Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/October

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

Contents

"Anonymous (Street Meat)"

The images posted on the Anonymous (Street Meat) page are mine. I need to place the copyright logo onto these images, but the number has yet to be given to me by Washington's copyright office after paying the fee and several months of waiting. These images are Josie and Josie's eye and they're in my film "Anonymous (Street Meat)" -- I'm the film's director, producer, writer and editor -- etc.

Thank you for any help you may provide -- I've posted a similar message in several other places -- too numerous to remember.

Mig (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether you register your images with the copyright office in Washington or not makes no difference to us. Images that show the copyright watermark that tends to imply it is not a free image so it is discouraged and editors usually remove them. We care about the copyright status of images and making sure the images uploaded are freely licenced. If you are prepared to licence your image in that way, which means that anyone can use it for anything even commercial use, we will be happy to accept them. Assuming you are the copyright holder, you need to verify your permission directly with us by emailing your WP:CONSENT. You can easily see all your contributions by clicking on the "user contributions" button on the left side of both your user, or user talk, page. ww2censor (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Public domain photo Getty wants to license

A photo that you have listed in the public domain:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Admiral_Blandy_Mushroom_Cloud_Cake.jpg

Getty Images wants me to license from them for $1,175 for 5 years. When I told them the photo is listed in the public domain and asked them to provide proof that they have the right to license to the photo, they told me they don't do that, and that the photo may indeed be in public domain and the only way I could know for sure they have the rights to the photo is to contact a lawyer and have it properly vetted - which obviously would cost more than licensing it. In other words Getty wants me to pay them for something they refuse to provide proof they have the rights to, to avoid the chance that they may have the rights to it and come after me.

And you guys don't make any guarantees either

Is the photo in the public domain? Since it was taken in 1946 wouldn't it automatically be in public domain by now? Is there a way I can vet it or find out that won't cost me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylego (talkcontribs) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1946 is a long ways later than 1923; why would something that recent be in the public domain? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Thought the copyright was shorter.

But other issue, Wiki gives the source as the U.S. Navy, which would make it public domain. But elsewhere on the web someone gave the source as a Harris & Ewing Studio photographer, which is why I called Getty Images. But Getty refuses to verify or provide proof that they licensed the rights from them.

  • Hmm. I think from the sources I've found it's safe to say the image came from, as you say, Harris & Ewing. I found this source which indicates that on his death he donated 700k negatives to the LoC. It might be worth contacting LoC to see if perhaps this image is in their archives. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. So donating the original negs to the LOC automatically puts it in public domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylego (talkcontribs) 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Donation of the physical objects, the negatives, would have nothing to do with the copyrights, which are intellectual property completely severable from possession of the original film itself. It's kinda like the distinction between owning a letter written by, say, Octavia Butler, and having the right to publish the contents of that letter. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Concur with Orangemike. I wasn't meaning to say that the donation of the negatives cleared it of copyright (if this image was, in fact, part of that set...we don't know). My point was the LoC might have more information about the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I really appreciate it. I'll check with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylego (talkcontribs) 01:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

  • It's also worth noting that the image may very well be in the public domain anyway. I think we can agree the image was very likely publish (I think in a newspaper, yes?). If so, it was likely published with a copyright notice. If the image's copyright was not renewed, then it is in the public domain by way of expiration of rights. Your resource then to work through is the U.S. Copyright Office. They have an online search utility, but it may not be useful in this case due to age. In which case, there are alternatives. See http://www.copyright.gov/records/. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft. I checked the Harris & Ewing collection in the LOC and the photo isn't there, which indicates Wiki's notation that it was taken by the Navy, and therefore PD could be true. Because of the age of the photo it would require a manual search at the LOC, which would be the minimum of $330 if they do the search. Still on it. Because it was a controversial, well publicized photo in its time I should be able to find something verifiable on it that won't cost me $330. Theoretically.

Any anti-nuke activists in DC wanna do a manual search at the LOC for the cause, and the accompanying glory?--Kylego (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

  • You might be able to short circuit the whole thing by attempting to find a copyright renewal for it. If the copyright wasn't renewed, the rights expired. See my earlier comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If there was a renewal it would be in 1974. A manual/non online ($330) search is required for everything before 1/1/78, so that's a non-starter, but appreciate the thought.--Kylego (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Sorry, thought you were referring to LoC with the search cost. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help me

I uploaded an living portrait from google of the inspirational Ching Shi, one of world's history most powerful pirate. But I got an message that says I don't have an tag to upload it so I removed it, and now I'm even confused than how to upload the picture than before. So would someone please help me upload it the correct way? it be such an shame not to upload an living portrait of an women who had such significance and inspirations in history of pirates.

Here's my picture link (THANK YOU!) File:Ching_shih_an_powerful_female_pirate.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorsPride6565 (talkcontribs) 06:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Where did you get the image, specifically? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You can't just upload an image from Google, you need to find an image that is legal to use. The image you uploaded looks modern and is probably owned by someone. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
This website looks like the image source and shows she died in 1844 but there is no indication of the image copyright status. If it is a contemporary illustration it will be in the public domain due to its age but it may be a newer drawing. Photography was only invented around the time of her death so it is highly unlikely to be a true photo of her even though it looks rather photographic. You could ask the website where the image comes from. ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Can I use this

An image with this license? Thanks Noformation Talk 04:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Non-commercial licences are not permitted on Wikipedia nor on the Wikimedia Commons. The only Creative Commons licences we accept are here. ww2censor (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. One more question, this says "no rights reserved" but I don't think that's the author's website, can I take it on faith or do I need to get some kind of confirmation from the author that that is indeed how it was released? Thanks again! Noformation Talk 04:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
That boldsystems page indicates that James Sullivan is the copyright holder, and that he claims "no rights reserved". Unless boldsystems is lying, that seems to be a valid free licence to me. I think you can upload it and use the {{PD-release}} tag. – Quadell (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Image from Getty

