Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/November

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



Just a quick question regarding a Good Article Nomination (The Shirelles) I am reviewing. It contains a few images of albums. The files are tagged with {{PD-US-no notice}}. I am assuming that license applies to the actual album. Does the picture itself also need a license; the sources of the image indicated on the desciption page include the rolling stone website and ebay. Also it is hard to confirm that they did not have a copyright from these sources. GA criteria is less strict than FA, but it would be good to know whether these images are valid or could be valid with more information. For reference the files are File:The Shirelles - I Met Him on A Sunday 1966.jpg, File:The Shirelles - Tonight's the Night.png, File:The Shirelles - Will You Love Me Tomorrow.jpg and File:The Shirelles - Last Minute Miracle.jpg. Thanks in advance. AIRcorn (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

These are indeed somewhat dubious. If these phonographic labels are indeed public domain, then as photos of original two-dimensional work of art, these photos too would also be public domain in the US (i.e. no license from the photographer required). However, I'm not sure that the uploader has correctly determined that the original phonographic labels are in the public domain. The uploader of these images to Commons has not included a rationale for why he or she believes that there was no copyright notice associated with these phonographic labels. I took a quick look at these images, and it's true that there isn't a visible copyright notice on these labels, but that isn't sufficient. We also need to know that there wasn't notice on the record's jacket, liner, and notes (as well as the rear of the record). It would be best if the uploader had linked to a reputable third party who said these records lacked a copyright notice. Absent that, if the uploader owned these records and personally photographed them, I'd be inclined to accept an assertion from them that they had examined the aforementioned and determined that they lacked notice. Since the uploader indicates various web sites as the source of these images, I don't think the uploader is in a position to verify that these phonographic labels truly lacked a copyright notice. However, it's possible that two of these images (namely File:The Shirelles - Tonight's the Night.png and File:The Shirelles - Will You Love Me Tomorrow.jpg) could be public domain even if they were originally published with notice. As works first published in the U.S. before 1963, they would have needed to have their copyright renewed (someone would have to do a search of Copyright Office's copyright records to determine this). I've listed all four images for review at Commons, they may be deleted. —RP88 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I've replied there. Long story short, my interpretation is that the copyright would have to be on the individual item for it to be copyrighted; if that is not so, there is a whole category on Commons that needs to be looked through. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I've replied to your thoughtful comments over on Commons. Since all of these images are on Commons, I propose we move the discussion there. —RP88 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that answers my first question. The deletion discussion will answer the second. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Flickr always good?

I realize this has been asked and answered before, but I'd like it to be "on paper" just in case.

In the past, I've asked LLNL for permission to use some of their images under a permissive license, but no luck. But now I've found an image I'd like to use here:

Are images posted to Flickr "always ok" to use? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it depends on the licence, but sometimes the uploader will change that so we can use it if asked nicely . It's easy for them to do, but I forget the exact change they need to make - anyone?. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The particular image you cite is marked "© All Rights Reserved"; so unless they relicense it, it is not OK to use. —teb728 t c 21:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
The uploader would have to change the license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to make it a free-enough image to be used at commons. (See [1]. ) --MASEM (t) 00:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
But I was under the impression that simply uploading it to the site meant that the poster *had* to release at least some rights. Is this not the case? If so, is the "all rights reserved" not applicable, by default? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe so; but they don't release anywhere nearly enough rights for us to use the image, unless they change the license to CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Also be aware that Flickr makes no attempt to assure that the user actually owns the rights to the image (short of a checkbox the user clicks or the like). I've seen things like tv show and video game screenshots put up under a random user's page with their claims of being their copyright or even CC-BY/-SA. So there's also some common sense as well, not just the license markings. --MASEM (t) 15:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Co-Creator & Copyright for Publication

A while back I individually developed an idea for an illustrated book and then went on to make plans for a sample (slimmed down version) in order to send to publishing agents.

Subsequently I commissioned an illustrator to create a number of images and wish to know where copyright lies eg what is the split, 50/50, 75/25 etc. [I have yet to send out the sample to the agencies since I wish to clarify this issue].

Whereas the initial idea was solely mine the illustrator is claiming co-creator rights.

There is no doubt that the illustrator created the sample illustrations There is no doubt that the illustrations are at the core of the publication. We had a number of discussions about the look/feel of the illustrations.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated even if only to refer me to a separate website.

thanks & Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLC18M (talkcontribs) 14:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is of relevance for the below I'm based in the UK though ofcourse any info pertinent to EU/US/RoW would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLC18M (talkcontribs) 14:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you're gonna have to consult an attorney, as this is getting into legal matters and questions of work for hire, etc. We don't give any kind of legal advice here. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with Orange Mike - see a solicitor, assuming you have a contract with the illustrator - hopefully he will find the answer in the small print. There is no automatic split in the UK - the creator owns the copyright, unless transferred to someone else (in your contract).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

how too

how do you upload photos on wikipedia

but for wiki page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

In order to upload images you must be an autoconfirmed editor which means you are a registered user for more than four days and have made more than 10 edits from that account. ww2censor (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

My Photo

I want to upload my photo for my account page in wikipedia. what is my license for uploading this photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A habibi l (talkcontribs) 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Who took the photo? Which license does the photographer grant? —teb728 t c 19:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Profile picture.jpg

File:Profile picture.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varmarethish (talkcontribs) 14:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What is your media copyright question? —teb728 t c 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

PD - To commons or EN Wiki

Hi all, I've seen several unique images that would be good to illustrate necrophilia, such as this one (NSFW). The photos are by Franz Fiedler and date to 1921 (according to this [also NSFW]). As Fiedler died in 1956, would the images be PD in Germany, or do they have to be uploaded to Wikipedia? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The commons PD-Germany can be seen here - it says photos over 50 years old are PD. I suggest upload to commons, then they can be used here and other WPs.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks. I'll get started later today. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:3 Minutes World Silence Logo.jpg

I have revised the wording this logo. It now should read

Logo of 3 Minutes World Silence. Cards and bookmarks of this logo are distributed worldwide every year. See .

Would you please tell me if I need to do any more to correct this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweaver2 (talkcontribs) 01:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say it is CC-BY-SA? —teb728 t c 11:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

New Deal cartoon -- public domain?

Hi, how would I upload this [2] to commons under public domain? Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Upload it at Commons:Special:Upload. Fill out the information in the form there, and in particular put {{PD-US-not renewed}} in the Permission field. Hopefully you can provide an author and a source (neither is given at Conservapedia); you need at least to demonstrate that it was first published in the US. —teb728 t c 08:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been able to track down this political cartoon. It was published on January 16, 1937 in the Chicago Tribune. The cartoonist was Joseph L. Parrish (1905 – 1989). A larger version of this cartoon is available here which is linked from a page at the FDR Cartoon Archive (cartoons courtesy of the The O'Conner collection at the Roosevelt Presidential Library). Since it was published in 1937, it's copyright renewal, if it occurred, would have been in 1964, 1965, or 1966. Fortunately, the University of Pennsylvania's Online Books Page project has assembled an online inventory of the first copyright renewals for more than 1000 periodicals, including the Chicago Tribune. For the Chicago Tribune, the first renewals were in 1974 for issues from July, 1946. Since this cartoon was published in 1937, teb728 is correct, it's copyright was not renewed and it can be tagged with {{PD-US-not renewed}}. —RP88 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Great work with the research. Thank you!!! – Lionel (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Our ORA image

Dear Wikipedia,

I am currently trying to put together a Wikipedia page for our organisation. I would like to put our logo at the top of the page but I'm not sure how to upload it in relation to your copyright qualifications.

Please could I have some help?

Best wishes,

Patrick Reihill Registrations Officer Oxford Royale Academy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxfordroyaleacademy (talkcontribs) 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

After you have an article in main space (rather than an AFC draft), you can upload the logo, tagging it with {{non-free logo}} and using {{non-free use rationale logo}} for the non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 20:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please help me find correct copyright tag

Hi there, I want to upload an image of a street sign - I'm guessing nobody really "owns" the image as a street sign is in a public place. Could somebody help me to upload it to wiki commons without it being deleted? The sign can be found at this link.... Many Thanks x

Richie wright1980 (talk) 12:20, 05 November 2011 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

BBF license

[3] Not sure of the license used. Zsexdrcft (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking for help on this image file. Probably the most basic answer is, "It doesn't matter." Why? The vast majority of images and multimedia files found on the Internet—including this one—are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for the relevant policy regarding possible inclusion, especially point #1:

As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.

Senator2029 | talk 10:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What tag

What tag should be used as a copyright to an image downloaded from a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only Sindhu (talkcontribs) 17:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no general answer to that. In the first place, most files you find on the web are not useable. For the small minority of files that are useable it is the tag that indicates why the file is useable:
  • For a file that is in the public domain – the tag that indicates why it is in the public domain.
  • For a file under a free license – the tag that indicates which specific free license.
  • For a file that satisfies all the restriction of WP:NFCC – the tag that indicates what kind of file it is (such as logo).
Which file are you asking about? —teb728 t c 20:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I see you uploaded File:Samantha Ruth Prabhu.jpeg. That is almost certainly not a file that can be used. And if you use an unjustified tag like {{CC-BY-3.0}}, you will get a bad reputation. —teb728 t c 20:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair use of a Time-Life-Getty image?

I'm interested in using this photo to illustrate Paddy Martinez. This is a historic photo of a deceased New Mexico prospector, who made the first uranium discovery in the Grants Uranium District in 1950, which led to a mining boom that lasted almost 30 years.

Martinez is a folk hero around Grants (I've worked in the area), and I will argue that this is an "iconic or historical image that is the subject of sourced commentary" -- as the caption notes, the photo shows "Paddy Martinez, man who discovered uranium, at site of his discovery." But I thought I'd ask first, as Time-Life's Terms of Use are pretty thorny, and I don't want to go through the effort of adding the photo if other editors think this would be ill-advised. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

In order to use an image from a commercial source like Getty, the image itself would have to be the subject of sourced commentary in the article. In other words the image itself would have to be notable. An example of such an image is the lead image of Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. As I get it, it is Martinez that is notable—not any image of him. But if he is a folk hero around Grants, maybe one of the locals took a photo of him that he/she is willing to license under a free license. —teb728 t c 22:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll just link to the photo, using Template:External media. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The photographer told me I could use his photo? What do I do next?

