image and prevent its commercial use? Please respond here or at the page linked above. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The park has no claim to the copyright on photos taken within its borders. The park could allow photography, or outlaw photography, or allow photography only under certain conditions... but none of this affects the copyright status of the image. The photographer is the copyright holder, and can license in under a free license if he so desires. (Hypothetically the park could, in retribution, not allow the photographer back in. But they cannot prevent the image's publication due to a copyright claim.) – Quadell (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

## FREE IMAGES ON THE WEB

if a picture is offered as a free image on the web can it be used for a logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.118.175 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking about using the image on Wikipedia, or for something unrelated (like your own private website)? – Quadell (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a copyright on The First Time I Ever Saw Your Face? or has it expired? Connie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.21.99 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't expire until 70 years after Ewan MacColl's (who wrote the song) death i.e. 2059.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

## Company C, 52d Infantry Regiment (Anti-Tank)

The various images in this article give the regiment as their source. If they were taken by members of the regiment, are they PD? If they weren't? Or was the uploader just unsure of what to put in the source field and just copied in the regiment's name, leaving these with no technical source? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If the photographer was a U.S. soldier acting according to his/her official duties, then the image is PD. If it was taken by a soldier on his/her own time, or by a nearby civilian, then you'd have to take into account when/where it was first published, just like any normal image.
I'm seeing "U.S. Army Center Of Military History" as the source on many images. Which ones are you referring to? – Quadell (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't specify. The images in the galleries are the ones I'm looking at. For example, File:C CO, 52 IN - SPC Brown on Patrol in Bartallah, South of Mosul.JPG, File:C CO, 52 IN - Christmas Picture, CPT Molfino & 1SG Coulter, FOB Pacesetter.JPG, File:C Company 52d Infantry on GAAF June06.jpg, and File:C-52 Soldiers in Baghdad 26DEC2006.jpg. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
These sure look to me like photos taken by "on-duty" soldiers acting in their official capacity as soldiers. That would make them PD. – Quadell (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so should {{PD-USGov-Military}} work? –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I believe so. – Quadell (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I've updated some of the image licensing tags. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

## Who is bigest in all nature ?

Is duniya me whi bada, jo ek botal p kar apne pero par khada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishvkant meena (talkcontribs) 17:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

First off, this is English Wikipedia; unfortunately, we don't have a Rajasthani language Wikipedia if that's the language that you're using. Still, pretty much no one here is going to speak that language.
Second, I think you're looking for the reference desk. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

## Herbert Bayer image for Harper's Bazaar in 1940, is this copyrighted?

Herbert Bayer College Fashions- who owns this image, is it copyrighted?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemma31 (talkcontribs) 12:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Presumably, Harper's Bazaar owns the copyright. – Quadell (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It is from 1940, can I use this image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemma31 (talkcontribs) 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the image is still under copyright and non-free. (Could someone correct me if I'm wrong?) You're unlikely to be able to use the image on Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

## Pictures taken by a friend

The uploader of File:IIM Shillong (7).JPG claims that a friend took it. The image has a GFDL licensing tag. Do we need evidence of permission for this type of thing via OTRS, or is it safe to trust the uploader? I'm inclined to think the latter, but technically... Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we actually need the uploader to be the photographer. This is one of those things that he could have lied about and would've never been caught, so it sucks, but I think we need to get the actual permission of the actual copyright holder... --Jayron32 00:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Strictly speaking you would be best off to have your friend email his permission to us by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT and quoting the image name as above. ww2censor (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I'll tag the images as lacking permission (they were uploaded by someone else, not me). Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That image plus some others, uploaded by a no-longer active editor, are in a gallery and really add nothing significant to the article they are in, so I doubt they will really be missed. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

## Own work?

I have a music file in which the lyrics and score is my own work, while the record is from someone else. Is the music file my own work? ColderPalace1925 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

Copyright also subsists in the recording, and there may also be performing artist rights. So a file derived from the record would also contain extra copyright, as well as yours. Hopefully you have a contract with the recording person to give permission for the recording, otherwise that was a copyright infringement against you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

## UIC College Page Logo

Hello, I am in charge of the University of Illinois at Chicago's logos.

Someone is trying to create a page for a college within the University, and is not sure how to go about the file copyright tag.

Below is the site to our logos: http://tigger.uic.edu/htbin/identity/BROWSE.CGI

Please help me in determining what it is I need to do to legally put our logo on the page.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.22.251 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

All the logos I looked at in th elink above are comprised entirely of text and cannot obtain copyright because they don't pass the threshold of originality though they may have other intellectual property restrictions such as being trademarked {{trademark}}. For such logos we use the copyright template {{PD-textlogo}}. Please be aware that you may have a conflict of interest. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

## I want to use this image

I want to use this image for the infobox of Jebediah. The image is from the band's official Flickr page but the page says "All Rights Reserved" and I'm not sure whether it is allowed on Wikipedia. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

An "All rights reserved" tag means the image is not freely licenced and therefore we cannot use it. Perhaps you can persuade the Flickr user to change the copyright to a free creative Commons licence so we can use it. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

## printing a file

I have been unable to print a copy of Germany Monarch Family Trees, getting only the first and last two pages. I want to double check my facts before offering information. Please help. Judy Waner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judy Waner (talkcontribs) 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the page for copyright questions. Maybe you would find help at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page? – Quadell (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

## Help navigating permissions for publicity photo

I contacted the official email address of an entertainer, and requested an image to be used for the person's biographical entry. The entertainer's publicist emailed me a photo stating "I am submitting this photo to Wikipedia and give explicit permission that anyone can use, copy modify or sell it". After trying to wade through the upload procedure and the hoary pages of rules & regulations, I am very confused. Can someone with experience in this please help me get the photo uploaded with the proper permissions, or direct me on what I need to obtain to complete what I thought would be a somewhat simple process. I'd prefer to discuss this on my talk page or via email. Thanks. - CompliantDrone (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Messaged on user's talk page. – Quadell (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

## Word processing

How can I download word processing to send resumes to jobs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.23.12 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

## Harry Potter

when will harry potter and the deathly hollows part 2 book or the dvd will be out in stores? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.11.74 (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

## Properly taggin pictures

You know, the other two articles I wrote and uploaded pics for, I didn't have a problem with the pic used. I was given permission by the person/organization to use them. I was also given permission to use the one on the current page I uploaded, Tony J. Fernandez, but that pic got deleted. I don't know why. I read that whole copy right thing and I don't now what's supposed to go where. HE emailed me the picture. Where do I put that he gave me the picture and gave me permission to use the picture?!?!?! How do I tell you that?!?!? I just don't get it. Why did it get so complicated. It wasn't this complicated two years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ContentScribbler (talkcontribs) 00:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Content Scribbler (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay fine! I signed out! Now tell me, in plain ENGLISH LANGUAGE - not computer code speak - what I'm supposed to do to make this image (I think you'd call it File:Tony J. Fernandez.jpg okay to upload when Tony J. Fernandez himself told me to USE IT! Content Scribbler (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You should note that the copyright on pictures is held by the photographer, not by the subject. Have the person who took the photograph email Wikipedia's OTRS team as described at WP:IOWN. There's an email address there (the permissions-commons one) and if you just have the photographer email that address, you'll be fine. --Jayron32 02:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the photographer may well be the copyright holder but in the case of "work for hire", the person who paid for the photos to be taken will most likely be the copyright holder, and it is the copyright holder who must send us their WP:CONSENT. Possession of a photo does not confer any copyright to the person in whose possession the image is, which is why it must be the copyright holder who gives their permission for us to use their image. That permission must be under a free licence. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, Tony Fernandez told you that the portrait could be used on his Wikipedia article. Sorry, but that is not good enough: Since Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, Wikipedia accepts permission only if it allows reuse by anyone for anything. Without such permission for reuse by anyone for anything, it can be used only under Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content policy. One of the restrictions in that policy is that non-free content may be used only if no free substitute exists or could be created. Since Fernandez is a living person, a free picture of him certainly could be made. The deletion log for File:Tony Fernandez b.jpg says it was deleted because it was a replaceable non-free image. —teb728 t c 08:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