Is this image PD in Britain? The Getty page says authors are Keystone and Stringer. Keystone appears to be a user on Getty, and there is not a full name of Stringer to check his Date Of Death. The picture was taken in 1935. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Without more information on Stringer, we can't know if it is PD in the UK or not. It's probably not PD in the US, however, and we can't upload the image either here or on Commons unless it's PD in the US. – Quadell (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Good enough. I'll look for a copy that doesn't have a huge watermark on it and slap a FUR on it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
A Stringer is the term used to describe a freelance journalist or photographer, so you wont' find his date of birth or death. Essentially that means the photo is attributed to the Keystone agency and as such is a pseudo-anonymous work but for UK images you need to determine the date of publication, if you can, because that affects the copyright duration per the commons UK "Ordinary copyright" info. Being deceased a non-free non-watermarked image will likely be fine. A cropped version of that image is already on the Indonesian wiki here though the licence looks wrong. ww2censor (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The license is ridiculously wrong (author dead for more than 100 years? The subject was barely born 100 years ago...). I'd fix the tag, but copyright on the Indonesian wiki is scary... (and many uses may not qualify as FU in the US, like FU in galleries). No idea on the date of publication, so FU is probably the way to go.Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Image of historical person: Helena Palaiologina of Morea

Would it be possible to use this image as fair use in the Helena Palaiologina of Morea-article? It is a Russian icon, depicting the person in question, the site has no copyright tags. --Zoupan (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The site doesn't indicate when the painting was made, or who made it. (That's a painting, right?) If the painter died over 100 years ago, then the image is in the public domain. But I can't tell if that's a recent image or an ancient one. – Quadell (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Palace Green.jpg

File:Palace Green.jpg was uploaded by a user who has had a few images deleted as copyright violations, and has been warned about using false licences, so it's possible that the source claimed is incorrect. However I've found the same image at http://mikedavidsmith.com/durhamdailyphoto/?p=297 which is CC-BY-SA 2.0 and was created before the Wikipedia version. Is this licence suitable for Wikipedia? Also should the source on the file page be changed? Peter E. James (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That license is OK for commons or Wikimedia. You may as well connect the image file here to clean up the doubt. THe page also has a bit that says free for non commercial use. But since it has two licenses and a link to the CC-BY (with NC) then you can chhose that license to use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Choosing the correct tag????

for File:KhuntoriaWedding01.jpg, which tag should I choose?? this image is from the show's official webpage [1].--Lpmfx (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think {{Non-free poster}} would be most appropriate. You'll also need a {{Non-free use rationale}}. – Quadell (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sports logos, Fair Use, and Wiki pages

Hello all. I've created a few pages recently for sports figures and have occasionally added a small team logo or two within such articles if/when a person had a long tenure with a specific team. This has been standard practice all over the internet and in media reports for years, and there seems to be no specific prohibition against doing so in the various Wiki Image, Copyright, and Non-Free Image policies I've read. My doing so has also generated a couple comments about how the articles look better with the images rather than without.

However, someone came through and deleted several such images from their respective pages yesterday with notes calling such usage "inappropriate." In every case, I had posted a Fair Use Rationale on the corresponding image page, and in several of the cases, the logo itself was defunct and simply historical in nature (i.e., not even the team's current logo). A quick search here didn't yield any specific discussions on this. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I noticed the same person who deleted the images yesterday seems to struggle with basic concepts like WP:GNG, so I'm wondering if this is yet another example of a person acting as a lone wolf here. Any feedback? Thanks very much. — NY-13021 (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If a team logo is copyrighted, then our non-free content criteria only allow us to use such an image in an article on the topic, where the use of the image is necessary to fully understand the topic. In the Pittsburgh Pirates article, the Pirates logo is necessary to fully understand the topic. But in the Kevin Polcovich article, it is not. Even if the player had a long history with the team, even if other websites use logos this way, even if it makes the article look better, our policies don't allow us to use non-free images except in a very limited set of circumstances, and adding team logo images to sports figures doesn't meet this standard. (Similarly, this sort of addition is also outside of our policy on non-free content.) Sorry to bring bad news, and thanks for understanding. – Quadell (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback (and for the hometown example). It seems like the guidelines could be written more clearly if this is the policy. I read and re-read the rules and it's not clear at all that using a logo of a team or employer is forbidden as a matter of policy. The "fully understand" part also seems to open a large loophole. For example, if a person is reading an article about a player from the 1980 Houston Astros, it seems like the 1980 Houston logo would be a helpful visual on that page, since the team's logo has changed many times since then. I guess copyright is copyright, but it seems like the policy for historical/defunct logos would be more relaxed than for logos currently in use. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • There's no variation in how strictly apply WP:NFCC policy based on age of a non-free work. Either it's non-free or it isn't. It could be a logo that hasn't been in use for 70 years, or a logo that began use yesterday. Our policies treat them the same if they are both non-free. As to the usage; Quadell is correct. What is important to understand is that non-free content can't liberally be used for illustration purposes alone, except in very limited circumstances (ex; a company logo on that company's article). Non-free content must otherwise contribute significantly to a reader's understanding of an article. Looking at this version of the Ron Porterfield article, without the image we already understand that he worked for the Houston Astros. Adding a logo doesn't increase understanding of that piece of information. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Photography at a broadcasted event.

I have a concern about several photos I have seen. I don't want to make a stink about the images (since I actually want them to remain on Wikipedia) until I understand the rules a little more concerning images taken at televised event. Specifically, if the event says "Photography prohibited" and is broadcasted via TV, can the person taking the photo hold the copyright. For example (and this is completely unrelated), if I went to the taping of the Blue Collar Comidty Tour, and took a photo of Jeff Foxworthy on the stage, assuming (and it probably would) that there were signs and notes on the tickets that Photography was prohibited, could I upload that image of Jeff Foxworthy under a commons license? Personally I would think not, since I was not given permission to take the photo, but I'm not sure how the rules work in situations like that--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Many venues disallow photography, but that's not a copyright issue. If the Go Bananas Comedy Club says I can't take photographs, then they have every right to kick me out of the club if I take photos. (Or they could ignore it, if it's not actually a big deal to them.) But they don't have any legal rights over my photographs. I can still publish them and release them under any license I want. – Quadell (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't the set possibly be copyrighted, like if it had a big logo on it? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
    • It might. That would depend on the content of the photograph. – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo placement

How do I place multiple photos to written text? I know I can do "center", "right", and "left". I would like to place 4+ photos in a row under the same paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Delgado (talkcontribs) 18:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Use the gallery markup. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Blogosphere_map.jpg‎