Hello, I love Wikipedia, but I need help uploading and info. I'm Uploading a file from someone else from Flickr. I had asked the photographers permission for me to use his photos. His Flickr name is jeje62 ~ Jérôme POUILLE a reply to my message to him. jeje told me that I could use his photo for Bruno Mars Wikipedia page as a image. Jérôme POUILLE told me ~ ´So Use it if you want, you could take this picture on my personnal website : and make a direct link to this page.

This is his message re+ply to me. I had uploaded to my computer. Is it still okay to use the image, after the photographer to this image said that I could view his site and use the photo on Wikipedia? This is the image that he said that I could use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovingCaringReading (talkcontribs) 14:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. Acceptable permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. The photographer rejected that; so you can't use the photo on Wikipedia. Sorry. —teb728 t c 19:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me in a better way please on what to put down in the information sections please?

A another photographer had reply back to me saying that I could use his Image for me to upload on here on the Wikipedia as a image. What do I do next ?

Can you help me with this information please, What to put in this info? Can you give me an example please for each 7 of those sections meaning, information, description, Source, Date, author, permissions, other_versions? what to put in each section? Can you explain in a better way please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovingCaringReading (talkcontribs) 15:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Information/doc for documentation of Template:Information. Bear in mind, however, that Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 20:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

boxart question

I want to upload boxart to wikipedia and I want to make sure that i can use the Wikimedia commons uploader. It is boxart for a videogame and I think it falls under point #1 at It is currently hosted at Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badsideof25 (talkcontribs) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You can’t use the Wikimedia Commons uploader for non-free content like that boxart, but you can upload to English Wikipedia after your account is WP:autoconfirmed (4 days old and 10 edits). You can use {{game rationale}} for a combined tag and non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 01:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
If you are not WP:autoconfirmed you may submit the image through the OTRS photo submission queue( or ask for confirmed rights at Wikipedia:RFR MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Old ship blueprints (National Maritime Museum)

Anmyone know how we can get permission to use this:

The ship itself dates from the mid 1700s. Pesky (talkstalk!) 11:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pesky, you're in luck with that one. The image comes from the National Maritime Museum and should, under the government open data policy, be in the public domain. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Are other countries' governments' images free-use?

It would be sooooo cool to be able to use this in my article-in-the-improving; it's a photograph of the original message thrown from the ship Meermin, in a bottle ... message is held at the Cape Archives Repository. Pleeeeeease?! Can someone answer soon?! Pesky (talkstalk!) 20:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No. As a general rule, only US photos are public domain. South Africa is probably Crown Copyright, which gives them 50 years of protection.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Bummer, bummer, bummer! Who would be able to know how to get their permission for it? Pesky (talkstalk!) 21:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Funny how people never read that page on the website..... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

How do I find out who holds the copyright for a specific image?

I uploaded the image Robert W. Cort, but it was deleted because I apparently didn't give the right licensing/copyright info. How can I find the copyright information for a photo?

In this situation, I found the image here: I know that the image was used for the author photo in Robert Cort's 2003 novel "ACTION!" I know that the photographer credited for this photo is Lance Stadler. I know Robert Cort very well personally, have seen him many times, have worked for him, and so I know that the Robert Cort in this photo is the same Robert Cort (aka Robert W. Cort) that matches the info on the Wikipedia page for Robert W. Cort. I know that Robert Cort is the copyright holder of the book "ACTION!: a novel." Does that mean he's the copyright holder of this image? If so, how can I prove that he's given me permission to use it on Wikipedia?

Here's the book's copyright info:,1&SAB1=Robert%20Cort&BOOL1=all%20of%20these&FLD1=Keyword%20Anywhere%20%28GKEY%29%20%28GKEY%29&GRP1=AND%20with%20next%20set&SAB2=ACTION%21&BOOL2=as%20a%20phrase&FLD2=Keyword%20Anywhere%20%28GKEY%29%20%28GKEY%29&CNT=100&PID=b5yMq6hd5l4cQ0PtmXvAzbEPk8ZE&SEQ=20111101222518&SID=1

Thanks! Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mralexberger (talkcontribs) 23:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming Cort is still alive, then we do not allow copyrighted images of living persons to be used on Wikipedia, because such images can always be replaced by one that you or another person can take of the person and upload under a Creative Commons license (ideally to Wikimedia Commons). It is sometimes possible to get previously published photos under a CC license if you get the copyright owner to grant that permission, but I doubt that would be possible in this case particularly if you don't know the person. Instead, if you do know him, you can see if he's willing to take a picture or have you or a colleague take a picture for WP. See WP:COPYREQ for some help here. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Since Alex does know Cort, the above answer seems too strict. A copyright release seems possible from Cort if he rather than the publisher or the photographer has copyright. The copyright link lists Cort as the copyright owner of the book (in 1978), so the publisher is probably out of it. If the photograph was a work for hire (i.e. Cort or the publisher paid for the photo and didn't give the copyright to the photographer by contract), then Cort could freely license the photo. How to prove that? Well if the photo in the book was marked as copyrighted by the photographer, or perhaps even "photo permission given from ...." then that might DISprove it. All in all it might be easier just to take a new photo and upload it directly with a free license. Smallbones (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to privacy reason this image must be removed. Can someone help me remove it?

I need this removed, please.

Leinsatiableone (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

That file is not in the English Wikipedia. You uploaded it to the Commons, and must request its removal there. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The file was deleted on Commons. —teb728 t c 20:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Posting an image

I am trying to upload an image of my boss, Dr. Paul Root Wolpe, for his page. The image I uploaded with removed because I did not specify the copyright/license status. How do I do this? The image is taken from his biography on our department's web page and Dr. Wolpe requested that I add it.

LR0960 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)LR0960

The owner of the copyright of the image must communicate appropriate permission via the process set out at WP:IOWN. Note that permission just for use on Wikipedia is not sufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Feb2704ffw ez11brt.jpg

Title image sort of has an embedded permission - is this acceptable?  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The permission looks ambiguous to me because it says "licensed to Wikipedia through GNU Free Documentation License" - does that mean for use on Wikipedia only? If so, it's not compatible. In any event, so that there is no doubt the copyright owner should IMO use the OTRS process (WP:IOWN). Also, the image should have a more helpful title. – ukexpat (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
IT looks OK to me as the license is repeated, and they even mention subsequent users. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I went back through the user's talk history (not easy - he kept moving and blanking the talk pages), but I found that there is a bigger almost identical version of the same pic on commons at File:50 Foot Wave performing.jpg (much better name) - so it can go as an orphaned file at Ffd, once I've orphaned it!  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos with dubious source

There is a large set of photos by one user (now long gone) - - all have (Headland Archaeology ltd) as a description. Should I tag them all as {{di-no permission}} or do we assume User:Dingwalk is Headland Archaeology ltd?

I don't see any grounds for such an assumption, so I think tagging all with {{di-no permission}} is appropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You can also attempt Special:EmailUser/Dingwalk. Which may work better than automatically triggered talk page update emails. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You could also contact Headland Archaeology at one of the offices linked from their website enquiring about the status of the images as they appear to all be low resolution images that were likely copied from their website. ww2censor (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll try an e-mail to the offices and see what they say - perhaps I can point them to an OTRS.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Illustration of Piglet by E.H. Shepard

I wish we could replace the Disney picture used as the 'Infobox' picture for the article Piglet (Winnie-the-Pooh) with an E.H. Shepard illustration, since this is how Piglet was originally depicted. I've no objection to the Disney picture as such, but think it would be more appropriate in the subsection Disney cartoon version. For a Shepard illustration there's some attractive jpegs at - would perhaps the file identified as 'Piglet gets ready for the party' be ok as "Fair use"? Alfietucker (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It would have to be fair use as E.H. Shepard only died in 1976, so his illustrations will only become PD in 2046 (UK = Life + 70 years). I would say a fair-use by E.H.Shepard is as much valid as the File:Pigletdisney.jpg which appears on the page - others may have other views.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
For en.Wikipedia's purposes, they'll become public domain 95 years from publication, as per US law. Commons has the rule that it must be PD in the home nation and US, but not en.WP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry images

 Done --Senra (Talk) 09:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish to use the image "Ely Cathedral, Cambridgeshire" drawn by J.M.W.Turner, engraved by T.Higham and published in Picturesque Views in England and Wales ... on Wikipedia (via Wikimedia commons). I have checked the web site copyright notice and suspect it does not contain a suitable release. Nevertheless, the image is surely {{PD-old}}? Actually, to be frank, I would rather have an image of the original Turner but this engraving is all I can find. Would I be right in assuming I can simply upload the image to commons under {{PD-old}} with an attribution to the web site from whence it came? --Senra (Talk) 17:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about this painting found here? Unfortunately it is only 400 x 300 pixels. Either way {{PD-old}} applies. Upload to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming these are {{PD-old}} and finding the Turner painting --Senra (Talk) 09:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of NI Assembly members from NI Assembly website

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could confirm whether I would be able to use pictures of MLA's from the NI Assembly website (here: in their corresponding Wikipedia articles? I was originally looking to just add a few pictures for the NI Ministers/Party leaders.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No; the UK probably has Crown copyright in them; if not, the photographers have rights for life+70.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
What about when considering this: (section 2 which refers to photographs)?--Jonesy1289 (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The restrictions are non-commercial use and no modification, so they are not acceptable for Wikipedia to use, besides which I believe crown copyright does persist in the NI Assembly which is 50 years. We can't use them. ww2censor (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the confirmation. It's a shame that it is so hard to find pictures that can be used.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

copy rights of a copy

If a 40 years book contains images of about 100 years paintings and photos can I copy only the images from the book under the same license as the original work i.e. copyright expired 70 years after the author death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes they can be used, make sure that you don't copy anything else, and that the image has not been modified by the book publisher. Graeme Bartlett (talk)

Sea level pressure map from 1995

There's a sea level pressure map from 1995 published by the European Geosciences Union, and the study itself was conducted by Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. What is the copyright status of the bottom-right image on the second page (218)? Thanks! HurricaneFan25 16:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

At the top of the document it states "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License." However there is no indication which CC licence is referred to, so the copyright status is unclear. We assume all images are copyright unless you can verify they are freely licenced in this case with an acceptable CC licence. Even so those images may not even be sourced to the author, he may have got them elsewhere. Get in touch with the author to get more information. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This link shows the license as CC-BY for post 2007 and for pre 2007 shows the license as CC-BY-NC-SA - So not OK for use here as it's 2005  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Image Copyright

File:Chintamani Kar Bird Sanactuary, Kolkata.JPG

Hi Wikipedia Administrator

The above image was taken by me using my own camera. The location is at the inside of Chintamani Kar Bird Sanactuary. I took this photograph on 9 April 2011. I have not used photographs of anyone else, neither I have downloaded the same from Internet.