## Sports team logos

— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• The stylized "J" may push this over the Threshold of originality since it isn't just text in a simple typeface or font the way that the Dodgers logo is. IANAIPL (I am not an intellectual property lawyer) but if we really are going to be ultra-conservative as we usually are at Wikipedia when we don't know, I would count the Devils logo as copyrightable whereas the Dodgers one isn't. --Jayron32 01:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
We assume a work is copyrighted until proven otherwise - or we can assure ourselves it is unable to pass the threshold of originality. In the case of the Devils logo, it is well beyond a standard font, and certainly would pass the Threshold, ergo it is trademarked and implicitly copyrighted to the Devils. The Boston logo, on the other hand, is a fancy letter - but it is a nominal typeface, and thus would not pass the Threshold, and therefore is trademarked but not copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Devil's logo is an N and a fancy J. The NY Rangers' logo is... "Rangers", on a shield. How are they significantly more "original" than a stylized B, An interlocking "L" and "A", or an "A" with a halo around the top? These all seem to be very wishy-washy, non-answers. No one is disputing trademarks on these either (well, I'm certainly not).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem with the Threshold of Originality - it can only be established positively via case law to determine if there's enough "sweat of the brow" to make an image copyrightable. The Boston "B" would fail this because its just the letter B, but the Devil's logo is arranged and modified to include graphical elements. The Rangers logo has details on the shield element that make it a non-simple shape - but you could argue it just barely falls under the Threshold. However, we need to play on the safe side with any questionable cases. Note that WP does marked trademarked logos but unlike copyright, there's no restriction or issues with logos that are trademarked. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation here... and apparently, so does all of commons and most other users here. Our own article on Threshold of originality, as well as Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems, disagrees with this interpretation as well. Thanks for voicing your opinion though, I now see what the dispute is going to revolve around.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Er, my view is consistent with those pages. I'm saying that that Boston B is uncopyrightable and can be reproduced freely, while the Devils and the Rangers are copyrightable and thus would have to be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, for example, you mentioned "sweat of the brow" here, but that's apparently only applicable in the UK and Europe. I remember reading about this (specifically the Bridgeman vs. Corel decision) on ArsTechnica and Time a while back, now that I've refamiliarized myself with the details. Since we're discussing North American companies (everything in scope here is from either the US or Canada, so far), and our considerations lie primarily with US law since that's where the Wikimedia servers are, it appears that you're advocating a somewhat less supported (overly conservative?) position.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Didn't mean to apply that as the legal term being used in the UK/Europe version. Only that the idea that plunking down a few simple shapes and text is not creating a copyrightable work. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, so you want a non-wishy-washy, definite reply: The Devils logo is definitely under copyright. The part of the logo that looks like a ‘J’ is not a ‘J’; it is a drawing that suggests a ‘J’. A ‘J’ does not have horns or a pointy tail. —teb728 t c 07:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That's basically what I was thinking as well, until I started looking at what we've actually seemed to agree on for various other images/logos. The flame on the Calgary Flames logo probably makes it sufficiently original, but the Rangers logo seems to clearly fail the test. The Devils logo is probably borderline, for the reasons that you've mentioned in regards to the J, but... well, I could go either way on that. The Bruins B on top of the spoke (a letter and a geometric shape) clearly is not original. The New York Islanders logo is the name superimposed on a depiction of Long Island, so... borderline again, but probably not original since an outline of a geographic shape isn't original. And on and on... We're clearly not handling these logos correctly, as a whole.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that while there are general guides on the ToO and some obvious cases on either side of it, most of it is grey. And as such, it is an editor's opinion that the ToO is either passed (copyrighted) or not (uncopyrightable). I've proposed in the past a process whereby images that editors claim to be uncopyrightable due to failing the ToO to have a review by at least one "expert" in the area simply to set a better baseline for handling these. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
meh... there's no such thing as an "expert" on wikipedia (there's the whole verifiability issue, for one thing. Do I really need to mention essjay?). You and I are the experts, basically. Well, whats his name, our current general counsel, would be an expert, but I don't seriously expect him to render an opinion on specifics. Indeed, it may actually be dangerous for him to do that, since as soon as he (or someone from the WMF "officially") states a position, then the Foundation could loose it's safe harbor protection. Right now, the only people with potential exposure are the individual users, and that's the way that it should be.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess what I meant is to have a few people, !voted by the community, to be the judge of ToO uncopyrightable-ness nature for images claimed as such. As I've mentioned before, ToO really can only be determined in the court of law, we're simply trying to make sure we don't allow for exaggerated claims that a logo is uncopyrightable. We don't need the Foundation to be on this as long as those people !voted into this position understand how to interpret ToO claims and make some standard baseline decision (eg to what degree does a logo consist of simply typefaces and simply geometric shapes). --MASEM (t) 16:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Remember, another thing that we're overlooking here at the moment: we are assuming all of these US logos are post-1923 (OTTOMH), and that there's implicit copyright for the logos even though it is not stated. Any US logos which are the exact same logo pre 1923 and lacking a copyright mark do fall into the public domain. Other countries have other similar standards. I think all the cases we're talking about are post 1923 so that's not an issue presently (they are all default to presumed copyright unless the Threshold is not met), but it is something to keep in mind. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Note that I've specifically avoided mentioning the New York Yankees logo, which is a pre-1923 item. That is actually part of the problem though, in that there are multiple considerations here. We can't make a single, sweeping statement which covers everything here (which is what it appears that we've been doing... sort of).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a two step process. First is to determine the age of the logo to determine if it is in the PD, which removes any need for ToO evaluation. Assuming its not in the PD due to implicit copyright law, we then try to evaluate if the image can be copyrighted in the first place via the ToO approach. --MASEM (t) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, I agree. I was just avoiding that aspect, and concentrating on the question for those that are obviously post-'23.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

## Images on US Government Patent files

Are images on the patent applications and grants published at the US Government Patent and Trademark Office public domain? I want to use a drawing on a 1932 patent with no copyright shown, that is available for free at the USGPTO web site. Thanks, 05:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

They are public domain. Use this template: Template:PD-US-patent-no notice as {{PD-US-patent-no notice}}. And even better load them onto commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme. 13:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Be aware that some patents may have copyright disclaimers; the patenting process allows for some images to be tagged that way. But unlike normal copyright (well not in 1932, but today) where even without the disclaimer the work can be assumed copyrighted, anything not tagged with copyright noticed in US Patents is assumed public domain. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