Please advise what additional steps I should be taking, as I am a new Wikipedia user and really want to include this image in the Blogosphere article. I included the following information under File description:

If the copyright holder (Matthew Hurst) is willing to release the image under a free license, such as the Creative Commons attribution license, then we can use the image here on Wikipedia. That would mean that anyone can use the image for any purpose, even modifications and commercial purposes, so long as the author is credited. If Mr. Hurst is not willing to release the image under such a license, then I'm afraid we can't use it. The image will probably be deleted for now, but if Mr. Hurst does decide to release the image under a free license, we can undelete it (or someone can reupload it). Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more. – Quadell (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
(My Email to Mr. Hurst)
As part of an assignment for Online Community class at Cornell University, we are improving and writing Wikipedia pages. Can you please address the copyright license for the attached image that appeared in DISCOVER Magazine? According the Wikipedia copyright rules, to include your images the license must allow for modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes.
Your image is perhaps the best visual demonstration of the term "blogosphere" available. I would greatly you permission to use the image for these purposes. I will mark the image pending and if I do not receive your confirmation is will be removed within the week.
(His Response)
Jenna - I think this should be fine. I assume this licensing applies to the file itself rather than any representation of that image. (For example, this license doesn't apply to the print quality high resolution version of that image that I provide to publishers when requested). With that assumption, however, given that discover magazine rendered the numbers on the image (not me) how does that work? Does that present a problem?
Note that I have other versions of similar images here:
http://datamining.typepad.com/gallery/blog-map-gallery.html
PLEASE ADVISE ON HOW I SHOULD CONTINUE (WHAT COPYRIGHT TAG DO I NOW ATTRIBUTE TO THE IMAGE) -128.84.109.78 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please forward that e-mail to the OTRS team at "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org". I have updated the image description page to reflect what you've said. If the OTRS team gets that e-mail and agrees with the licensing, the image will be officially confirmed and will not be deleted. If there are any further problems, please let me know. – Quadell (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to upload this company logo for Integrated Device Technology but I'm not exactly sure what I need before I can upload. I uploaded it before but did not properly tag it and it was taken down. I would like a guide of what needs to be done for the image to stick. Cheers, Crisscutfries (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Use the {{logo fur}} and {{non-free logo}} template. Indicate the article and source of the logo. You should reduce the size too as that is a very big one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
OK I have put it back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much Graeme Bartlett! Crisscutfries (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Non-free 2D art

I am attempting to upload the image of a painting (under Non-free 2D art) [for visual reference within an article] but I cannot figure out how to do it. I am searching for SIMPLE 1, 2, 3 step instructions on how to do this. Any help would be greatly appreciated! --Jhf44 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The easiest way to upload non-free media is to go the "Upload File" link on the left hand side of any WP page, under "Toolbox". From there, select "It is a historically significant fair use image". You'll see a form, where you can specific the local copy of the image on your computer, and a text box where you can file out the non-free rationale (like article name, your source, etc.). Where it says "Licensing", don't select anything for the time being (we've got to add that in manually).
Complete your upload, and you'll get the file page for the image. Edit this page, and outside of the rationale template add in {{Non-free 2D art}}, ideally under a "License" header. Save the page, and you should be all set. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Overuse of copyrighted magazine covers in article

The article on Mystery Scene magazine includes no less than six examples of non-free magazine covers, without little or no relevant commentary. This appears really excessive; the covers look like a decorative column rather than legitimate use of nonfree images. My inclination is to retain only the first issue cover, which is clearly related to the description of the magazine's beginnings, as well as a more current one for the infobox. Am I off base here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Your inclination is correct. That's a big violation of NFCC#3. I would incline to have only one cover; a second cover is only acceptable if it adds additional encyclopedic content that is necessary to understand the article, that it's given by the first cover. – Quadell (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Technically the requirement is that the images must convey significant additional understanding about the topic, not necessarily that they must be necessary to understand the article. But I'd agree, in this case there's nothing apparent that these images even start to contribute. Jheald (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed all but the first. None of the covers are discussed, and five of six had copy/paste rationales with purpose of use being "This image is the primary means of identifying a magazine in the article about that magazine". I guess it took six images to be the primary means of identification? Right. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, if anything I was a shade too lenient. I found a couple more instances of this today in other magazine articles, and pruned them back to one cover each since there wasn't any related discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have first article on hold pending resolution of possible copyright concerns

The framework for my first article Paul Shoup was taken from text in a government application for the National Register of Historic Places application, written by an author I hired to write the application, which I now have a written release from her in the recommended format I found on wikipedia. Is there someone I can forward this info to to review and determine that there is no longer any copyright concerns for the article? Wjenning (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you're referring to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Shoup. Without knowing what this written release contains, I can't know whether there are still copyright concerns. Are you the copyright holder, or is the author? If she still holds the copyright, is she willing to release the text under Wikipedia's license, which allow anyone to reuse the text for any purpose, even modifications and commercial reuse? If so, then that's great; simply forward her written release to our OTRS group by e-mailing permissions-en@wikimedia.org, and one of our OTRS volunteers will confirm that there are no further problems. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for support and help: I was able to contact the original author and have her release the text copyright - this was quickly resolved by the volunteers of the OTRS group, and the page was able to be published today. Wjenning (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

help remove my name...

File:Figurenude_by_CN_Foundation_2005.jpg

The preceding file was done by me but I am trying to prevent my name from returning this image at Google Inc searches and the use of my personal name in the file history causes it to return in searches.

I am involved in US Federal litigation against Google Inc and wish all personal uses of my name to be replaced by "CN Foundation" as is done on my other donations to Wiki. Thank you very much.CurtisNeeley (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The image is hosted on Commons. There's nothing we can do here on en.wikipedia. You should follow the instructions located at Commons:Oversight. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Photos directly from another PC via e-mail

My friends photographed the musuem I direct and sent digitized copies to me via e-mail. I uploaded them to Commons, but they were deleted with the explanation that a license was not sent. Which license should I use? These photos do not exist on any website. Thank-you. Mirga Girnius — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgirnius (talkcontribs) 13:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading a flag of Afghanistan's political party

Can I upload a flag or symbol of a political party (Afghanistan)? As there is no copyrights law in the country, the flag or symbol was first published in Afghanistan when the party was first established. Can I? if yes, please tell me under what license? Should I tag it PD?