Please suggest me that which copyright status to be used for my own created image. Please guide me on the same as I have received the messages from Wikipedia that due to lack of few mandatory information the image will be deleted one week after 8 November 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankhosusmi (talkcontribs) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you took it with your own camera, you have a copyright on it; so neither Wikipedia nor anyone else can use it without your permission. In order to host it here, Wikipedia requires that you license its use under a free license such as {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}. You also need to provide information about the photo: Description (what it shows); Source (your camera); Date (when you took it); and Author (you). —teb728 t c 12:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I added the information template to the image and you need to fill in all the details. Because the photo is your own you can use the licence {{PD-self}} instead of the own shown above by teb728. ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I have filled up the details as mentioned by Ww2censor. Hope this will work and image file will not be removed anymore. --Sankhosusmi (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm an online ambassador helping a class that's working on Wikipedia. One of the students uploaded File:Elephant1.jpg with no source information; it's been tagged as a result. I had a look around and found this, which says "All the images are believed to be in the public domain; if you think we have clipart here that is not, please let us know". Is that good enough? I would have thought not, but I figured it didn't hurt to check here with the experts. Thanks for any information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, "are believed to be" is not a very authoritative statement, so I wouldn't take it at face value. For example, they display the GOP logo, which is likely not public domain (at least according to File:Republicanlogo.svg). In any case the source of the work is definitely not, and we shouldn't assume something is in the public domain without certainty. Maybe the reference desk can help trace the work's original source? Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Threshold of originality

Resolved: CharlieEchoTango (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Is File:Conservative Party of Canada.svg (currently fair use) simple enough to qualify as {{PD-textlogo}}? Fairly straightforward geometric shapes, but not sure if it exceeds the threshold of originality. Thanks in advance - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I would give it as original. There are enough shapes here to not be just simple geometric shapes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok then. Thanks. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright of graffiti?

Does Wikipedia have a policy on photo's of graffiti and street art? Is there a copyright issue? As street art is generally (a) in the public domain and (b) often illegal vandalism, surely photographers are not required to obtain permission from the graffiti artist before using their photos on WP? Sionk (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes you say street art is generally in the public domain?. As for point b), that the artwork was made illegally doesn't necessarily voids the artist's intellectual rights, at least in theory. However in many countries there is what's called a 'freedom of panorama' provision, letting you create derivatives (e.g. pictures) of artworks, structures, etc, so depending on which country the graffiti is in, it may or may not be acceptable to upload it on Commons/Wikipedia. See Commons:Commons:Freedom of Panorama. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Commons has a general policy of accepting graffiti; see Commons:Commons:Image_casebook#Graffiti.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
In the public is not the same thing as public domain. I happen to think that Commons' policy on graffiti is godawful, but I don't participate at Commons. I recommend you upload it there, because if you uploaded it here, there would be no local policy to back you up, and in the absence of the questionable, and I dare say unethical, leap of logic that Commons took, the image might get put up for deletion here. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Copying lists/tables with citation is a copyright vio?

The article that inspires this post is Mexican tea culture. I had a long list there of plants used in traditional medicinal teas, and the medicinal effects. I added a line from the article to a DYK nomination, and an admin removed the list as a copyright vio. I had a similar list in Dominica tea culture which I subsequently deleted.

Since properly attributed blockquotes are acceptable, what about lists and tables? Or charts? If taking a table or list from one source is a copyright violation, I'll be chopping tables from a few other articles to avoid copyright vios.

Some clarification on how to properly work with lists and tables without violating copyright would be helpful.


OttawaAC (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll let someone else respond with more details, what I can say is this: facts themselves are not copyrighted, but the specific way to present them may be (e.g qualify as original authorship). The list that was in the article is also too long to be safely used as a quote. The best way to go about this is to write the list in your own words, by perhaps changing the order of appearance and paraphrasing the text that follows individual items, e.g.
Cola de caballo: (horsetail, Equisetum spp.): Used to treat gonorrhea and dysentery, the teas of the stems are diuretic when brewed
Might need more work than that, and it's hard to paraphrase such basic sentences, but you get the idea. As a whole the list must be different from the way it's presented in the original source. Best, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is going to take some research on my part into copyright niceties, I can tell... I think it's going to be more complicated than juggling around the list entries. I can see what you mean, the more work the original author put into creating the list in the first place, and the more original research they had to do, the more of a claim they would be justified in making re: copyright. For example: a list of the world's timezones probably wouldn't have much of a claim to copyright, since it's generally available info anyway. On the other hand, a list of the world's timezones and the corresponding population living within each timezone, that would require more research and number crunching to compile, and the original author would have more claim to originality and thus copyright. (And would simply shifting around the list entries dissuade a copyright holder from complaining if they saw their work pop up on Wikipedia that way?)

What I'd like to find is a source that has guidelines on specifics, like what length list is too long for a straightforward copy/paste. In university we were told, more than a short paraphrased paragraph of 3 or 4 sentences, and a source citation must follow it, or a blockquote, but that was for prose paraphrasing/quoting. Lists, tables, charts, I have no idea what would be considered a reasonable guideline. I would seek out a current copy of the Chicago Manual of Style or a similar academic tool, but what's acceptable in an academic paper is not necessarily what's acceptable under copyright law -- if you can see what I mean. OttawaAC (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Los Angeles Times Website.png

Seems like this is a copyvio. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And now reported as such. Probably could be uploaded locally under a fair use rationale though. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

File copyright when they are in then public domainI( as a movie poster, true of false) I don't want to be an international lawyer, but it seem it is a safe prequisite.

I have found conflicting information. I am trying to resolve. Pinyin is definitely wrong in some places. Production and distribution is conflicting. I am attempting to get the the real legal stuff. Am I going too far? I am attempting to contact some of the cast, because the Pinyin does not appear correct. I want to know the way they want their names to appear. I am limited in Mandarin and Taiwanese, but asking for help. My intention is to make this an accurate "Wikipedia". I have thrown stuff up just for my reference. Not for publication. I feel like I am being slapped while trying to get my legs. I have no intention of putting something on line until it is as perfect as I can make it. :-)

I want to make something that can stand on it's own, and not be trashed to death after posting.00:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcshank (talkcontribs)

I don't understand your comment, but I'm guessing based on your contributions. You uploaded File:Normal 4a6c38c4713df.jpg, which appears to be a (presumably copyrighted) movie poster for use in WP:Userspace. We only allow copyrighted images if they follow the rules at WP:NFCC and are used in an article. These are not allowed in userspace, even in draft articles, under the current policy. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If you do complete the draft article found at User:Dcshank/Somewhere I Have Never Traveled and move it into mainspace, then the poster image will likely comply with the non-free content policy guidelines and you could request the image be restored at that time so long as a fully completed non-free rationale is added to the image. Until then the image will have to be deleted, so work fast. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright infringment

The above Pakistani related images are all copyright infringment with false or fictitious licenses provided. For example, you can see "google" in the middle of this one, meaning it was copied from google. The same uploader was in 1965 war with India and shot this photo? This one is a standard Pakistani passport photo, and the description states :Copyright © 2002 Senate of Pakistan" but no permission is given. The description on this one states "Hand drawn by Syed Amjad Hussain. Widely available online" and again no permission is given. I find it very hard to believe that Wikipedia editor Raza0007 (talk · contribs) went to take photos of Pakistan's nuclear missiles at close up, and at different times and different places. A Pakistani editor is blindly reverting my nominations so I came here to see if someone can help delete these images because they are in fact proven to be stolen. Thanks.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations and noticed a number of Pakistani editors involved in copyright violations (i.e. Ironboy11 (talk · contribs)).--NorthernPashtun (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I find your whole argument flawed. You never read the licensing details correctly. If you did, you would have known that Raza0007 did not take those pictures, but the ISPR did and that they are free use. Raza0007 is the uploader. Mar4d (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The ISPR (Inter Services Public Relations) is a fictitious phoney license ({attribution|Inter Services Public Relations|ISPR}) made up by Raza0007 in February 2009. [4] According to the official website of ISPR, "Inter Services Pubilc Relations, Pakistan Hilal Road, Rawalpindi. Copyright © 2007-2011" That my friend means that all images on that site are copyrighted and protected.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Each image needs its own source and license information on the file description page. Also, Mar4d, please stop removing license concern tags from images like File:Awk.jpg. It is clearly not public domain by the author if it is also copyrighted by the Senate of Pakistan. One or the other, but not both. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Most of these image don't even have a source whereby the claimed licence can be verified and Pakistan copyright lasts for 50 years pma, so unless there is specific proof these images have be freely licenced they need to be deleted. Statements like: "This is a free image. It was taken by the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of the Pakistan Armed forces. The image was released to public as proof/promotion of the missile test. The copyright most likely is held by ISPR but it is accepted that the image can be used for any purpose as long as the copyright holder is properly attributed." are completely unverified and the ISPR addition to {{attribution}} are unproven. ww2censor (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Some fellows come up with very neat ideas on how to keep stolen images in Wikipedia. I don't like saying this here but in Asia and the Pakistan region in particular, people often ignore copyrights rules. They are just used to this and the government does not enforce it. So when they come to Wikipedia they feel the same way. About all of this guy's images are deletable [5], he found a way to keep images of people with fair use, they are also Pakistani related.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, I do agree with your first two statements - I too have seen such obvious behaviour - as you infer, it's a culture attitude, and one that is hard to change. But keep at it, we need to make sure that images here are as correct as possible. I would add that if you find an image where others are reverting and you disagree, then you might find it easier to go for a {{puf}} - that action is not reversible by just removing the tag. It looks like you are tagging manually - both F11 and puf are much easier added if you add Twinkle in your Gadgets section of my preferences (Twinkle will give you extra menu items - "di" for all the F11 options, and "xfd" for puf and ffd - it can also make you log of all your CSD tags if desired)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Postage Stamps of Moldova

Im not too sure how all this works but here goes anyway...