## Topographic map

I would like to use this topographic map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Near_East_topographic_map-blank.svg#globalusage) as basis for creating the cover of a scientific publication and I am not sure I understand the copyright limitations correctly. Is it possible to use it for such purpose? If so, how exactely should I attribute it? Thanks a lot in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devele (talkcontribs) 10:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You can use it. The attribution is to "Sémhur". It would be a good idea to publish a URL to point back to where you got it, but this may not be necessary. Also you will need to record the creative commons license for the image, which you can do by copying the form appearing on the page for the image, or you can click the link to look at the creative commons web site to see other ways of doing it. Alternate to the creative commons license you can use GFDL, but this will need to have the text of the GFDL included as well (this could be in fine print on the inside of the cover or something). Take a read of http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to use an image from The Voyagers to illustrate the article. The work is in the public domain in the United States (available at the Hathi Trust Digital Library). It is Google-digitized. The source states that "The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes." Can the image be uploaded to Wikipedia? Thanks.Robina Fox (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Google informs us that the work is in the Public Domain, which must mean that the copyright was not renewed in the United States. Google might request that you not rehost the images, but they don't own the copyright to the images, so it's just a request. (U.S. law holds that faithfully reproducing a PD work does not create a new copyright on the reproduction.) If you upload the images to Wikipedia or Commons, tag them {{PD-Pre1964}}. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

## Wikipedia Article Plagiarized

(I also posted this on the article's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Olive_oil_extraction ).

This Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil_extraction ... is very nearly verbatim to: http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-basics/world/the-way-we-were/85

I can't tell who is plagiarizing who: There's no credit given on either page to the other, no Creative Commons on Olive Oil Source, etc. Either Wikipedia needs to take this page down pending an original page, or someone should be getting on OliveOil Times' ass... Mikalra (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This page is for the copyright of media (images and such). You might want to list this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

## Screenshot showing only typefaces

Is a screenshot showing only words copyrightable? Hos is this different from a text-only logo? --damiens.rf 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A logo with 1 or 2 words isn't copyrightable (assuming it's only text). But an image of a 50-word poem obviously violates the copyright on the text. That's because a 50-word poem itself passes the threshold of creativity, whereas one word in a logo doesn't. Even a text-only logo of "University of Cincinnati Department of Quality Control and Industrial Engineering" wouldn't be subject to copyright, because the words merely describe what the logo is for, in the most unambiguous and uncreative way possible.
In this case, it would depend on whether the text is copyrightable or not. On the one hand, it's only 14 words, and at least "The Howard Government Plan" is a pretty uncreative way to label it. On the other hand, selecting which points to emphasize, and distilling the content of the plan into that particular wording, could be deemed creative. It's a gray area. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

## help

help me upload pics on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selenagomez92 (talkcontribs) 21:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi I have never edited Wikipedia before and I don't want to do anything illegal. I want to upload the cover image of the novel The Zahir by Paulo Coelho. The cover image is easily found online but I don't know if it's copyrighted or not. Anybody know if I am allowed to upload the image onto Wiki? 71.141.236.149 (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly this could be used under fair use. However is there actually abook cover? As this looks to be a short story. You would have to know about copyright in Argentina whether a cover from 1949 would be public domain or rights still held by a publisher or artist. If as you say you have not edited Wikipedia you will not be able to upload yet, but you could make a request at WP:FFU or if it is public domain put it on commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Graeme, you're thinking of the short story by Borges from 1949, but I think the anon is asking about the novel by Coelho from 2005. It has a cover, and it's copyrighted, but it can probably be used in the article under our NFCC.
Incidentally, Commons says that Argentina's rules on photographs are wonderful: Photographs first published in Argentina 25 or more years ago are in the public domain! But books are tougher. You have to look at what year it was published (and therefore what version of Argentina's law was in effect at the time), and then look at when the author died. Not sure if that would apply to covers or not. But like I said, it's moot in this case. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

## Trapper Nelson with alligator

I'm reviewing Trapper Nelson's Good Article nomination, and I'm concerned about the image. Yes, File:Trapper Nelson with alligator.jpg is hosted on Commons, but I was wondering if someone could give me some advice. It's tagged {{PD-FLGov}}, but it does not appear, at first glance, to be a work of the Florida Government, and the photographer and date are not known. However, it is hosted at this site, which appears to be run by the State of Florida. The picture there is uncredited. What's the status here? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• This appears as a classic case of "it came from a Florida government web site, so it must be free" (often seen in relation to US government sites too). Just because it comes from there doesn't mean it is free, but I think that's what the uploader at Commons presumed. As you note, there's no credit, and no page I can find that indicates the copyright status of images not credited to Florida. It's a guess that it's free. Given that the image was taken of him at his camp, LONG before it became a state park, it's highly unlikely it was taken by "a government unit of the state of Florida". So, unless the image fell into the property of Florida in dissolution of his estate, or by donation to the state, or some other means, it's not free of copyright, and we can't prove it is. I would contact the web master via the link on their mainpage which goes to FSP.Feedback@dep.state.fl.us. Failing a response back in a reasonable amount of time, I'd place the file for deletion on Commons for unverifiable license. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I'd thought as much, but wanted to get more opinions. – Quadell (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

## Scans from public domain books

Hello, I have scanned several images from books published in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but I don't understand exactly which system of licensing I should use and whether these items belong here or at Commons. I've sifted through the policy pages as best I can, but haven't seen anything exactly relevant to the content that I'm trying to add. (But I might just be dim.) Any help with be greatly appreciated. Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If they were published in the U.S. they are clearly free of any copyright encumberance, and can be uploaded to Commons as "being in the public domain". Just be sure to explain fully the source (basic bibliographic information about the book, page number of where the pic was, etc.) when you fill out the description template at Commons. If they were published in another country with more restrictive copyright laws, they may still be under copyright, or they may not, you would have to know what the laws of the country in question were. --Jayron32 23:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I had a feeling it was that simple, but just wanted to be sure. Thank you, The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If you're referring to the papyri scans File:P.Oxy. XI 1364 fr. 1, cols. v-vii.jpg and File:P.Oxy. XI 1362.jpg, it's even better than that. The early-20th-century scans did not create new copyrightable creative works; they only scanned what was created in the 3rd century. So it's good to list your source, but I believe these would be public domain scans even if they were first reprinted in book form in the last few years. – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

## Editing the copyright section of a photo

Why is placing a picture on Wikipedia so ridiculously complicated? I have taken a picture with my own camera and placed it on the appropriate page. The gobbledygook that you have under your copyright sections means that my picture will probably be deleted. I have meticulously tried to follow the instructions to place a free licence onto the picture but the instructions do not match what is on the screen. I am fast losing patience with the whole site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wobblecam (talkcontribs) 09:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don’t see where you have tried to license Wikipedia to use the photo. Pick one of the free license tags from WP:ICTIC (or from the longer list at WP:ICT/FL). Unless you prefer something else, I recommend {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Insert that tag in the Licensing section of File:The London Blitz prior to their 2011 EFAF Cup match in Spain.JPG. —teb728 t c 10:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It may be incredibly complicated if you didn't take the photo yourself, but for your own photos, just upload them, say you made them yourself, and tag them {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} like TEB728 suggests. I can help if you like, just ask me on my talk page. – Quadell (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

## Image available for non-commercial use from the British Museum

I am working on an article (still a work in progress) on Burna-Buriash II, a rare example of a Kassite King with primary source material. I would like to use an image available from the British Museum of one of his letters to his Egyptian counterpart which is apparently available for non-commercial uses for education, etc., here. The terms and conditions are indicated here.