You may find what you need has already bee uploaded to the commons at commons:Category:Political parties in Afghanistan or under one of the several subcategories of commons:Category:Afghanistan where you will also find this flag image. ww2censor (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
After looking thoroughly within the wikipedia and commons, I could not find what I am looking for. I want to upload a smybol or flag of w:Hezbe Wahdat a political party in Afghanistan. Can I, as explained above about the copyrights policy. Hazara Birar (Talk) 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
According to commons:Commons:L#Afghanistan there is currently no copyright in Afghanistan, so you should be ok uploading the political party logo you want. Upload it to the commons so all projects can use it. You may also want to read Afghanistan and copyright issues. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance. I am not sure what license should I put? Can you please help me Hazara Birar (Talk) 16:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Simply use commons:template:PD-Afghanistan--Antemister (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed the link in Antemister's comment; it had been "commons:PD-Afghanistan", which doesn't exist. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Light Rail Map

I want to upload a map of the Denver RTD Bus & Light Rail system. There is a good picture at [2], but I'm not sure how to upload it. Can you help? 71.59.198.33 (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly that image is copyright so we cannot use it and secondly you are not a registered uses who has been autoconfirmed (registered for more than 4 days and made more than 10 edits). However, someone could draw an map of the system and upload that, so long as it is not s slavish copy. ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by drawing a map? Printing out and tracing a map? Sorry, I'm a Wikipedia newbie. 71.59.198.33 (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
If you print out the map and make a drawing of it, that will be a derivative work which we don't allow. You need to make a new drawing from scratch though it can be based on the general design of the one you linked to above or even more than one map. ww2censor (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to do that. Do you know anyone who might be able to make the map? Thanks for all the help. 71.59.198.33 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Another thing: I found this link It says on the page, "Image courtesy RTD. Public domain." Huh? So is that image copyright or public domain? The photo is the same as the one on the website. 71.59.198.33 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Flickr image seems to have been uploaded by someone unrelated to the RTD, so there's no evidence that the uploader is telling the truth. Please don't upload it. The advice given above is still valid; you're free to make a new map (digitally; you can draw it in the Paint program for Windows if you'd like) if you want. You'll have to create an account to be able to upload an image, since Wikipedia is set up so that people editing without accounts can't upload images. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick question about citation on a logo uploaded for the First Niagara Center page. It had been discussed that the logo I uploaded 250px may be removed due to possible copyright. However, if the logo was found on the Arena's facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/First-Niagara-Center/224031717645078), and specifically this image that was used: https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=238715072843409&set=a.224110964303820.51737.224031717645078&type=3&theater, what would be the best way to cite it? Only thing I know is that it would have been created in 2011, and it is not used on the arena's website. It also does not appear to have any copyright marks on there. Thanks for your help. Babyox4420 (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for the logo to have copyright marks: in the US works on or after March 1, 1989, are not required to have the copyright tag to be protected. However, logos consisting of plain text or simple geometric shapes are not copyrightable, even though they may be trademarked. This isn't as clear cut a case as I would like, but I'd go with Template:PD-textlogo. I'd cite it to the company that created it and the location where you downloaded it from. - Bilby (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing jpeg

Is it illegal to edit someones jpeg and repost it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.190.90 (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on the licensing terms. Do you have a specific image in mind that you're asking about? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Screen shots of a copyright computer program in action

What about screen shots of a copyright computer program in action? Example: File:Java code from uml.png. I can't seem to find a help desk like this at Commons and I don't want to nominate this file for deletion if this sort of thing is OK. Voceditenore (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the licensing status of the computer program? If it's GPL or similar, then fine. If it's not, then you should nominate it for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will nominate it and we'll see what happens. The program is Sun ONE Studio 5, Standard Edition. From the company's web page, it appears not to be GPL as it's a product for sale:
"A free 60-day trial of Sun Studio 5, Standard Edition is available for Solaris 8 OS and 9 OS (SPARCR Platform Edition), Red Hat Linux 7.2, Windows 2000, and XP Professional platforms".
Voceditenore (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hank Williams

I have been working on Hank Williams' article, that was recently listed as a GA. I have found pictures of Williams in the official site of the Alabama Department of Archives and History. Since the description did not clarify the copyright status of the photographs, I sent an e-mail to the Archives asking for the specific copyright, and I received this reply:

We don't have any information about the origins or photographers of these images. The physical copies belong to us, but the copyright statuses are unknown. Because it is almost impossible to determine who would hold such rights (unless the holders identify themselves), we have decided to post the images for educational purposes. If you decide to do the same, we still ask that you complete our standard permission form so that we will have a record of the use: http://www.archives.alabama.gov/referenc/private2.pdf

After doing some search in the commons I have found images belonging to the Archives of Alabama posted with an {{Attribution}} license, such as File:Governor William W. Brandon.jpg. Would it be proper to upload pictures under this license?

--GDuwenTell me! 21:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    • I'm afraid not. These images may well be copyrighted, and there's no way to tell whether they are or not. The state of Alabama does not have the legal right to license these images under an "attribution" restriction. – Quadell (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Logo question

The Journal of Cosmology logo (File:Journal of Cosmology.jpg) is a public domain picture of the Helix Nebula (File:169141main piaa09178.jpg), with some text over it. Would this fall below the threshold of originality required for a copyright claim, and put this image in the public domain as well / eligible for transfer to commons? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling this image a logo is stretching the concept beyond the reasonable. That image is not widely used on the journal's website. It appears only on an one obscure page of the site. Regardless, if you examine the image closely you will notice that the image of the nebula is featured in the center but it is framed by a wide array of manually produced imagery which is clearly not present in the raw photograph. These manipulations make this image unique as well as the textual elements which may also be copyrighted. --174.252.192.157 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Note that this IP is a sock of BookWorm44, a long term disruptive editor. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The added scattering around the nebula isn't creative enough to warrant copyright over the whole logo (even if it took the artist seven years to make that modification). This logo in my opinion cannot carry an copyright. AzaToth 22:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, fields updated and moved to commons. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this was the right decision. – Quadell (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding Grey De Lisle Image

How do I make sure that File:Grey delisle.jpgdoesnt get deleted? I was contacted by the subject of that image to post that in her Wikipedia page and I got a message a few days ago that its missing information on its copyright status and its source. Now the subject approved of that image and Im confused as to how to make sure that this image stays on her page. Im fairly new to uploading images and forgive me for my confusion.