I am looking at the image File:Stamp_of_Moldova_153.gif

This is a scan of a postage stamp from Moldova. Scrolling down the page, I find the Permission information.

Initially this is telling me that the image in copyrigh-free, but then there is a note:

Note: Based on emails from Poşta Moldovei, the postal agency of Moldova, postal stamps are granted copyright protection and does not fall under Art 7. 1.b.

The note would appear to nullify the copyright-free status of the image and the implication is that every image of a Moldovan postage stamp that exists on Wiki sites is breaching the copyright law.

Surely this cant be true??? Is it possible to see any of the mentioned emails from Poşta Moldovei? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niallpm (talkcontribs) 09:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, this image is hosted on the commons, so discussion here is inappropriate and will not determine any actions to be taken there. Secondly, the issue of Moldovan stamp copyright was well discussed in this deletion nomination quite recently where it was determined the copyright tag was appropriate and applies to all Moldovan stamps. ww2censor (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Upload a Library of Congress photo

Can this photo be upload to Wikipedia Commons and a thumb nail included in the Wiki article about the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? OneHistoryGuy (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons has it's own help desk at commons:Commons:Help_desk  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do I can't get images in Wikipedia when I don't have balance in MTS PREPAID ,even WIKI is a free site ?-- (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do I can't get images in Wikipedia when I don't have balance in MTS PREPAID ,even WIKI is a free site ?-- (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're using,, etc. everything should be free. Hmm... I see that MTS is the name of several phone/internet providers. Is that the issue? Because obviously we don't provide access to the internet, just access to a website that you can use once you have internet access. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Just for future reference, but inquiries like this should go at Wikipedia:Help desk, not Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

correct tag

need help in choosing the correct tag for Ali Ammar picture. thanks in advance. Wbel (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry about not including the source, i've done so now! What now? Wbel (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Benito Juarez

I'm looking for pictures for Reform War. I found this pic [6] at this site [7]. 2 questions: (1) is this public domain and (2) does this depict the Reform War? Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the second part, I can't help. With regards to the first, the answer is that it might be, but you can't use the image is it is. In order to use that painting, you'd need to have more information than is provided at the links, specifically, you'd need the author, and the date (it can be rough, I suppose) that the painting was created. Aside from needing the author anyways for sourcing reasons, by having the author, and thus his date of death, we'd be able to tell if the file is or is not PD. I believe that in Mexico, copyright expires 100 years after the author dies. Mind you, you could upload locally (but not at Commons) as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} if you can prove that the painting was painted before 1923, but again, we can't just assume that. Sorry, Sven Manguard Wha? 15:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Did a little digging and found it: Antonio González Orozco: "Juárez, símbolo de la República contra la Intervención Francesa", 1972. The answers to me questions are No, and No. – Lionel (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm impressed you found anything, I got nothing from TinEye. Oh well, sorry mate. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pics deleted

Hi, I uploaded 4 pics that were then deleted, I think because I used the wrong copyright. They are my pics. I've tried to reload them again but keep getting errors. Please can you tell me if the pics are still in the Commons library? If yes, how do I change the copyright (assuming that is the reason they were deleted)? If no, how do I upload them again without the constant errors? Page is Peter Barnes

Many thanks,Siztrust (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary on that page is Removing "Live_8_2005.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Courcelles because: In category Media missing permission as of 31 October 2011 - you will have to ask on commons why they deleted them - try their help desk commons:Commons:Help_desk.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

MY OWN copyrighted image, trying to prove it is okay to keep on wikipedia

i received an email

13 November 2011 by Kelly, with the edit summary: Notification: tagging for deletion of File:3 WOMEN & A CHATEAU.jpg. (TW)

i'm not sure where/how to make a response,

I am the copyright holder of the image:File:3 WOMEN & A CHATEAU.jpg

This is a promotional poster for a movie I made Here is the poster, a clip from the film, and a photo of me as director/producer

Please do NOT take down this image.

Also, as an inexperienced widipedia contributor, please help me to respond in the most efficatious manner for your wikipedian needs. I appreciate that you want to honor copyright. In this case, I just don’t want you to ignore my permission granted! Thanks

Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary gary gary (talkcontribs) 19:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Do YOU as a human being own the copyright; or does Luna Productions? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Somewhat irrelevent if they represent the company, though.
Gary, to donate material you or your organization own, you must follow the instructions at the declaration of consent for all enquiries. If you release your work under a free license, you agree that it will be available for use by anyone and for any purpose, including commercial distribution. If you do not wish to release the file under a free license, then you cannot upload it to Wikipedia. Because the film itself is unlikely to have an article on Wikipedia, the file cannot be used under a fair use rationale either, so the only way it will stay here is if released under a free license as outlined above. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
He's not saying he represents the company; he's saying he himself owns the copyright; but Luna is a corporation or partnership owned by more than one person. Remember, in law a corporation is a separate person altogether. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
According to the Luna Productions About Us page Luna Productions is a partnership of Catherine Ryan and Gary Weimberg, the OP. As I understand the law of partnerships, either partner can act on behalf of the partnership. —teb728 t c 20:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
That depends on the terms of the partnership agreement and applicable state law, so rather than second-guess the issue, much easier for appropriate permission to be communicated via OTRS. – ukexpat (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. (Or see the instructions at User talk:Gary gary gary#File permission problem with File:3 WOMEN & A CHATEAU.jpg.) —teb728 t c 20:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
The file has been speedily deleted (by a misapplication of G12), but go ahead and follow my advice above, and it can be undeleted. —teb728 t c 22:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Tony Bates

Did I properly tag the headshot of Tony Bates? The photo is from the About Skype section of the company's Web site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaas (talkcontribs) 20:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If Bates isn't dead, then that picture doesn't qualify under the "fair use" exception. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete this file iosf.jpg

Hello! I want to know why you delete the file iosf.jpg ? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotata (talkcontribs) 20:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no sign I can find of any file called File:Iosf.jpg in the English-language Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I say I had set myself, but it is no longer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotata (talkcontribs) 20:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm saying I can find no evidence that any file of that name was EVER uploaded here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Commons CharlieEchoTango (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
See the notice at Commons:User talk:Kotata1#File tagging File:Iosf.jpg. It says there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. In any case the file was deleted on Commons, not here on English Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 21:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Are fan art recreations of a fictional element described in copyrighted text a derivative work of that text?

A question has arisen at Lich (Dungeons & Dragons), in which to possibly replace a non-free image of a generic monster (eg, there are multiple liches in the game world) that was pulled from one of the game books, a suggestion of using a fan-created image, based on the text from the book, has been given.

Note that the article is specifically about the game world's version of the lich, and not the generic Lich supernatural horror trope monster. Thus while there may be free images of the latter, that does not necessarily mean they accurately represent the game world's version.

My concern is the derivative use aspect. If the game book had only provided a text description and not a simple illustration, I can't see how the act of interpreting the text into visual art as being derivative. But with the image having been provided by the book, there's a possible "taint" on any user created work making it derivative, and therefore non-free.

Am I mis-reading the derivative use aspect? If there's no derivative work aspects, then yes, there's a very strong likelihood of free replacement (including an existing image at commons). Otherwise, if any fan-created work is non-free, then one might as well use the best-quality official image of the creature for the article instead, if the non-free use is appropriate (per NFCC). --MASEM (t) 14:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there was a similar question regarding the image for Illithid, although that's slightly different because that's an a concept entirely developed by D&D. Ultimately the decision was that official but non-free was preferred over fan art. I agree with that decision, because to me, accuracy is of top importance, over everything else. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd say you could argue both ways. Given that a lich is not a concept invented by TSR, I'd say that a fan drawing might be better in some ways, because it can be used in other wikis as well; but then, how many wikis have this kind of obsessively detailed articles about D&D monsters? (Hey, I can say that, I used to write for TSR.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Mike beings up a good point, however my understanding is that the D&D lich is significantly different from lich concepts that existed before D&D. Also, Mike, that must have been an absolutely mindbogglingly awesome job. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:3 Minutes World Silence.jpg

What is the Copyright Tag for my logo? Mary CassiniAweaver2 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aweaver2 (talkcontribs) 01:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no file by that name. Do you mean File:World Silence Logo.jpg? —teb728 t c 01:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
The copyright tag is the "cc-by-sa-3.0" in the self template. Did you wish to grant that license? And do you own the copyright in order to be able to grant that license yourself? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

i want to upload a company logo but the logo continually is taken down for any number of reasons. please assist if possible so i can be in compliance. much appreciated. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrenees33 (talkcontribs) 07:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about File:SunPod-logo.jpg, then the problem is that it needs to be used say in an article titled SunPods. Although there is an articles for creation page, it is not suppose to be used on that. If the page can turn into an article then it could be used. You should concentrate on the article, if it exists then the logo can be included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Exercises.jpg (alternate image)

The current image of an album cover is fine and has a fair use rationale. But somewhere along the line another editor replaced the image with a completely unrelated image (pregnancy exercises) from a different and copyright source [8], but left the original rationale. This was promptly reverted but the file is still available. See [9]. This should be deleted, but I'm not sure how to tag it. Perhaps an admin could do this? Voceditenore (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done revision deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Image for Chutes

I wanted to contribute some pictures for the entry under Chutes (gravity), I already uploaded the images to Wikipedia, but not sure how to insert into the appropriate place in the Chute write-up? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcwood (talkcontribs) 18:36, 15 November 2011‎ (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. I see you were trying to add to a gallery, which is rather different from most image use; for that see the section on galleries toward the bottom of the page. —teb728 t c 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Using a copyrighted image


If an author has a wiki page, and they would like to use a copyrighted image (photo of the author) on the page, what steps need to be taken to allow the use of the image? From what I can tell, the author would have to provide permission for the image to be used within the Commons, correct? If so, how does one go about providing that information so that the image can be used?