Can you advise me whether this is acceptable? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigEars42 (talkcontribs) 10:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The non-commercial restriction means the image could be used only under Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content policy. One of the restrictions is that non-free content is used only if the use would significantly increase reader understanding. I don’t see how a photo of the cuneiform tablet would do that; sorry. It's unfortunate that the subject is three-dimensional; if it were two-dimensional, a faithful representation would be PD.teb728 t c 10:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, if someone were to go the museum and take a photograph themselves, that photo could be used. – Quadell (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi I am uploading an image on behalf of some who owns the photograph here Im not sure where or what copyright to assign?

Thanks Hannahm23 (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "owns the photograph"? Did they take it themselves? Was it taken on their behalf by someone who sold them all rights to the photograph? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a scan of a newspaper. The copyright is presumably still held by the newspaper itself.Quadell (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops! That newspaper is from 1869 and is no longer copyrighted. I don't think the faithful scan is a creative work eligible for copyright, so I don't think there is any copyright on that picture at all. I've updated the image description page to reflect this. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What license would apply to a newspaper headline from Canada in 1942? Specifically, I want to upload one or both newspaper headlines discussed here (can't find either online, but I've got archive copies). If they're not free I can probably make a good claim of fair use for at least one, but I thought I would check. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A headline in itself can probably not be copyrighted as it is too simple. However if it is anonymous, copyright will have expired 50 years after publication, so the chances are that it is public domain by now, expired in 1993. PD-Canada or PD-simple or PD-text. Even US should recognise this as it is pre 1996. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear help desk, I have translated the article about Edén Pastora into Dutch, for the Dutch Wikipedia. I wanted to use the same photo on it, but it seems to be forbidden by copyright. That embarrasses me, because this photo is over 30 years old and the origin is in Nicaragua! So IF there should be a copyright limit, I'd expect it would have to be restrained to the Spanish Wikipedia and forbidden to the English one. How could it be that there is a US copyright to a picture that originates in another country? I would think the US law has nothing to say about old Nicaraguan photos.

I asked this 2 months ago to the one who uploaded the picture but unfortunately he doesn't answer. I hope someone else can help me, and even better, help me get that picture on the Dutch page. Thanks, Erik Wannee (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not sure what the copyright law is Nicaragua, but most countries honor copyright for 70 years from the death of the author (or photographer, in the case of photographs). In the Netherlands, even if a photo was taken in 1900, if the photographer died in 1950 then the photo will be under copyright until 2020. I know, these copyright terms are very long, longer than most people imagine, but it's the law.
You asked why one country cares about another country's copyright status. The U.S., Nicaragua, and the Netherlands all have copyright treaties with one another. Within certain limitations, if Nicaragua considers a photo to be under copyright, the United States and the Netherlands usually will too.
The English Wikipedia allows non-free images to be used under certain restricted scenarios, as defined at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I don't believe the Dutch Wikipedia has such a policy. So non-free images such as this one cannot be used there at all. Sorry. – Quadell (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I learned a lot. If I understood well, it's not the US law that forbids publishing that photo on the English Wikipedia, but it's the rules of the Dutch Wikipedia that are more strict than the English ones. (Meanwhile I found that that is true - there has been a poll about that in 2004.)
Then there remains one question: The file description says: "Diario La Prensa, Nicaragua Public Domain". How can something that is public domain, nevertheless have a copyright? That feels like a contradiction to me. Erik Wannee (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It isn't public domain. It says that, but it's incorrect. (Many people don't know what "public domain" means.) – Quadell (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Aha! So it is NOT public domain; The Diario La Prensa newspaper probably has a claim on the copyright. Thanks for your info, and for promptly correcting that on the page of that image. Erik Wannee (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

## Copyright permissions for our online photo archive?

Greetings, I received a take-down notice for a photo our of our historical archive File:InglewoodLibrary1950.jpg and am not sure how to proceed. This photograph is part of the Inglewood Public Library's historical collection, some of which are on our website and our Facebook page, and all openly available for anyone to use at http://www.oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt9g5029q0/ (the Online Archive of California, a University of California project which gave us the grant to digitize the originals.) I am in charge of digital resources for the library and am fully authorized to use this collection, so I will send a letter from my work e-mail to that effect. Do I have to do this for each photo or can I submit a blanket letter for the entire collection, which we eventually want to put up as needed on Wikipedia (especially on the page for the history of Inglewood,_California? Thanks. Joel J. Rane (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"2.Some materials in these collections may be protected by the U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.C.). In addition, the reproduction of some materials may be restricted by terms of gift or purchase agreements, donor restrictions, privacy and publicity rights, licensing and trademarks. Transmission or reproduction of materials protected by copyright beyond that allowed by copyright law requires the written permission of the copyright owners."

--Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If the OAC could confirm that this photo is in the public domain, that would be great. But their terms of use says some of their photos are not. And we certainly can't confirm it to be PD, since we don't know who created the photo, or when it was first published. Many websites are willing to publish photos that may or may not be under copyright, planning to remove the photo if a copyright claim surfaces; Wikipedia isn't like that. We have to be sure the photograph is not copyrighted, I'm afraid. – Quadell (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

## Not sure if I can use this photo

[5]

I want to use the fourth photo on the right under the Live Photos heading for the infobox of the band The Dissociatives. It is from their official website. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not unless the "Brendan" who took the picture is willing to grant a sufficiently broad license for its use here and elsewhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If you'd like to ask the photographer, there is help at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. – Quadell (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

## Lillian Wulff, 1907, Chicago Daily News

File:1907_Lillian_Wulff.jpg This is for Elsie Paroubek.

I got this from the Chicago History Museum which allows fair use with a credit line as follows: Chicago Daily News negatives collection, DN-0052131. Courtesy of Chicago History Museum. I put the credit line in and I got a message about its copyright and licensing status. I can never figure out which template I am supposed to use, and I just made a wild guess. If this is not right, please advise. I want to use a picture of Chief of Police John McWeeny I found at the same site. --Bluejay Young (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can be 100% sure that the image was published before 1923, then the image is not copyrighted and can be tagged {{PD-1923}}. Do we know this to be the case? – Quadell (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Says "CREATED/PUBLISHED 1907" here. If you have trouble getting to that page let me know. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. I have updated the image description page to reflect this. There should be no further problems with this image. – Quadell (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

## film

name the bells in the 1939 film hunchback of notre dame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.58.71 (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk. – Quadell (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

## Map

I am wondering if I can use this map in my article. Can you help? [6] 12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

At the bottom of the website page, it states "Copyright © 2006 - 2011 Brunei Times Sdn Bhd. All Rights Reserved.", so unfortunately, I would think not. Incase I happen to be wrong, please wait for more replies. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid MelbourneStar is right. The map is copyrighted by a news agency, and they are likely to sue Wikipedia if we use their map. The information in the map (the locations of roads and bridges) is not copyrighted, but the presentation (layout, fonts, shading, placement of words) is copyrighted. The map could be re-created with a graphics program and uploaded, so long as only the free content (facts) was copied, and not the copyrighted presentation. To request that someone else do this, you can try adding {{Reqmap}} to the talk page, with a description saying where to find this copyrighted map as a guide. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