Corradopark3 (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  • The subject approving the image doesn't affect its copyright status here. Who holds copyrights to the image and where did you get the image? Find that out. Then, ask the holder of those rights to license the image under a free license. You can do so by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:1896 Olympic marathon.jpg

Per this link at Getty Images, the description for File:1896 Olympic marathon.jpg is incorrect and the author is missing. What steps need to be taken to rectify this? Thanks! Location (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

  • You can log into Commons and update it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hunchback

File:Example.jpg hey um can you guys do an image for the hunchback of norte dame 2 please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.248.6 (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Logos of NATO, SEATO und CENTO

Can we keep those logos on Commons: File:CENTO.gif, File:NATO flag.svg SEATO's logo was deleted on Commons [3] What's about the copyright of documents of international organizations? Which law applys?--Antemister (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's tough, I don't know. I've asked Lupo... we'll see if he has some insight. – Quadell (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Some copyright laws exclude documents of international organisations from copyright protection like government texts. But which law applies here? Is it enough that the logos are PD in USA? Are international treaties protected in the US?--Antemister (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Here in the USA, all laws are PD, and the US Constitution provides that treaties are law. Of course, logos likely aren't part of a treaty's legally enforceable text, but the text of a treaty is PD-US. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It is some kind of general rule on Commons that logos or seals on PD government works are also PD, otherwise we could not keep such important images there. One issue seems to be solved. The next question is if the such documents have to be PD in every member state. In case that documents of international organisations are treated like normal government documents, uploading the images here seems to be possible. Other opinions?--Antemister (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Subway cookies

Could one of the experts here please look at User talk:Dbiel#Invalid license? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As to the images on Commons, File:SubClub.JPG and File:Subwaysandwich.jpg are clearly not problematic, as they do not reproduce copyrightable content. (Typefaces can't be copyrighted, and the words are not creative or lengthy enough to be eligible.) However I would say that File:Subwayspecial.jpg is a reproduction of copyrighted content, and should be deleted. I'll nominate it for deletion on Commons.
As for the main image in question, File:Subway Cookies.jpg, this is a tough judgment call. On the one hand, the logo (including tomato images) is a creative work, and may well be eligible for copyright protection. A large fraction of the content is reproduced, so it may well be a copyright violation. On the other hand, the logo is clearly incidental (not the focus of the image), it is not reproduced in such a way as to decrease the market value of the work, it could not be fully reconstructed from the image, and this image does not compete with the use of the original logo. Either (a) the {{trademark}} tag is enough to cover the trademark, and we can leave it as is, or (b) it should be replaced by a fully-free image that only shows the cookies, perhaps made by cropping this photo. I would advocate option (a), but others may disagree. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo Circa 1915 from Photographer Tibbetts who died in 1937

Would this photo be in the public domain? It was a file photo for Southern Pacific. I don't know if it was ever published. I've read that Copyright prior to 1964 was for 28 years, with one renewal allowed -- maximum of 56 years. - is this true? If so, would the photo be considered public domain for wiki? Wjenning (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If it was never published, how did you come across it? Do you have access to Tibbetts' personal collection? Or is the image available on the web somewhere? A quick Google search didn't find any info on a Tibbetts who died in 1937... – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Seller on Ebay in the local community forwarded me a scan of the image from a collection he received with original photographs that Howard Clinton Tibbitts (I typed in the name wrong, after midnight last night) photographed while he worked for Southern Pacific Railroads. He died in 1937 as per: http://blog.americanhistory.si.edu/osaycanyousee/2011/02/1915-san-francisco-panama-pacific-international-exposition-in-color.html Wjenning (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not really accurate. If it's never been published before, then it would be life of the author + 70. If it was published before 1923, it's in the public domain. If it was published after 1922, it's hairy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This image is almost certainly in the public domain. If it was never published (or first published after 2002), then it's life+70 and therefore PD. If it was published before 1923, then it's PD. If it was published between 1923 and 1978, it's almost certainly PD, since copyright formalities and renewals weren't usually applied for simple photographs, and that's a longshot anyway. These sorts of photos are routinely kept. I would simply upload a scan to Commons and tag both {{PD-1923}} and {{PD-old-70}}. – Quadell (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have reached out to Union Pacific, who purchased Southern Pacific, to see if they could give me a release on the Tibbitts photo in question. I have no reason to believe it's ever been published, but I figure if I get the release from UP, then there is no concerns at all. I will hold off on the upload until I hear back from the railroad that hired Tibbitts and had the stock photos in their files. Wjenning (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Are the political mascot logos (elephant and donkey) copyrighted logos?

I'm unable to find information that tells me if political mascots of Elephant and Donkey, especially the ones they currently use in logos, are something I can use or if they're copyrighted. If they are, am I safe with a close variation? Thanks. 74.109.242.4 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC) --JIM

There are many different elephant and donkey logos still in use by the U.S. Democrat and Republican parties. Most were certainly created after 1923, and are many are probably copyrighted. There are user-created free versions of the Democratic donkey at Commons:Category:Democratic Party (United States), though there don't seem to be any of the Republican elephant currently. – Quadell (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The donkey and elephant as partisan symbols date back to Thomas Nast (who used the donkey as a mockery of the Dems, in contrast to the majesty of the elephant), and are not trademarked in any way. As Quadell says, specific artwork depicting them may be post-1923 and thus copyrighted. Shouldn't be too hard for somebody less art-challenged than myself to create a new one for Commons use. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Vintage Roosevelt cartoon

Is this in the public domain? File:Tax-spend.JPG Probably a good candidate to move to Commons. – Lionel (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is probably not in the public domain, no. – Quadell (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
That is not in the public domain; it is not a parody, and does not qualify for the fair-use exemption claimed by the uploader. I have deleted it immediately as a copyright violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

use of image

I would like to use this [:File:780_Map_of_West_Point_Defense.jpg] ghosted back 50% for a cover of a book. What do I need to do if anything. Thank you. usmilhist@fuse.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmilhist (talkcontribs) 14:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean File:1780 Map of West Point Defenses.jpg. Since that image is in the public domain, there is nothing you need to do. It's totally free for anyone to use in any way. – Quadell (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of a photo I took of a commerical product

I joined Wikipedia some years ago and am only now finding time to learn how to contribute.