Thank you, Angeleen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluskygirl (talkcontribs) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  1. Place this into the page [[File:name|thumb|right|200px]] - replace name with the image name (if it's on commons, it's just the name, en-WP will find it), replace right with left if you like, replace 200 with the size to show - see also WP:EIS and WP:PIC
  2. Donating Copyright Materials - WP:DCM
Hope that helps  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Angeleen, I think what you want is: Unless the photographer has contracted otherwise, the photographer has a copyright on his photos. Wikipedia requires that the photographer (or other copyright owner) grant a free license, allowing use not only on Wikipedia/Commons but also reuse by anyone for anything. For how to request permission from the copyright owner and send that permission to Wikipedia, see WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 00:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:POUM Obreros.jpg

I was recently requested to provide a non-free use justification for File:POUM Obreros.jpg, and believe I have done so adequately. However, I have not been closely tracking any recent changes about the English-language Wikipedia's criteria for non-free use. Would someone please let me know whether they believe the justification I have provided will suffice? - Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Even if it is copyrighted under US law, no one owns the rights. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

non-free content rationale

(a) The Update photo link won't let me add a new, more cropped photo, to try to meet non-free content criteria. The update process warns that the photo name already exists, but that's the point of an update. (b) I accidentally uploaded the photo to a new name, and cannot figure out how to delete it. (c) An editor asked me to put the rationale onto something called the "file description page" but linked me to a "File" page, so I suppose that's the same thing, but wikipedia is full of fine distinctions, so I worry. The File:Help page is unclear regarding the various sections of the File page, which I noted on its talk page, but probably somewhere there is the right place to put the rationale. (d) I don't see location of rationale discussed in the copyright questions page.Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The file in question is File:Mccormick007 litb.jpg? – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
That's (b) the accidental upload. The file I was trying to (a) update and (c) give rationale for was File:Anne O'Hare McCormick sisters.jpg. More research showed me it is public domain, but still not sure where to put that box & discussion.Numbersinstitute (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The file description page is another name for the File page. The non-free use rationale is what you added with this edit. But since you have since determined that the photo is PD, it doesn't need a rationale, and it doesn't need to be cropped. For future reference when you upload a new version, check "Ignore any warnings" on the upload form; that will suppress the warning that the photo name already exists. —teb728 t c 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I tagged File:Mccormick007 litb.jpg for deletion. For future reference you could have done that by adding {{db-user}} to the File page. —teb728 t c 22:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi There

Please can you help me - I am trying to get approval for the above file but it keeps getting removed. The owner has given persmission several times so I dont know what the issue is...? Please advise asap

Many thanx Thea-Lize <email removed for privacy>

Follow up permission from owner sent to Wikipedia:

Dear Wikipedia Team,

RE: File:BodyBs.theora.ogv, bhpp.jpg and File:Barryfish.jpg

You have removed the above three files from Barry Hilton’s article in the Sandbox. As Barry is the owner of the material in question, we have already granted permission to you and the author Thealize to use these. Please could you state your reason for their removal and advise as to how we reinstate them. Below is my original permission form.

Thank you.

I hereby affirm that Barry Hilton is the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of; File:Barry Hilton.jpg – picture owned by Barry Hilton File:Barry-and-Sandy-Wedding-Pic.jpg– picture owned by Barry Hilton File:Barryfish.jpg– picture owned by Barry Hilton File:BodyBs.theora.ogv- clip owned by Barry Hilton File:Absailing.jpg– picture owned by Barry Hilton File: Barryh2.jpg– picture owned by Barry Hilton attach the work to the email, I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Ivana Petzer South African ID number 8007310114084 Appointed representative 25 October 2011 The article has been authored by Thea-Lize Moolman from Brandboard upon our request. Her user ID for Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealize (talkcontribs) 07:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(I removed your email address to protect your privacy.) According to the deletion log and the notice on your user talk page, Commons:File:BodyBs.theora.ogv was deleted because you did not indicate the source, which is necessary to verify its copyright status. I’m not sure if it would have made any difference in light of the fact that no source was indicated, but did Barry Hilton send the permission above to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org? In any case the file was deleted from Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate project from English Wikipedia; so you really need to inquire there. —teb728 t c 09:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW you should tell Hilton in all honesty that you will not be able to get article you are writing for him published. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a webspace provider. Articles here must be encyclopedic and written from a neutral point of view; your draft is neither. Your conflict of interest as a paid writer undoubtedly makes it impossible for you to recognize how unacceptably promotional your writing is. —teb728 t c 10:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi, could you please look at my upload of and the non-free use justification and comment whether that is acceptable, or any changes I need to make. Thanks! LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I provided a {{non-free use rationale}} template for you to fill out. Particularly you need to explain in the Purpose how the use will significantly increase reader understanding. —teb728 t c 23:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I filled out the template, would you consider the Purpose as valid? LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
YesY Looks good, though I note that it's not currently in use in the article (and should be, per NFCC #7), but I assume you'll get to that asap. Best regards, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Meh, its not the greatest, but better than nothing I guess. LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)



Would someone be willing to give a valid fair use rationale for both articles this is used in? I'm afraid I'm a bit fatigued tonight with all my disputed fair use work; if not, I hopefully will be able to get ot it in the next few days. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Doing... CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
And Yes check.svg Done. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)



I'd like to know, would I be able to upload this image? It's tagged with "Some Rights reserved"...but I'm still lost with copyright tags, and what is/isn't allowed. Thank you, -- MSTR (Chat Me!) 08:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, tag it {{cc-by-2.0}}. (If you click on the "Some Rights reserved", it links you to a page that tells you what license—in this case cc-by-2.0.) —teb728 t c 10:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Flickr image is derived from who have a rather complex licensing arrangement. I am finding it difficult to tell from their site whether or not the screenshots can be licensed under CC-by-2.0. One page [10] seems to suggest yes, but another [11] seems to say no. I would probably err on the side of caution by not using the image, subject to having the situation examined in more detail. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding a Google Earth .kmz file to an article.

Dear Wikipaedians,

From the NZ Electricity Commission's freely available DVD of their "Centralised dataset" there is a file PowerStations.kmz which is a file in the style of Google Earth's (takeover of Keyhole's) markup language that depicts the locations of the power station in New Zealand. This seems to me to be a worthy addition to some part of the article on electricity generation in NZ but what with one thing and another, I can't seem to deduce how this might be done. The file is not a "media" file (not an image, nor a movie, nor a sound clip) so I'm not clear that this is the place to ask. It is not a plain text file either so its content can't be merged with the text of the article. It can only be properly interpreted by a prog. such as Google Earth, and unless Wikipaedia offers this support, I presume its use would be to download a copy to the computer you're using where a copy of Google Earth is waiting to be fed.

So the questions are

Can this be done (within the Wikipaedia style)
And if so, how?

What started as a simple idea has become a struggle! TryItAndSee (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I cross-posted at WP:VPT#Using a .kmz file.
By the way, do not indent text with leading spaces; it screws up the formatting. See above how I changed your post. On the other hand do sign your posts on discussion pages with ~~~~ (four tildes); it gives a signature like —teb728 t c 05:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I did try to edit the entry to add the four tildas once I saw the "unsigned" but some confusion in page updating resulted. TryItAndSee (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

US government agency copyright

The article Money Smart is copied from, which is from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. I can't find a copyright notice on the site, and according to Copyright status of work by the U.S. government some US government works are not protected by copyright - is this one of them? (This is an article, not an image, but Wikipedia:Copyright questions redirects to this page.) Peter E. James (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

YesY From a copyright standpoint, the content is public domain as a work of the US federal government (good practice would be to acknowledge the source using the {{PD-notice}} template). From a content guideline perspective, the text is not very encyclopedic in tone and needs NPOV cleanup, etc. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have made recent edits of stylizing citation. --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Cheers intro logo.jpg

I have a lot of concerns. This is of the screenshot of the television show's opening credits. Despite the copyrights of this image, is the logo itself eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you were able to extract just the logo and not the background, it would likely fail the threshold of originality (being a typeface, no matter how ornate). But if you can't get that, and have the background in there, then regardless of the free-ness of the text logo, it will still be a copyrighted work. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

An image with a lot of corporate logos

One of the Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York City

The image to the right is one taken by David Shankbone and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. However, it is being challenged at Talk:Occupy Wall Street as disallowed by the lack of freedom of panorama in the USA. The various logos are the focus of the image, including those on the flag, and especially the poster showing a copyrighted composite image that belongs to The New York Times—the image of the girl signing "shhh" surrounded by media logos. Is this photograph okay to use on Wikipedia without limit? Does the image require a fair-use rationale? Should the image be kept off of English-language Wikipedia because it does not pass the American laws restricting freedom of panorama? Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Even though there is no freedom of panorama exception for artworks in the USA, which generally applies to sculptures and other outdoor artwork, logos don't fall into that category and none of the logos is large enough to be considered more than de minimis, so there is really no problem with them. The image of the girl is less than 25% of the image, so for me de minimis applies there too. If she was around 50% or greater I could see a possible issue but she is not the main subject of the image. The image, which was uploaded over a month ago, has been accepted on the commons where they are quite strict about freedom of panorama issues, so you can certainly use it unless someone challenges it on the commons though Northamerica1000 did add a fair-use rationale to it there, which is not acceptable on the commons and the uploader reverted that two days ago suggesting it be nominated for deletion if he thought it violated copyright. The author is an experienced image contributor. ww2censor (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The poster itself is copy protected. The trade marked logos are not incidental they are a main part of the subject. Perhaps boarder line? Maybe but within that line for caution when using on Wikipedia. Editors experience is not in question nor is he/she him/herself. Acceptance at commons is not a rationale for use on Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong. If the image is properly licenced on the commons, then it is appropriate to be used here. If you are so concerned about the copyright status of the image go ahead and nominate it for deletion on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
If you are worried about it, please say so on Commons. I am curious about this one myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

uploading a pdf file


Hi. Is it technically possible to upload a pdf file? The file is just under 3 megs in size. Is a saved Powerpoint (100 slides long).