## Barry Weiss

image:Getty Images) *** Local Caption *** Barry Weiss.jpeg

I believe the license is getty image, just want to be sure. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's Getty. We can't use it. "Photo by Neilson Barnard/Getty Images North America" Also, please use the format [[:File:imagename]], rather than [[File:imagename]], when posting here (Note the colon). All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

## Lucian grainge

image:Money-graphics-2008 872326a.jpeg

I do not know the license for this picture. It comes from an article on The telegraph website. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's credited to Hayley Madden. It's certainly a commercially-valuable non-free image, and we can't use it. Again, please use the format [[:File:imagename]] please. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

## Bob Pease corporate ID photo

National Semiconductor issued a press release upon news of Pease's death, along with a high resolution photo here. Seems to fall under fair use as a publicity photo of a deceased notable figure, with no reduction in any party's ability to profit from it. I'd like to use it in the Bob Pease article. Any problem? --Lexein (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No; go for it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I found http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=%22Bob%20Pease%22 these on Flickr; have you consider asking them for a release of one image? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. No reply yet from davidhamilton17 there, though the final resolution of a crop of Pease would be badly pixelated. And I'd rather not use any junky, jokey or inappropriate photos of the sort decried at the New York Times if you don't mind. The Flickr posting of his corporate portrait isn't really eligible. My question: is the license ok? still stands. --Lexein (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks fine to me, Lexein. – Quadell (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is fine, I just wasn't sure if you tried the Flickr route at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

## Diagrams from scientific journals

I've looked around for this answer, and couldn't find anything conclusive.

So basically, I would like to use a diagram from a scientific journal, in this instance Science. I fully intend on having the proper citation for the image, but I'm not sure if that's enough. The image isn't really "public" (i.e. you have to pay to get the journal or article, in my instance I get access through my college). However, I would like to use it if possible, because it helps to visualize the connections and the point being made in the text.

The file is here, if looking at it could help you decide. Image:CA3 pic.jpg

Thanks! S

Purple Blanket (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the image is not free, and cannot be used here. – Quadell (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the response to the Map question just above, it would seem that creating a free redrawing of the diagram facts in the diagram would free it from any copyright problems. Quadell? --Lexein (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC) (corrected per following discussion)
Maybe, maybe not. A map shows the locations of boundaries and roads and rivers, which are pure facts. This is why the facts underlying a map can't be copyrighted. A map of a fictional world is totally copyrighted, because even the underlying "data" is a creation of the author... so a recreated map of Middle Earth is not free.
This is a diagram, but I don't know enough about the subject to understand what it's showing me. If it's showing a chemical process, then that's a fact, and the image can be recreated. If it's showing a creative explanation or hypothesis, and that explanation or hypothesis itself could be subject to copyright, the diagram could not be recreated. It looks to me like it's just a simple representation of uncreative fact, but I can't say that with 100% certainty. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Copyright applies to the way something is fixed into a medium. A scientific idea, question, or hypothesis itself cannot be copyrighted, only fixed expressions (recorded, written, etc.) can be. The issue of fictional characters is somewhat more complicated, but for scientific ideas the idea/expression distinction is very sharp, and there is no copyright issue in describing a scientific hypothesis as long as the expression is original. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Re the original question: making a diagram does involve creativity, not just facts, and diagrams from journal articles are copyrighted. However, the facts that underly them are not copyrighted. So a new diagram completely independent of the original could be created and released under a free license. But make sure that you base the new diagram on the facts, not on the original diagram, so that the new diagram is not a derived work of the old one. The safest method is to make a list of the facts that you want the diagram to have, and then ask someone else to make a diagram that shows those facts without having seen the original diagram. This is the sort of thing that is done in software reverse engineering. For simpler diagrams, if you just make sure that your diagram does not resemble the original in any significant way, that should be good enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the responses. However, at this time I don't think I'll try to incorporate any images, just to be safe. If in the future sometime I decide to use images, I will follow your advice Carl and get a third party to draw something based on the facts.

Thanks, Purple Blanket (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

## billboard photo

i taken 2 photo of a billboard in azerbaijan. photo showing azerbaijan soldiers during militairy training. very nice photo, can i upload this photo and what copyright? BabəkXürrəmi (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is still likely to be copyrighted by some one else and so it cannot be used here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

## File replacement question

Have found a complete copy of File:Jacksonstvshow.jpg, indicating this is a pre-1978 non-copyrighted photo. What's best policy to change file--to re-upload with proof of its free status or to simply link to the proof? Thanks, We hope (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Linking to the proof would probably be fine... but keep in mind, in order for {{PD-Pre1978}} to apply, it would have to have been first published without a © symbol in the U.S. So if it were published in a press kit or something in 1976, with a ©, and then republished in an ad in 1977 without one, it would still be copyrighted. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Will do--the kit may have indeed been sent out in 1976 as the show premiered in January 1977. There are no copyright marks on the photo, front or back. Likely will upload a larger copy of it since it's now free. :-) Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A second look at the original upload's rationale shows there was no source link for examination of the original upload image, just "promotional kit released by CBS in 1976". There's no opportunity to examine the original source, so it really isn't known whether this had any copyright markings on it or not. Unless advised otherwise, I won't be changing the file's license. We hope (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

## iCal

I have a screenshot of a full screen iCal running on Mac OS X Lion (10.7). I want to upload it to use as the main photograph for the iCal article. Is this allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackatacka123 (talkcontribs) 09:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, so long as you provide a non-free use rationale. But doesn't that page already have a screenshot as its main image? – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

## Image available for non-commercial use from the British Museum 2

I am working on an article (still a work in progress) on Burna-Buriash II, a rare example of a Kassite King with ‘’primary’’ source material. I would like to use an image available from the British Museum of one of his letters to his Egyptian counterpart which is apparently available for non-commercial uses for education, etc., here: - http://www.britishmuseum.org/join_in/using_digital_images/using_digital_images.aspx?image=ps344733.jpg The terms and conditions are indicated here: - http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_this_site/terms_of_use.aspx

Can you advise me whether this is acceptable? I would prefer to have your opinion before attempting to obtain it and upload it. Thanks.BigEars42 (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is not. Even though Wikipedia is a non-profit resource, we only accept images when they are released under a "free" license, meaning that anyone can use them for any purpose, including commercial re-use. Someone could take a photograph of this stone and release the photo under a fully free license, such as the Creative Commons attribution license, and then we could use that photo. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
However, we have a good working relationship with the British Museum, including some Wikipedia editors who are liaisons to the Museum. It is possible that a specific request may be granted. I don't recall the name of the contact person at the moment, and cannot look into it now, but if someone else doesn't supply the answer, I will look into it on Wednesday.--SPhilbrickT 13:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
There are other replies at #Image available for non-commercial use from the British Museum, where you asked the same question. —teb728 t c 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

## Making sure I provide the right licensing advice

I found a picture on Flickr I'd like to use for an article, which has all rights reserved. I know I cannot use it as is. I've contacted the photographer, who is open to changing the license. I would like to provide the right advice.