This weekend I have been cleaning up the page Daisy (doll) and wanted to add a picture of what the doll looks like. Since I have a MIP Daisy Doll, I took a photo of it File:Dashing Daisy Ice Queen 65703 in original box.jpg and added it to the listing, chosing the copyright option that made most sense to me since I'd taken a photo of an item that included a logo.

Soon after I received notification that I "provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status."

Usually my images are licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution, No Derivative Works licence, but since this is a photo of a manufactured item, is the copyright for the item or of my photo of the item?

Thanks in advance for your clarification --TheShoppingSherpa (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Product shots get a bit tricky. In general, functional products that don't have any artistic component are ok - for example, vehicles with a normal solid paint job or game consoles - but artistic works remain under copyright. In this case, especially with the addition of packaging artwork, I'd count it as a derivative work of a copyrighted product, and therefore the photos can't be released under a CC license. So I'd go with a fair-use claim, myself. - Bilby (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. What is a fair use claim (yes, I searched for it on Wikipedia already and it overwhelmed me with information)and how do I change the license on the photo to reflect fair use? Or would it be easier to take another photo without the packaging? (Which seems a shame)--TheShoppingSherpa (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The packaging makes things clearer, but taking it away won't help, as the doll is itself an artistic work. On the plus side, I can't see a problem with a fair use rationale - you already have one that covers the logo, so if you replace it with Template:Non-free use rationale and encompass it should be good. I can see why an image of the doll would be required to discuss the doll's design, so I wouldn't have thought that there would be a problem. - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a really tricky area even for the most experienced editors. See one example here how I handle toy images like this: File:Billyblastoff.jpg. By the way, do contemporary toy images need some extra tagging or licensing notes if they also include the logo/packaging? ie File:My child.jpg? Siawase (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

help

Hi, i am trying to see if am or not copyrighting this specific image? its of a bernese mountain dog on google. i wanted to suggest it as an image to my friend~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.22.201 (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=dogs&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS421&biw=1024&bih=484&tbm=isch&tbnid=A-z1HXmqKNymhM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flashcoo.com/animal/Guide_Dogs/html/wallpaper6.html&docid=hgj_AfoY6IZqlM&imgurl=http://www.flashcoo.com/animal/Guide_Dogs/images/11-tawny%2527s-guide-dogs-1999-cal-november.jpg&w=700&h=525&ei=skKWTo2SEsriiALkrPDcDQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=581&vpy=169&dur=125&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=136&ty=207&sig=104328549051817973796&page=8&tbnh=120&tbnw=150&start=71&ndsp=11&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:71 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.22.201 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the image is copyrighted. I don't know who holds the copyright. But this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
At the bottom right of this webpage it clearly shows a copyright notice and states that commercial use is not permitted, only personal use, so it is copyright and we can't use it. ww2censor (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

copyright permission

Dear Sir,


I am sorry for consoling your valuable time. I am preparing a manuscript on Sidr, 2007 in Bangladesh. For the reason I want to use two photo entitled

1. Cyclone Sidr in the Bay of Bengal near peak intensity 2. Storm path


The URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Sidr

So, please help me by giving the copyright permission of two photos. I am waiting for your great reply.


Sincerely yours,


Md. Mahmudul Hasan PhD Candidate Department of Plant Nutrition College of Resources and Environmental Sciences China Agricultural University, Beijing

[email+phone details redacted]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.202.187.164 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Both of these images are in the public domain, and are not copyrighted. You can use them in any way you like, without obtaining permission from anyone. – Quadell (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Please don't put your email address / phone number on Wikipedia; users will reply to you on the wikipedia pages. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  19:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for review of a file

I want to include Datei:FernsehturmTaschkent.jpg, which is located on the German Wikipedia, in an article here at the English Wikipedia. The first template on the file page says the file requires an individual review before it can be moved to Commons. Can someone here at MCQ perform this review? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Although in theory it could be uploaded to Commons, the current practice at Commons is often to refuse images of architectural works situated in Uzbekistan. So, it is better not to upload it to Commons, because it would probably be deleted. Also, the description at de.wikipedia is not clear on the source and author. The uploader merely mentioned « Aus dem Fotoalbum », which really does not tell clearly if it is the work of the uploader or not. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of Nelson Rockefeller portrait

I have questions about the copyright status of the Nelson Rockefeller portrait: File:Nelson Rockefeller.jpg. In the image, notice the Corbis watermark in the top right left. Now, I believe the image itself is public domain because it is a work of the US Government. However, the Corbis watermark not only undermines that statement, it looks tacky on the article. I have been unable to find a copy of this image with the same high resolution as the Corbis image (there are other images online that are just up-converts of the lower resolution image) without the watermark. Is there a proper course of action for Wikipedia? Should we use the lower resolution, non-watermarked image, or should we find a way to remove the watermark? --Nick2253 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, first off, why do you think it's a work of the U.S. Government? That's certainly plausible, but I don't see any evidence. If it is, then there are ways of removing watermarks like this. Tag the image with {{watermark}}. – Quadell (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Promotional brochures as sources?