All the images are Commons compliant and I have a page documenting the sources (no proprietary clip art or anything).

The content is encyclopedic (for discussion of Vital and Featured articles). Sort of a "project" type justification. (although obviously someone could use it for article stuff it there was a reason). But just to is on topic with Wikipedia. Is not like me wanting to host something from my company or the like.

Also, given the length and superiority in formatting, I think leaving it as a pdf makes way more sense than me trying to build some Wiki document (just won't work same way as a slide deck would and I'm not going to try to build a Wiki page off of it).

I think hosting it here would be preferred as Commons is more for articles. I might be able to get it on Meta or strat wikis, but I don't know what theire ability to support images is. (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Wikipedia, but I know it is possible on Commons (File:Cinderella (1865).pdf for example). Selection of individual pages is documented at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#DjVu and PDF files. —teb728 t c 01:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I put it in Commons. The usage for Commons allows "project" support type materials and there are several similar saved PowerPoints already there (in a category). (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of promotional pic

I was wondering if File:The-shirelles.jpg would be PD under Template:PD-US-not renewed. It appears to have been originally published in 1961, and Scepter folded in 1976 (15 years). Feedback from anyone more knowledgeable on copyright issues would be appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The source is Michael Ochs Archives from Getty Images. Here is the URL: According to the source, this photo was created in circa 1965. Unlikely it was 1961. The first publication is unknown; if either found unpublished in no less than either 1978 with notice or 1 March 1989, or published with notice in any way, the photo is still copyrighted. --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm... Okay, thought I saw 1961 at the RS page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

David Cone's Perfect Game

The image I uploaded in the article I feel fits the criteria for a nonfree image on Wikipedia: It is only used in 1 article It has been published on other websites and blogs It clearly illustrates a moment refered to in the article

--Coingeek (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don’t see how you could create a valid non-free use rationale for File:Coneperfect.jpeg on David Cone's perfect game: It illustrates the article, but it doesn’t identify the subject or otherwise significantly increase reader understanding of the article. And the AP photo itself (rather than the game generally) is not the subject of sourced commentary (see WP:CSD#F7). —teb728 t c 05:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me identify a little better the policy and guideline I allude to: It is not enough that a photo illustrates a moment referred to in an article. “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.”WP:NFCC#8 “A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.”WP:NFC#UUI #7 The photo shows Cone on his knees with Girardi about to embrace him. The article text describes a later scene and says nothing about this photo itself. The SI source doesn't even identify the AP photographer; so the photo itself can hardly be that notable. —teb728 t c 08:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

About authorship of a photo (File:Protaetia aeruginosa 2.jpg)

This photo is copied from a site URL: The author of this photo am I. The participant Reanimator86 breaks the property right to this image. --Evkomarov (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The file is kept at Commons rather than here, but I'll nominate it to be deleted. I have concerns about a number of images uploaded by that contributor. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Aethelberhtobv.jpg and File:Aethelberhtrev.jpg

I'd like a clarification on why {{PD-art}} or {{PD-old}} doesn't apply here.

I've had someone comment on my talk page claim that because a coin is a 3D object, the terms of PD-art do not apply, even though the coins are at older than 900 years!!

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of view is that although the the coin itself is PD, the photographer of a 3D object makes creative choices which gives him/her a separate copyright on the photograph. In these photos for example the photographer chose to light the coin from a particular angle on the upper right. With a fully 3D sculpture he/she would also make shoices of where to photograph from. In a faith rendering of a 2D artwork there are no such creative choices; so the photographer does not get a separate copyright. I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 05:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Canadian signs

I brought this up at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Canadian_signs because I wanted to know if some images are eligible for Commons or not, but it also affects English Wikipedia since they currently are hosted here, so it was suggested that I take it up here too.

The article List of heritage buildings in Vancouver has a lot of photos of plaques indicating that the houses in question are heritage buildings. According to Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Canada, photos of "houses" are OK while photos of "signs" are not. Are these plaques "houses" or "signs"? The one who answered me at Commons wasn't certain, but mentioned Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lendal Tower, York (21st October 2010) 001.jpg.

Should these plaque photos have their GNU, Creative Commons and public domain licences changed into something non-free, or should they be considered as being free and be moved to Commons? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a really interesting question. :) The part I'd be most concerned about is the text - it seems long enough to be copyrightable, and that was the primary issue with the deletion discussion mentioned above. Without knowing the date at which this text was published, I'd default to saying that it is under copyright, and therefore not compatible with Commons, but if that could be clarified things would be better. Sorry that I can't be of more assistance on this - perhaps someone else will have a better idea? - Bilby (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
One of the images has now been moved to Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:St. Andrew's-Wesley Church plaque.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When to use {{subst:nsd}}?

I copied lots of images from Balanced-arm lamp to Commons. A few of them only list a source in the form of a {{PD-self}} template. Is this enough to assume that the images were made by the uploader? Note that the same uploader also uploaded a lot of similar images to the article where he wrote an explicit comment that he made the similar images.

The problematic images are the following:

Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Also look at the comments provided at upload time, these give the information that would normally be in an information template, so you can be pretty sure that this user is the creator. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
It's enough to assume that the uploader claims to be the source and enough to avoid the NSD tag. No statement made by an uploader is ironclad, but that's why we have WP:AGF. If you believe that the uploader's claim is false, you'd do best to go with the WP:PUF process. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:OpenAstroMenace menu.jpg license

I created this ingame screenshot to give an idea how the game looks like. As I was not sure under what kind of license it is published, I assumed it's non-free although the game code is open source and it's downloadable for free. Does that somehow help to avoid deletion? --EoD (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It needs a non-free use rational to show what article it is used on and why the WP:NFCC policy permits its use on that article. You may find {{Video game rationale}} helpful in creating a rationale. (Click on the link for the template parameters.) —teb728 t c 06:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I created a rationale. I guess it's licensed under some CC as the source code and the media is downloadable from sourceforge but I have no idea about such stuff. That's why I asked here. --EoD (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The code and artwork are both GPL licensed, according to License.txt in the download. I've retagged it as a {{Free screenshot}}. --dave pape (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:SOAPnet logo.svg

Is this image of a logo eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

this is PD-simple, ineligible for copyright since it is only a simple combination of words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

how to copyright an image

how to copyright an image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesg4shilpa1 (talkcontribs) 09:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

When someone creates an image, they automatically have a copyright on it which prevents Wikipedia or anyone else from using the image without the creators permission. The problem with the image you uploaded is you didn't say:
  • Where did you get them from?
  • Who created them?
  • What permission does the creator give for their use?
teb728 t c 11:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Details of PD-Australia

Does {{PD-Australia}} apply to I recently deleted this image, which had been uploaded as File:Forthetermofhisnaturallife.jpg and marked with a Wikipedia-only permission, but the uploader has left the following note on my talk page:

Hello - I have permission to upload this poster from Ian Morrison the Senior Librarian of the Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office for wikipedia provided the office is acknowledged. The image is sourced from their website at I clicked on the wrong licensing button I should have clicked "any kind of poster". It's over a 100 years old, it's fair use - I request that I be able to use it. regards,

I don't see how it would be fair use (and none was claimed), but I wonder whether it might be PD. As far as I can see it, this is a work for hire, and the template doesn't address works for hire.

If it's concluded that this image is clearly PD, please don't wait for me to respond: undelete it (or file a note at WP:AN for undeletion, if you're not an admin) and tag it with PD-Australia. Here in the USA, tomorrow is a major national holiday, so I'll not likely be online much for the next few days. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright in Australia would have expired 50 years after creation, as this is a company (academy of music) item. Which is 1959. PD-Australia applies and this is also PD in USA. But can you upload a bigger image as the one uploaded is really too small to read? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Owner / Not the Author


I work for a company that owns copyrights to several images and wants them added to wikipedia. I did not make those images so I am not sure how I can add them (I tried adding them in the past but they were all deleted).

How and to whom do I have to prove that I a represent a company owning copyrights?

Thank you!

Bizutage (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer and the question! Please take a look at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. – ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


I want to change this file's سيف الإسلام القذافي نوفمبر2011.JPG license to newspaper template.