When I look at the Flickr licensing page, Flcikr Creative Commons, I see several options. Am I correct that if I tell the photographer to use the license on the botton, the one labeled "Attribution-ShareAlike License", this will be a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the photo can be uploaded to Commons, and used? Once the licnse is set, does the photographer have to upload it, or can I?--SPhilbrickT 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if the photographer changes the license to "Attribution-ShareAlike License", then you (or anyone) can upload the image to Common and tag it cc-by-sa-3.0. – Quadell (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I was in the middle of writing an email to the photographer when you responded, so the timing is perfect.--SPhilbrickT 15:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, flickr still uses the 2.0 versions of CC licenses, not the 3.0 versions. Still acceptable for use on Wikipedia, but I just thought I'd mention it so you'd check the version. –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

## Which tag is suitable for this picture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snow_White_and_the_Huntsman.jpg

This picture consists a first look of an upcoming movie Pre-poduction. I want to add it in the info box of the movie page, but I couldn't identify which tag is suitable for this picture. The picture is taken from the official website of the movie http://www.snowwhiteandthehuntsmanmovie.com/ and also it is allover the net in many websites uncuding mdb. Help please?

Arijsrkhan (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

## Currency

I am wondering if I can use the images in [7] under a currency (non-free) license. Can you please help me by telling me if this is allowed or not? Miguel AG (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what article you want to put them in. If the article is about the currency itself, it should be fine. Tag them as {{Non-free currency}} and add a non-free use rationale. (For other articles, it might not pass our non-free content criteria.) – Quadell (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

## Message from WikiPedia re copyright for File:Jneelwiki.jpg

Hello,

Last night I built a draft page for Johnny Neel. I uploaded an image File:Jneelwiki.jpg and included what copyright info I had. The image itself also has the copyright info displayed on it.

The image comes from Johnny Neel's website (http://johnnyneel.com/gallery). I have been unable to contact the person shown in the copyright info on the image itself. I have searched for her name, company, etc. and the only link I could find is no longer an active site.

I assume I'm out of luck but wanted to ask what else I could do that might allow me to use this image?

Regards,

Joe Pollock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tojo45 (talkcontribs) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If the photographer, Rachel Naugle, is unwilling to release the photo under a free license, then we can't use the image. If you want to contact Ms. Naugle, you can try through her Etsy page (though you would have to sign up with Etsy to do so). If you're going to try this, be sure to read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info/advice. The Etsy page has had no comments since 2007/2008 and has nothing for sale so I assume it is abandoned. What do I need to do to use a personal picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tojo45 (talkcontribs) 14:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The photographer has to release it under a free license. If you created the photo yourself, you can simply upload it and tag it with a free license, such as {{cc-by-3.0}} (or whatever free license you wish). – Quadell (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

## Anders

File:Anders Behring Breivik (Facebook portrait in suit).jpg is a photo amongst others that its auhor has granted permission for use in Europe, he has not given worldwide permission for reuse. The attributation is requires promoting text from his manifesto Wp NOR--Hemshaw (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That file is hosted on Commons, not here, and there is a discussion there about whether it should be deleted or not. You're welcome to discuss it there. – Quadell (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

## File:DarknessRising1-KOburger.jpg

What would the correct tag for this image? (the photo is displayed to the far right)--WikiEditor44 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC) File:DarknessRising1-KOburger.jpg

Please clarify: What does the photo show? Where did you get it from? What right does Wikipedia have to use it? In the future please post new posts at the bottom. —teb728 t c 23:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The photo shows animation outside KO Burger in Jasper, Nevada. I found this on Tfwiki.net. Could a right mean to show an animation piece from the television series? --WikiEditor44 (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a non-free television screenshot, right? If so, tag it with {{non-free television screenshot}}. I started a non-free use rationale for you; modify it so that the purpose parameter explains why the use significantly increases reader understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding; and modify the replaceability parameter explains why no free equivalent (including free text) is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. (I suspect that no such purpose explanation is possible.) I linked to the image rather than showing it because non-free content is allowed only in articles. —teb728 t c 04:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

## Tagging an image

In response to a question re licensing images I got the following response.

The photographer has to release it under a free license. If you created the photo yourself, you can simply upload it and tag it with a free license, such as {{cc-by-3.0}} (or whatever free license you wish). – Quadell (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is tagging simply a matter of selecting the appropriate licensing option on the upload page or is there some markup that I need to include?

Thanks

Tojo45

As long as you created the image you are uploading, I believe you may choose any of the listed licenses. If someone else created it (or if it is a derivative work), however, things get trickier. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
To add to what Drilnoth said, yes, "tagging" simply means adding the correct copyright tag to the image description page. If you created the photo, you can license it any way you want. (These free licenses are all acceptable to use of Wikipedia, though most people choose one of the Creative Commons licenses.) I can help with this if you like. However, if someone else created the photo, be sure the license tag is accurate. Most photos you find on the internet are not free, and cannot be used on Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

## photo

can i link a pic to see if my boyfriend made a fake account to make me mad? http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/273548_100002621927920_1398310_n.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.116.21 (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• This noticeboard is for issues having to do with media copyright and Wikipedia. Your situation with respect to your boyfriend has nothing to do with that. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

## Is File:BASantamaria.jpg PD?

The given source url is a "404 File not found", However, the same image can be found on at least two other pages from the same website ([8] and [9]), where it's attributed to photo agency Newspix. Newspix has the image here [10] where it claims "3rd Party Managed Reproduction & Supply Rights", and attributes it to "News Ltd." (that I don't know what is) and dates it to Melbourne 1950.

Is it PD in Australia, The U.S., or the world? Thanks, --damiens.rf 15:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming it's PD anywhere. The uploader claims it's copyrighted, but free to use for non-commercial purposes. On Wikipedia, that amounts to non-free. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Surely nobody is claiming it's PD, but I thought it could be, under Australian laws, and that's why I'm asking for help here. --damiens.rf 18:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yes, interesting. According to Commons:Commons:Licensing, Australia considers a photograph PD if it was taken before 1955. However, due to the URAA, the US will only consider it PD if it was PD in Australia in 1996, which would only be true if it was taken before 1946. Because of this, the U.S. considers it copyrighted even if Australia doesn't, and the photo can't be used as non-free either here or on Commons. – Quadell (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The URAA does not apply to Australian matrial since a separate free trade agreement between US and Australia agreed to recognise each others' copyright. This happened in 2005. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Really? That's awesome! So, first off, does that mean the photo is PD in the U.S. as well? And secondly, what other countries does the 1996 URAA provision not apply to? Thanks for the info! – Quadell (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If the photo was taken or published in Australia and not elsewhere before 1955 then the US will recognise it too. SO it sounds to me as if it would be. It would have become public domain in Australia in 2001 but tied by that URAA till 2005. If you can make a case that it was not published in USA before 2005 I think it would be PD there too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this photo was deleted. I asked the admin who deleted the file about it here, and he said there is uncertainty about the copyright status. This deserves more eyes. I can confirm that a photograph created before 1955 is in the public domain in Australia. (See the Australian Copyright Council.) Are these photographs also PD in the US? Can we get a definitive ruling on this? – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On Commons:Template talk:PD-Australia, the discussion on this seems to indicate that photos created in Australia before 1955 are PD in Australia, but only photos published in Australia before 1946 are PD in the U.S. For photos taken between 1946 and 1954, the copyright has expired in Australia, but is still valid in U.S. courts until 70 years after the death of the photographer. – Quadell (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The two images that I downloaded were from the press packet released by a company I am writing an article about. I am not sure which license tag is appropriate for this type of material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmasiulewicz (talkcontribs) 16:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