A question has come up regarding the use of promotional brochures for vehicles, published by the automaker, as reliable sources for assertions (or, more frequently, statements of specification) in automobile articles. At least one editor feels such brochures are not acceptable as sources per WP:ELNEVER; he considers them to be automatically copyrighted by dint of publication in the USA after 1978. I disagree for a couple of reasons: the actual content of the brochure is not being presented (images or whole pages are not being scanned in and used in articles, for example), the brochures are being used as sources and not as external links (which would seem to make WP:ELNO and WP:ELNEVER inapplicable), and the copyright status of such a brochure is—at least to my mind—questionable because we aren't talking about a book, magazine, or other work that could reasonably be assumed to have reserved rights; rather we are discussing promotional literature designed, intended, and published for free and wide distribution. Please see examples of removal of such sources here, here, and here. Comment and clarification will be appreciated from those better versed than I in Wikipedia policy on such matters. Please and thank you. —Scheinwerfermann T·C01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The manuals themselves are almost certainly copyrighted. To the extent that the site is hosting the manuals without permission of the copyright holder, WP:ELNEVER applies. Perhaps someone else can offer insight on how you would determine if the site lacks permission. Assuming ELNEVER applies, that only means you may not link to the manual in your reference. You can certainly use individual facts contained in the manual, referencing to the manual but not providing an external link. Monty845 02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Point of clarification: Not manuals, but promotional brochures. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I focused to heavily on the website name, but the analysis is the same, the promotional brochure is almost certainly copyrighted, but the individual facts contained therein may be used. It doesn't take much to reach the threshold for being copyrighted. Monty845 02:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Brochures published after 1978 did not get an automatic copyright, it is after March 1989. See this 1985 Microsoft Windows 1.0 Brochure. [4] Microsoft did not use a copyright notice or file a registration, so it is public domain. A brochure can be a reliable source for things like specifications, features or model names. The brochure still exists even if the web site it does not have permission to host it. There is no requirement that sources need a web link. Make your reference a cite book instead of a site web and don't include a link. You could mention the web site on the article talk page. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I went to the Old Car Brochure web site and searched for "1981 Lincoln" then followed the "1981 Lincoln Continental Mark VI Brochure" link. Inspection of the first two and last two pages does not show a copyright notice. I did not check for a copyright registration. The back page shows the "Continental Mark VI 1981" brochure was published in 1980 by the Lincoln-Mercury division of Ford Motor Company. The date is hard to read but appears to be 8-1980. The brochure may be public domain. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It appears that most if not all of the brochures on the Old Car Brochure web site are pre 1989. A copyright notice should be on the front cover, back cover or title page (either side). It was a common practice for advertisement to be published without a copyright. Note that some companies always had a notice (Texas Instruments) and some companies were hit or miss. I don't have any old car brochures but I know that many of the electronics and computer brochures and advertisements did not have a copyright notice. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

sorry I am disabled — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.87.186 (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Photos

Hi,

I am wondering if someone is legally allowed to take a photo that they have found on facebook and sell that photo to a newspaper?

Thanks,

Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.144.66 (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No. If you didn't create the photo yourself, you don't hold the copyright, and you can't sell it. – Quadell (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not give legal advice. Consult with an attorney.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Threshold of originality

Does File:BBC_logo_(pre97).svg meet the threshold of originality to be considered copyrightable? My opinion is that being entirely consisted of text and simple rhomboid shapes in solid colours would make it PD-ineligible, and a candidate to be moved to the commons. Techtri (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. Commons has many logos with this same (negligible) level of artistic creativity. – Quadell (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

using an image

Hello, I would like to use the image (

Description

EMS-89615 Egyptian wooden model of beer making in ancient Egypt.

Source

self-made

Date

12May2007

Author

E. Michael Smith User:Chiefio

Permission
(Reusing this file)

See below.


)

It is published under the following licences: GNU Free Documentation License. & the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

I am unsure as to how to give attribution for this image. It is to be used in a power point presentation that will be published online. Could you please give me a hand? Thanks very much, 142.103.231.3 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, You probably refer to the image EMS-89615-Rosecrucian-Egyptian-BeerMaking.jpg. If the author was still active on Commons, the best thing would be to ask your question directly to him, but apparently he has not been active since 2007. In a case like this, it may not be entirely clear if the author really wanted to be attributed under a combination of what looks like a real name and a username. To be safe, the best solution is probably to give attribution to the author under the identity he used in the "author" field on the description page : E. Michael Smith Chiefio, unless you have a particular reason to believe that he indicated that he wanted a different attribution. It is your responsibility to choose one of the three licensing options that are available for this image, and to word the credits according to your own understanding of that license, taking into account your style and the particularities of the media you are using. For what it's worth, if I were to reproduce that image under, for example, the CC-by-2.5 Generic license, I would probably write something more or less like this:
"Photo by E. Michael Smith Chiefio, EMS-89615-Rosecrucian-Egyptian-BeerMaking.jpg. Used under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode). Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EMS-89615-Rosecrucian-Egyptian-BeerMaking.jpg"
But that's just my style. Other people would word it differently. Any style is fine, as long as you are satisfied that your wording includes the mentions required by the text of the license. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

1923 question

I'm busy with Walking Liberty half dollar. The reverse, or tails side was based on a medal that Adolph Weinman did in 1907 for the American Institute of Architects, it can be seen with the eagle. So is a 1907 medal that was photographed and published before 1923 out of copyright even though the medallist hasn't been dead 70 years? Convince me! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate this stuff, and I'm not going to do a full-blown analysis or cite any legal authorities except the simplest: "Applying these standards, all works published in the United States before January 1, 1923, are in the public domain." (U.S. Copyright Office "Duration of Copyright") --Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

I'm not sure how to determine if this image is appropriate under copyright restrictions. I copied the image from this website, but it is a historical place drawing from 260 years ago.

File:Carbonear Island 1750map.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokebaby5 (talkcontribs) 19:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The upload is fine. But, on the file's description page, please include at least the link to the source (the webpage you mentioned above) and a status tag to indicate that the image is in the public domain (for example the {{PD-old}} tag). It is good practice to use the {{Information}} template to include the basic information, such as a description (at least a few words to tell what the image is), the source, the date, the author ("unknown", if unknown). Please also add relevant information and a license tag to the other file you uploaded (if you are the author of the photo, you choose the license). It is also recommended to upload such free images on Wikimedia Commons (instead of on Wikipedia), so they could be used by other language Wikipedias. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Help!!