--Neogeolegend (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean File:سيف الإسلام القذافي نوفمبر2011.JPG? – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Neogeolegend has abandoned that image and has re uploaded another attempt user non free rationale - see here. - on first glance it seems quite correct? It seems a bit of a weak rationale for a living person and I suggested he might focus the rationale specifically in relation to the arrest and how he looked at that seems undue to me to represent a living person in his infobox while under arrest when he has spent almost all of his life not under arrest. - Off2riorob (talk)

File:Summerhouse 17 with 2 borders redd.jpg

I am adding this note from user re File:Summerhouse 17 with 2 borders redd.jpg

This ismy first go at loading up an image. I have looked through the list of licence options but am not sure which one to go for. I have received permission by email from Hill Close Gardens Trust to use this image freely. What licence does that come under? Tony: What a brilliant idea. By all means use that picture. Thanks Chris Begg

Pp Pattie Hall on hols Centre Manager

Hill Close Gardens Bread and Meat Close Warwick CV34 6HF

01926 493 339


Keith D (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for how to request and submit permission. —teb728 t c 03:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Programa de la Sinfonica Nacional 1966.jpg and File:Afiche Japón.JPG

Is the 1966 pamphlet still copyrighted under copyright law of Argentina? Is the other photo copyrighted under copyright law of Japan? --George Ho (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Friends titles.jpg and File:FriendsLogo.jpg

What about the copyright status title logo of Friends within both of them? --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This should count as a public domain trademark too, even with the coloured dots. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) The first is copyrighted if only due to the background image. The second would be controversial on this page: IMHO it is copyrighted because the letters are drawn rather than taken from a typeface, but some people would contend that no lettering passes the threshold of original. —teb728 t c 05:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that File:FriendsLogo.jpg cannot be considered anything but copyright not being composed of plain text. ww2censor (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
See Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag and Commons:Template:PD-signature. Handwritten letters are no more subject to copyright than printed ones — the typical signature involves more artistic ability than this image, and since it's not eligible, this isn't either; single-color variations are nowhere near original enough. Finally, the sole contents of the second image are F·R·I·E·N·D·S — unless you believe that this comment is a copyvio of that logo, you cannot believe that the logo itself is subject to copyright. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, the copyright status of the second logo is controversial (2 yeses and 2 nos). The signature analogy, however, is a weak argument: The Commons references say correctly that a typical signature lacks originality. When I sign my name, for example, the only decision I make is whether to spell out my name or use my initials; any other variation from signature to signature is unintentional. Similarly typical calligraphy or draftsman’s lettering is unoriginal: In those cases the drawer seeks to use an ideal hand, and any variation is unintentional and undesirable. In the case of this logo, however, the artist has obviously chosen to avoid ideal letter shapes, which necessitates making original choices in the drawing. —teb728 t c 11:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)




Amitabh Bachchan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I need some help because I'm not sure I'm doing this right. The two images above have problems, and I'm not sure if I tagged them properly initially or they're properly tagged now. On one of them, another (probably more experienced in this area) user retagged it for speedy deletion. He reverted a change to the other one made by an IP but left my original tag in place.

I confess I get very lost when I try to sort out the proper procedures for deleting or requesting deletion of non-free images on Wikipedia. I've read the policies and some of the relevant review pages, and, to date, I remain mostly unenlightened.

I would appreciate any help, both generally but particularly with respect to these two files.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The first photo already had a non-free use rationale when you first tagged it; so I’m not sure what you find wrong with it. The thing wrong with the second is that its use does not significantly increase reader understanding; so I tagged it {{subst:dfu|The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8}} (The uploader is probably correct that there is no free replacement of him winning the Lifetime Achievement Award.) —teb728 t c 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching your efforts in the background with the two files, thanks very much. Unfortunately, although my memory is hazy on the point, I believe that both files had templates in it that questioned the fair use rationale. I noted they weren't the same, but even the less warning-like template (the one in the first file) says: "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." I suppose that's intended to be generic and informational, as opposed to a comment on the lack of a fair use rationale, but it wasn't clear to me (still isn't). As I also recall, both had "Purpose of use" completed, so I'm not sure what the second one was lacking that the first one had. Makes me dizzy just to talk about it. This is probably all easy and second nature to you, but it isn't to me. Bottom line is I really can't figure out how to tag these files correctly. Maybe what I'll do in the future is not try to tag them and just come straight here for help.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


Hello, I brought a photo from and now I have the License too. I would like to know, What information do I put for a photo that I had brought? Can you give me some examples what to put in the information below and for the Licensing: option?

Source No source specified. Please edit this file description and provide a source.

13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(Reusing this file)

See below.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LovingCaringReading (talkcontribs) 08:21, 25 November 2011

What licence specifically did you purchase. Buying a physical copy of a photo from photo agencies does not usually confer any copyright licencing rights to the purchaser; you just own a copy of the image. The prphotos website licencing appear to be very restrictive, so unless you can show that the image you bought has specifically been released under a free licence we cannot use it. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Local Senators and Politicians

I'm from Puerto Rico and I'd like to know if official pictures of local Senators, Representatives, Mayors, and/or Cabinet members are eligible for use here. I couldn't find anything about local government pictures, although I know federal ones apply. Thief12 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides US federal works, only official images from California and Florida are in the public domain. Unfortunately this free licencing does not apply to Puerto Rican images. ww2censor (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
That's too bad. Thanks anyway! Thief12 (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Some exceptions are {{PD-PRGov-OfficialPortraits}} and {{PD-PRGov-PRSHP}} which have been verified by OTRS. Seems to only apply to two specific cases though. Maybe the picture you want to contribute is one of them? Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice! this might apply to a couple of pics I wanted to upload. Thanx!! Thief12 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want other pictures, you can always request that they be released - a similar request for Iowa resulted in a positive response (documented at commons:Template:Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that as well! I'll see which ones I can upload with that permission, and then check that release request. Thief12 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


In spite of the copyrighted screenshot, is the logo itself eligible for copyright protection? --George Ho (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably, I don't think it's simple enough to qualify as {{PD-ineligible}} or {{PD-text}}. – ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If I just paid some dude about a zillion dollars to design a logo, you better believe It would be copyrighted.  :-) See WP:LOGOS I B D Shank (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Internet images copyright

Is it possible to use images online that are copyrighted for business purposes, without getting a lawsuit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not unless they are duly licensed by the copyright holder. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Memogate Scandal - picture of the contents of the memo draft

The text contents of the memo discussed on the Memogate Scandal page are a major part of the article makeup. The text of the memo is in the presence of the US military and is readily available on public domain after the contents were disclosed to the general public. The only copy of the actual document draft lies with Foreign Policy magazine here. Can the image in the PDF file be used as a valid image on the Wikipedia article for the Memogate Scandal. Would this be a copyright violation? -- Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I can think of no reason to think the image is either in the public domain or free licensed. Unless it is free, any use would have to comply with Wikipedia’s non-free content policy. In particular the use would have to significantly increase reader understanding. Just showing the memo discussed in the article is not necessary for understanding. —teb728 t c 06:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood the notions of "public domain". What I meant was that the document was "publicly available on the Internet". However, could the contents of the memo be published wholly as text under the non-free content policy? Being in the hands of the US government, doesn't it also hold the opportunity to be tagged as the work of the US Government (or am I also wrong in suggesting that) and be used under those terms? Thanks for bearing with my ignorance in such matters -- Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 09:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
If the contents or some portion thereof would significantly increase reader understanding (see WP:NFCC#8), and a free paraphrase would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose (see WP:NFCC#1), it could be used. But the entire contents could not be used if a portion would suffice (see WP:NFCC#3). A work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. national government as part of that person's official duties is in the public domain, but this memo was (allegedly) produced by an official of the Pakistan government. (Being in possession of the U.S. government is irrelevant.) —teb728 t c 19:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

More tagging questions

File:Amitabh bachchan at afa.jpg

File:Amitabh Bachchan Graffiti.jpg

The first file above is almost the same as another file that User:TEB728 helped tag properly. That file was deleted, and the same editor has uploaded a similar one with the same issues. Unfortunately, as recent as it was, I've already forgotten how it should be tagged, and, of course, it's gone, so I can't see the tags that were there.

The second file is better. As far as I can tell, it has an appropriate Flickr license at Flickr. The only problem I see is it's a 2.0 license, whereas the uploader is saying here it's a 3.0 license. Not sure how to fix the file so it's at least accurate. Also, the file page looks unorthodox to me, but I don't know if that matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My tag is still in my previous reply above at #Tagging. In the graffiti file I changed 3.0 -> 2.0 three places. —teb728 t c 00:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon nonfree images

The BLP article on Cynthia Lennon, the first wife of John Lennon, includes several nonfree images taken from a recently published book, as well as one recent free image of the subject. The images carry rather generic rationales, and appear to be used as general illustrations (one in the infobox). Some of the images are used in multiple articles, so I don't want to go directly to FFD since different issues would be involved. I'm particularly bothered by the suggestion in one of the rationales [12] that an image satisfies NFC requirements for a BLP because it (also) includes an image of someone other than the article subject who is no longer living. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some of the rationales are dubious. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Tamagotchi pictures

Well, I'm planning to upload an SVG file of a Tamagotchi character named Mametchi, and I really have no clue which license it goes under. I got the SVG from a PDF from the Tamagotchi USA Bandai website using Inkscape, if that helps somehow.

Also, Tama-Star Girl uploaded a picture of th English-language logo for Tamagotchi! but got deleted by a bot named Commons Delinker because of no licence.


User:Umbreon126--「talk」 ~from 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What license (i.e. permission) does the Tamagotchi USA Bandai website grant for the image? By creating the image Bandai gets a copyright on it; so nobody can use it without their permission. Do they grant permission for anybody to use the image for anything? I suspect not, and if not then you can't upload it to Wikipedia. Sorry. —teb728 t c 01:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
As for the logo, File:Tamagotchi! anime logo english.png was uploaded to Commons. Wikipedia allows a few exceptions to the rule that all images must have a free license. Commons allows no such exceptions. —teb728 t c 01:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Well it's from a pdf on their website of a chart (link not there anymore, though since the update)
Would this help? Wayback MAchine Tamagotchi
and also wouldn't this be like uploading pictures of Pokemon? *is very confused* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umbreon126 (talkcontribs) 01:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom of your linked page is a link to the Bandai America Terms and Conditions. According to that page: “BAI owns or has the right to use all of the data, information, text, images, sounds, icons, and other content contained on this Web site (including software and transmissions to this Web site), and the copyrights and other intellectual property rights therein, unless otherwise noted. You may review, download, and/or print one copy of the content of this Web site, but you may not make more than one copy of such content, modify it in any way, distribute or transmit it to any other person or company, frame or otherwise display any of the content of this Web site on your own or any other Web site, or make any other use of it. Such copying, modification, distribution or transmission, display, or use would breach this agreement and infringe BAI's copyrights, copyrights licensed to BAI, and/or other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to BAI.” So they positively forbid you to transmit their content to Wikipedia. And they deny the free license that Wikipedia requires. —teb728 t c 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing it up
User:Umbreon126--「talk」 ~from 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

{{PD-textlogo}} and the threshold of originality

Where does it begin? That's what I'm wondering. Recently came across File:Seoul emblem.svg, which is tagged as being PD because of a lack of orgiinality. But is that logo in the centre really not original enough? I would have thought there was enough to claim copyright there. And then today, a problem in the opposite direction, File:ShiodomeCenterLogo.gif -- is the stylised S original enough to claim copyright? In this case, I wouldn't think so.