How much are they paying you to do this?--Aspro (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, it depends. Is the company willing to release the images under a free license (so that anyone may reuse the images for any purpose, including modifications and commercial purposes)? If so, then great! We can use the images. But if the company is not willing to do this, then we probably cannot use the images. For instance, if you were writing an article about Acme Widgets, we would need someone to take a photo of such widgets and release that photo under a free license (so that anyone can use the photo for any purpose). What specific product and photos are you hoping to use? – Quadell (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For File:All Purpose BGC.jpg you will need a free license as described by Quadell. For File:Bgc logo.jpg I tagged it {{non-free logo}} and provided a non-free use rationale (which should be adequate if it is not deleted as unused non-free content before your article goes live). —teb728 t c 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
As it stands, File:All Purpose BGC.jpg is almost certainly a copyvio of copyrighted product packaging and should be deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

## John_Stott.jpg

Hi, can someone have a look at File:John_Stott.jpg and tell me what I need to do. I included a PD-author tag but the bot has still tagged it and 2 out of its 3 concerns are covered by the PD tag. Sorry to be stupid but this is my first upload. Sidefall (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. Are you Kieran Dodds? Did you create this photograph of Mr. Stott? – Quadell (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not Kieran. The photo was provided to me today by an organisation that Stott founded. They told me in an email that Kiernan had donated the photo to them and it is public domain with no copyright. They did ask for his name to be included as a credit. What should I do? Sidefall (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, all photos are copyrighted by default, unless there's a specific reason for it not to be copyrighted. In this case the photo is not is the public domain unless the photographer specifically placed the photo in the public domain. If the photographer is willing to do so explicitly, then we can use the photo. Alternatively, if the photographer wants to keep copyright, but is willing to allow anyone to use the photo for any reason so long as he is credited, then we can use the photo. However, since he holds the copyright, he would need to say so. Are you in contact with Kieran Dodds? – Quadell (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by your answer. Let me rephrase my previous statement. The people who supplied this photo to me said that the photographer, Kieran Dodds, has released his copyright claim to it and placed it into the public domain. The only thing he requires is an acknowledgement. They are an established and respectable christian organisation and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt their word. Surely that is sufficient? Sidefall (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You may trust them, but on Wikipedia, we need actual evidence that the copyright-holder has released his work under an acceptable license. – Quadell (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, so what sort of evidence will be suitable? Sidefall (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
See WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
That's right. To summarize WP:IOWN, one way is for the photographer to publish the photo somewhere on the web (church website, personal site, whatever) with a note that says "I am the photographer and I release this photo into the public domain." Another way is that the photographer could e-mail the Wikimedia foundation and say the same thing in an e-mail, with the url of the photograph in that e-mail. – Quadell (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

## coat of arms

I've now looked through your history, and I see you've uploaded the image before, but it was deleted for having an insufficient use rationale. The coat of arms already exists on Wikipedia at File:Louth Co Co.png, and it's used in the Louth County Council page. – Quadell (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

## Elle and Blair Fowler image

I noticed that the page for Elle and Blair Fowler has no image, so I uploaded File:elleblair.png for their page. It was marked as vandalism and I was also informed that I need to add a tag (sorry about that, I noted when I uploaded it that I wasn't sure of the copyright - I just know I've seen it on multiple websites, so I thought it might be fair game). I got the image from this magazine article: Elle & Blair: Sisters of Beauty. I'm still not sure how to figure out if it's available for use on Wikipedia. What is the best way to find images that are free to use? I checked the info page for uploading images and wasn't sure which category the image would fall under. There are a lot of pictures of Elle and Blair out there since they are web stars, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to just screencap one of their videos for use on Wikipedia, which is why I searched for images in online articles that have been widely used. If someone could help me get a picture up for their page, I'd greatly appreciate it! --Lauren Irene (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Most images that you find on the web are not "fair game", and can't be used on Wikipedia. If a photographer creates a photo, that photo is automatically copyrighted, and reproducing the photo is a copyright violation. We can only use a photo of these women if the photo is released under a free license. There are two ways that there could be a photo of them we could use. (1) A Wikipedian could take a photo of them, at an event or something, and release that photo under a free license. (2) Someone could write to the copyright-holder and ask them to release the photo under a free license, and if they say yes, then that's fine. But we can't just use an image we find on the web. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! That was very helpful. --Lauren Irene (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

## Non-Profit Organization Logo

Can I upload it? And what copyright license should I choose? Mluker94 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

One possibility is to tag it with {{non-free logo}} and use {{logo fur}} for the required non-free use rationale. (With more details we might be able to give a different answer.) —teb728 t c 21:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

## Photos of "Judge" George E. Crothers

I am putting together an article about George E. Crothers, a prominent alumnus, trustee, and benefactor of Stanford University. I'm trying to find a freely usable photograph of "Judge" Crothers to include in the article, and I've found some photos with help from Stanford's archival collections office. However, the university archivist's office has told me that they have no idea whether these photos are still copyrighted or not. Here are links to the photos in question: [11]; [12]; [13]. I've also found this photo of Crothers from another source (a paper written by a student for a class). Since Crothers was born in 1870 and died in 1957, I can make educated guesses as to when these photos were taken, but in most cases I have no way of identifying the photographer, publisher, etc. I want to do the right thing. What do the experts suggest? Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well one idea is to use a picture under fair use. Since he is dead we cannot take a new picture. Another idea is to check newspaper archives to see if you can find a matching picture. Anything published before 1923 will now be public domain. A couple of those images show dot patterns, so they were published in print somewhere. If you can find that source you will be closer to the original. A yearbook from 1948 may have more in it too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The first photo I mentioned is definitely said (in Stanford's archive collection info) to have been taken no later than 1911. The second one has no date info, but given the subject's fairly obvious age range (he was born in 1870, and he can't possibly be anywhere near 53 yet), common sense says the second photo must have been taken well before 1923. Can I do anything at all with observations such as these? Or am I hopelessly stuck because of the "publication is not creation" issue? These two photos do not appear to me to be halftoned, so I really have no grounds to suppose they were derived from newspapers (or any basis to assume that they were ever printed in newspapers), and an exhaustive search of well over a decade's worth of archives from who-knows-which newspaper sounds like it would be utterly futile. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you would be fine to tag them {{PD-1923}} with a note that it's clear the photo was created before 1923. I think that would be fine. The only conceivable way it would be copyrighted would be if the photo was not published until 1924 or later, and it was published with a ©, and the copyright was registered with the US Copyright Office (which was required at the time), and that copyright was renewed 28 years later. This basically never happened for portraits. You might search for the subject's name or other keywords in the Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database (or Rutgers' version), or the Project Gutenberg listing, or the Catalog of Copyright Entries. (The last photo was created by Blackstone Studios, Inc., which you could also search for.) This is all to see if anyone has any record of this photo being registered with the copyright office. If you don't find anything relevant, you can be sure the photo is not copyrighted. Leave as much info as possible on the image description page, and you should be fine. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I went to the Stanford copyright renewal database and did a search for "Crothers". Several things showed up, but none of them were photographs. I also did an author search for "Blackstone", but also found no listings for any photographs. If I understand what you're saying, I should be able (on this basis) to invoke {{PD-1923}} for all four of these photos. I note, BTW, that {{PD-1923}} appears to cover works published in the US between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice; or would it be better to use {{PD-US-not renewed}} {{PD-US-no notice}} for the two later photos? Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 17:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I should also probably mention that when I checked the copyright renewal database, I tried looking up the publication cited in the PDF as the source for the fourth photo — whose correct and full title appears to be A legal history of the titles, trusts and organization of the Leland Stanford Junior University, published in 1963 — but a keyword search for "history stanford" didn't reveal this book. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think that should be fine. I think {{PD-US}} would be the most appropriate tag. – Quadell (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