Basically, are these two images both tagged wrongly? Should the first not be FU and the second PD? I'm nowhere near well versed enough to know for sure, and an extra pair of eyes would be grand. Thanks, Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would believe both to be non-free. The threshold of originality, unfortunately, is something that can only be affirmed by a court of law, but we can use the basic metrics, that images composed of typeface fonts and simple shapes will fail the threshold and thus be PD. If it is not obvious, we should treat the images as non-free until proven otherwise. I would argue the paint-stroke part of the Seoul logo puts it far outside "simple shape", while the S-like shape in front of the Shiodome Center is not just a simple shape and therefore non-free as well. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The first one I would delete from Commons, the second is iffy. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of image released by the celebrity for Wikipedia purposes

This is regarding the following image: File:Rosela_roma_1.jpg. Ms Gjylbegu's manager has privately contacted and released that image for the purpose of using it in her Wikipedia article specifically. I am not sure I completed the copyright-information correctly in this case, but we are risking of having it erased.

Can someone please advise how to prevent this? Thank you. --Namik (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Such images must be freely licenced by the copyright holder and permission for use on Wikipedia only is not acceptable to us. Have the copyright holder send our OTRS team their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT as only they can verify under what type of licence they are releasing the image. ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How do I allow Wikipedia to use my song tranaslation?

I love the song "Un Canadien Errant", for which there is a Wikipedia page. In fact, I contributed the existing "literal translation" of this song which is currently displayed on this page.

Because the English translation shown in the article about this song is weak and problematic (as noted in the commentary), I made a new translation. I have not specifically copyrighted it. I would like to post in on Wikipedia for use / enjoyment of everyone. I posted it last night (Nov. 27) but it was deleted by this morning.

How can I contribute this translation to "the world", so to speak, via Wikipedia?

Thanks --

Brian Puckett <phone removed for privacy> <email removed for privacy> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfromtexas (talkcontribs) 18:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • A translation of a part of the song (discussed critically) would be okay, but a translation of the entirety of the lyrics would be a derivative work which could not be accepted under our fair use criteria, as they require critical commentary and minimal use. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The original "Un Canadien errant" (of which the new translation is derivative) was published in 1844 and so is PD. —teb728 t c 00:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My bad. In that case, as long as the translation is demonstrably not a copyvio (i.e. someone else's translation that is still under copyright copied to Wikipedia) it should be fine. However, if a translation from the 1800s exists that was done by a professional translator, using it would be preferable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Dannel Malloy.jpg

This is a derivative work based on the official portrait of Connecticut governor Dan Malloy. The licensing section claims the image is PD as a product of the US Government. Problem is, the image was most likely not created by the US Government but rather by the State of Connecticut, and the State of Connecticut is clearly claiming copyright, as evidenced by the note at the bottom of the page here. I found no comparable portrait of Gov. Malloy on Wikimedia Commons.

What's the right course of action? Is there some Connecticut law that places such official pictures in the public domain? Do we ask them to place it under a free license? Am I overworrying this, since the picture was quite clearly created for the purpose that we are using it for?

--Malatinszky (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Tag it with {{db-filecopyvio|url=}} —teb728 t c 19:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You didn't tag it; so I did. —teb728 t c 11:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

please advise re use of 2 images

I write re 2 images of the poet Abraham Sutzkever which are not in your wiki article itself but in external link Bibliotheca Liddica Please advise if I may use them on a not for profit website of Yiddish poetry Thamk you Andrew Firestone — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We can’t give legal advice, but I can tell you that if you wanted to use them on Wikipedia, here’s what I would say:
“Most images on the web are unusable because they are neither in the public domain nor licensed with permission that allows their use. We can’t use web content without knowing its copyright status. Although the Bibliotheca Iiddica page doesn’t indicate the copyright status of the photos, maybe you can ask the author of the page where he got it from. The page links to this Yiddish Language and Culture page, which contains one of the photos; so the author of that page is another possible source of info.” —teb728 t c 10:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If you want to use them on your own website (not Wikipedia) you would probably have to do so under the rules of fair use, at least if you are in the United States. You can see a summary of the rules at fair use, keeping in mind that Wikipedia's articles should not be treated as legal advise, per our legal disclaimer. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

freemasonry in Lebanon

I was reading the article in Wikipedia about freemasonry in Lebanon....Well this article is not accurate concerning regularity in irregularity in masonery... By mentionning only one side of the story, wikipedia is taking part in a 200 year worlwide old conflict between Regulars and Irregulars. In Lebanon, "The Grand Lodge of Cedars", which I represent is well introduced localy and universaly, taking part actively in different events like : Union maconnique mediterraneenne "UMM" and "CLIPSAS" and already organized several activities in Lebanon since year 2000. GLOC is also duely recognised as Regular by several Grd Lodges in different countries especially by the "Grand Orient of France" who delivered a Chart clearly mentionning this recognition for the GLOC "Blue Logdes" as well as its "Supreme Council".

"The GODF practices Continental style Freemasonry (what GODF calls "Traditional Liberal Masonry"), the defining features of which are complete freedom of religious conscience and heavy involvement in politics. This is in antithesis to the "Anglo" tradition of Freemasonry." (Wikipedia)

I would be very grateful if you reconsider your page about freemasonery in Lebanon...and It will be a pleasure for me to send you as many documents you need confirming the accurity of this demand....

Sicerely yours

Raymond Tabet — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's obviously not a media copyright question; so nobody on this forum knows the first thing about the subject. You would get better results (or at least a knowledgible response) if you discussed your concerns on the article discussion page: Talk:Freemasonry in Lebanon. —teb728 t c 10:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Beckett and Matzerath.JPG

I am curious to know why you removed the file Beckett and Matzerath.JPG from my article on J. S. Beckett recently, even though I had emailed you a forwarded message containing proof of the ownership of the photo and permission granted to me for the use of it for the article. Charlesgannon (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that the permission has not yet been reviewed. When it has, and if it is appropriate, the image will be undeleted. I will say, however, that permission only for use in the article will not be sufficient. To be acceptable to Wikipedia, permission must be granted for all purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Old US Movie Posters

At lunch today I saw a (reproduction, I assume) poster for Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! which did not have a copyright notice. A look at an example here suggests the same. According to WP:PD, this would make it PD. My question is: Would a copyright notice be put on the back of the poster? Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible but unlikely as it would be more tricky to print two sides. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Deceased person

The article about Norwegian Erik Gjems-Onstad, a recently deceased person, lacks any free images. The person in question was among other things an MP from 1973 to 1977, and there is a picture of him from 1973 (looks like an at least semi-official picture) at the following news website: [13]. The image is copyrighted "Erik Thorberg (NTB/Scanpix)". I was wondering whether I can use the picture in the article on Wikipedia (in the infobox) anyway, under fair use policy. —Filippusson (t.) 22:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, provided you provide the copyright (URL, appropriate non-free copyright template, etc.) and a fair-use rationale for its use in that specific article, including the fact that the person is deceased (no new free images can be created) and that no free images have been found so far. Note that in the event a free image is found, the unfree one will be removed from the article and deleted. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for answering my question! —Filippusson (t.) 10:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Australian Film Poster

I was wondering a couple things about an Australian film poster for an American movie (this one; it says "Country of Origin: Australia").

  1. Would this have been originally published in the US or in Australia?
  2. Would a collective copyright (i.e. the one owned by the company) fall under part A of {{PD-Australia}} or Part C?
  3. If it falls under Part C, when would the copyright expire?
Any help greatly appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The poster was printed in Australia, by W E SMith. It has no US addresses on it so it is not published there. But if published in USA it has no copyright statement on it, so is now public domain.
Part A applies it is a work and published under the name of a company.
Since it is Australian it would have copyright expired 50 years after publication in 1939, thanks to it not identifying an artist or designer but only a company. Expiry = 1939+50 = 1989. USA would recognise this copyright expiry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. So for movie posters published in Australia, if they were published before 1946 (exclusive) and did not credit an individual artist they are PD in both the US and Australia? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the date would actually be before 1955 as the 50 years was extended to 70 years in 2005. And in 2005 the US-Australian free trade agreement caused USA to recognise the PD from Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I thought that all foreign copyrights on items which were not public domain at the tine were renewed in the US on 1 January 1996. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of Scepter Records-related stuff (1960 - 1962)

Hi, seeing as Scepter Records was sold in 1976, would it be safe to assume that the copyrights for works published by them from 1960 to 1962 were never renewed? If so:

  1. Are the album covers for works published in that period PD?
  2. Are the songs released by artists on the label PD?
  3. Are other related paraphernalia PD?

Any replies would be welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily - it's possible the purchaser renewed the copyrights. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Which would have to be done between 1988 and 1990. Would the renewal be searchable through the Copyright office website (and as such, absence of it demonstrating that copyright was not renewed), or are those renewals the kind that must be searched for in person? As a side note, if works from 1960 to 1962 copyrighted to Scepter at the time are PD now, what would that include? Album covers, songs...? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The renewals should be online at the Copyright Office. Album covers are pretty safe. Audio recordings are a legal mess in the US; it is technically correct to say that any recording made before 1972 has no copyright outside that of the music, but most (or even all) of the states have copyright-like laws protecting audio recordings. The absence of a renewal on audio recordings is to be expected, and is meaningless. Music published in 1960-1962 in theory would need a renewal, but an audio recording of the music doesn't count as publication. Basically all you would have is album covers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)