## File:Mispillion-Longer.jpg

I've been communicating with this file's uploader via email and would like to get some more copyright-experienced eyes on it. I'd tagged the image as having no evidence of permission (it says it was taken by Mispillion crew member Joe McGlothan). The uploader is now saying that

It was purchased aboard the ship USS Mispillion AO-105 in it’s ship store as an official navy photo by Joe McGlothlan in 1971.
Joe scanned it and said I have permission to post it. See: http://www.navy.memorieshop.com/Mispillion/index.html#Longer
I must have renamed it Mispillion-Longer.

Does this sound like it is PD-USGov? Thanks! –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The key question is who took the photo. If it was taken by a navy person as part of their duties it is {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. If it was taken by another US Government employee it's PD-USGov. If it was taken by someone else, then they own the copyright, unless it was a work for hire or they assigned the copyright to the US Gov. The fact that it was purchased in the ship's store probably indicates that it was taken "on government business" (my shorthand, for want of a better term}, but it's not conclusive. – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've asked the uploader for further details. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) I agree with Ukexpat entirely. Yes, it sounds likely that an "official navy photo" would have been created by the military. The only alternative would be if the Navy were reselling some civilian's photograph, which seems very unlikely to me. But not impossible. Tough one. – Quadell (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not in the least unusual for the US government to commission a non-Federal employee to take pictures. The government does not have huge numbers of professional photographers on staff and often contracts out (and I don't doubt that rights control is one reason, too, they don't want some punk underselling the ship's store), for example, many official portraits, such as those of Supreme Court justices, are contracted out. and are not PD.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrm, that's disappointing. – Quadell (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was quite a problem with Antonin Scalia, we just could not get them to give us an adequate license to use his two official pictures, even the old one. The Supreme Court was less than cooperative; suspect Nino doesn't like Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Is he the one who still types all his decisions on a typewriter? Or am I thinking of someone else? – Quadell (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Might be someone else. Don't give up on federal images, though, it's just that we can't assume that it is PD because it says "official".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(undent) The uploader says that he has no clue who may have taken the original image. I'm thinking this will have to go, unfortunately. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a pity. Images can be a terrible pain. I can spend as much time finding and selecting images as I do with the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

## Library of Congress US news images

I'm hoping to figure out a way of using this image. While the Library of Congress warns that some of these images may not be PD if they were taken in the photographers' private capacity, see here, I have some doubt that a photographer could have argued convincingly he was not working for the magazine while setting up right in front of Nixon and Khrushchev. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

LoC says "No known restrictions on work taken by staff photographers. Other material may be restricted by copyright." Thomas O'Halloran, the photographer, was clearly the staff photographer. I'm certain the LoC's statement applies to this photo. On the other hand, I don't know why this photo wouldn't still be under copyright, and I'm not sure LoC's statement actually has to do with copyright. I'm not convinced that any of the photos in that series are PD. Am I missing something? – Quadell (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Donation, it seems.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is the U.S. News & World Report Magazine Collection Rights and Restrictions Information which indicates that all no staff photos are restricted but non-"work for hire" may be restricted. However, LoC cannot say which is which though they specifically mention staff photographers, Warren K. Leffler, Thomas J. O'Halloran, Marion S. Trikosko, John Bledsoe, and Chick Harrity, so this image looks good. ww2censor (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I saw that, yes, it was linked. With the Nixon artilcle headed towards FAC in a couple of days, it would be good to have.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess it's OK at Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
That's great news! – Quadell (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've already inserted two into the Nixon article. Another great resource everyone can take advantage of!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

## Two images generated from statistics, need help

Hi,

I recently uploaded two images, on my Userpage. File:OntarioWaitlistByOrgan.jpg File:OntarioTransplantByOrgan.jpg

I do not quite understand the rules with image uploads, when the user originally generates the image from statistical data. I did provide the data source, but I did not retrieve any images from any sources.

Would anyone be able to help me? File:OntarioWaitlistByOrgan.jpg and File:OntarioTransplantByOrgan.jpg

Should I just contact the data source and ask permission. If so, what would I do? Do I submit anything to Wikipedia to receive something to add in the description?

See message on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ivanalu

Can anyone help me?

Ivanalu (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you created the presentation by yourself based on data from a published source. If that is the case you do not need permission to use the data; rather you need to grant Wikipedia permission to use your presentation by adding a free license tag such as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} on the image description pages. —teb728 t c 19:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you TEB728 tc, I'll do that.
Thank again. Ivanalu (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

## Promotional Image - need help

Hi there. I am a new user and I really need some help. I have created an article in my own user page before I want to send it out into the world of Wikipedia. Now I tried to include a promotional image of the organization under a non-free media use copyright (the image was extracted from a promotional media kit), however the image was deleted by Dashbot, and this was the reasoning given:

""This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles. Unless some reason to retain it is given, the image will be deleted after Saturday, 6 August 2011. Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles.""

Like I said, I'm new and not sure of where I am going wrong on this. I tried to give an eloquent rationale for its use, but I am not sure where I am going wrong here. Is it possible that since the image is has been uploaded to my user page that it doesn't qualify as an "article" and this is where I am going wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated! Matt.Govereau (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have the basic idea. Non-free images are only permitted to be used in mainspace articles, not in your userspace. Finish the article, move it to mianspace and then upload and add the non-free image but make sure the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria policy guidelines and all should be well. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If you have any connection with the organization that the article's about, you might also benefit from making yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to avoid problems further done the line. --Aspro (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

## What is this insect fly?

I have captured a fly/insect on my phone cam and it looks very unique so i would like to know some details about this fly. I dont know how to upload that image here in this question..

Regards, Hasan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassuwiki (talkcontribs) 07:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The place to ask the question is WP:RD/S, To upload go to commons:upload try to logon and upload your picture. Choose a free kind of license since you took the picture yourself. You have not been here long enough to upload an image to Wikipedia itself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If you are in North America, another place you can try is http://bugguide.net. They are pretty good at insect identification there. 16:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

## Is this image copyrighted? Sacramento_California_1849.jpg

Is this image copyrighted? Sacramento_California_1849.jpg May I use in in a book I am writing?

Thanks, -Bill Corp

I would like to use it in a book I am writing.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.70.56.50 (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such image hosted here, so we cannot help you. General reuse information is available at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Its hosted on our sister project Wikimedia Commons and according to that it is so old that it is in the public domain. So yes, it looks OK to me. --Aspro (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
For reference, it is at File:Sacramento california 1849.jpg. —teb728 t c 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)