Hello, I want to upload an image from this website of a 3D reconstructed head of a mummy, a bog body specific, called Yde Girl. The image of the reconstion does NOT belong to the website, but to Richard Neave Source, who created the sculpture. I also want to use it on List of bog bodies. I also plan on using the same liscence as the image of the Lindow Man. I could use a little help on how to upload the image. --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 00:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You should email Richard Neave and ask him to release the image under a WP-compatible license. →Στc. 00:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading of image on Wikipedia

I uploaded an image on the 13th of October. I received a message saying I hadn't provided enough information. I've added some details, but I am not sure whether it's enough to prevent deletion. Could someone please have a look and inform me about the other details that need to go in there ? Thank you. Srinathkr3 (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

We need you to give a license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0. Also it is good to know the date you created it and how you made it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I just added the required tags and gave a brief summary of the image. Is that enough ? Srinathkr3 (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

looks OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

How to tag items that are clearly in the public domain in the U.S.

I have spoken to an archivist at Stanford University about the use of various photographs that I have posted under Shark Island, German South West Africa, Okahandja Concentration Camp, Windhoek Concentration Camp and Swakopmund Concentration Camp. These photographs were taken roughly between 1904 and 1918. I was told that in the United States anything that was published before 1923 is now in the public domain. Precisely because of this, I avoided posting these photos to WikiMedia Commons, where they could possibly be used internationally (not limited to the United States). Thus, these photographs should be in the public domain in the United States.

Since there was no way to assign these photos "Public Domain" as a classification (that choice is not one of those in the drop-down for classifying photos when you upload), I assigned them the classification "Historically significant fair use (deceased persons or historic events)". There ought to be no fee for using a photograph that's in the public domain!

Was the classification I assigned, incorrect? Please advise! I want these photos to be seen legitimately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virago250 (talkcontribs) 06:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you know if the images were published in the US before 1923? If so it is easy to prove public domain. Otherwise you will have to pay attention to German South West Africa copyright law. Look at Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It depends on where the photo was originally published; if it was published in Germany, you'll want to pay attention to German law ({{PD-old-70}}); if in German South West Africa, I imagine that Namibia probably holds the current copyrights ({{PD-Namibia}}). You can use this, in conjunction with Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, in case the images were published after 1923. If they were published after 1923 (or never published), you'll have to look at this document [5] to determine the copyright status in the US. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

purchase the space invaders game, the original

Where can I find the orginal space invaders game for purchasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.27.117 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

applying a copyright to a photo

I need to put a copyright on a photograph... after uploading photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmg706 (talkcontribs) 18:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

When you want to add something to a file description page, you can edit the page, like you would edit any other page. If you are talking about File:Robert H. May.jpg, please provide the source from where you took it. Also the author and first publication details, if available. You were trying to add a CC licence, but it would be surprising if this 1872 photo was under a CC licence, or you should explain why it is. Also, why uplaod two different photos on top of each other? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo of Acija Alfirevic

Photo of Acija Alfirevic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goran500 (talkcontribs) 22:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an article at Acija Alfirević but what is the question? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I credit an image's copyright to myself?

How do I credit an image's copyright to myself? Is that even plausible? Thank you ZephyrWind (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this regarding the image File:WilliamScorpion.jpg that you recently uploaded? Where did this image come from? Did you take the photo yourself? If you hold the copyright to this image you can license it for use under a free license. A free license allows anyone (not just Wikipedia) to use the image for any purpose, even to making derivative works or commercial uses. One such license is the Creative Commons attribution license, which only requires that the copyright holder (you, if you took the photo) be credited. For more details, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However, if you don't own the copyright to this image you may try reading Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information and guidance on how to proceed. If you can provide additional details about the source of this image I'm willing to assist you with this image. —RP88 (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Railroad drumheads

User:SchuminWeb has gone on a campaign of deleting images of named train drumhead logos (e.g. this edit) claiming that since there is no explicit discussion of the logo, fair use does not apply. As most articles which show a logo do not discuss it, this seems rather questionable. Mangoe (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just drumheads. It's historic images and logos. He also did this to Empire Builder (train) a month ago, yet he left the contemporary logos there. ----DanTD (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
All non-free image must comply with all 10 non-free content policy guidelines and in the case of File:BO Cincinnatian combined.png a generic fair-use rationale claims that the purpose is that: the image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Cincinnatian passenger train, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization which is not the use. In addition the removal was made due to failing WP:NFCC#8. That is 2 strikes against the image as it was used. Many articles use a contemporary logo in the infobox to identify the organisation and that use is regarded as acceptable under our fair-use policy. ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not follow your argument at all. "Contemporary" to what? These trains haven't run in forty years, and the B&O passed out of existence back in the 1980s. Also, I'm not interested in a legalistic "you didn't say the right magic words" argument, since if one knew what the magic words word, they could be said. Give me a reason why you think that these images cannot be used. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Since these seem to be published without copyright notice so long ago, I suspect copyright does not apply template:PD-US-1977 may apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
If it can be demonstrated that copyright in these old logos has expired and they have lapsed into the public domain (and thus free), then great - let's change the license to reflect this and move them to Commons. Otherwise, however, if they are still non-free, then they must comply with all ten criteria, and they are strict by design. Don't blame me that non-free images are being used against policy. I didn't put them there. I'm just the one enforcing said policy, and no one likes someone who makes them follow the rules. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Your explanation of how you are enforcing that policy needs further explanation, as a reading of the clause you are invoking shows it does not contain the statement you have stuck on your changes. It appears to be merely your personal interpretation of policy. Mangoe (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's an idea: Rather than whining about how a policy doesn't fall your way, I have a project for you. In the same work that has landed all of these NFCC violations, I also have a number files that are actually public domain that need sourcing work. These are files that were previously tagged as non-free, but actually are public domain due to their being too simple to copyright (just text and simple shapes). We can use these freely, but I can't move them to Commons because the sourcing (where the image came from) is insufficient. They are currently tagged for deletion after a waiting period for sourcing, but if you can find sources for them, add that and remove the tag so that we can transfer them to Commons. Here are the files:
Once again, these images are free and perfectly acceptable to use any way that we want. However, these free images need sourcing or else they will be deleted. Let's put all that energy to good use and fix that problem instead of complaining about decorative non-free images. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that any of these is not trademarked (and therefore possibly free), and both groups have the same function anyway, so I don't see the point of trying to save one group over the other. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Then don't waste my time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Look, I didn't put any of these images in these articles in these articles, as you know perfectly well. I've mostly added content in areas where explicitly PD images are available and where fair use is largely impossible, so that's all I have experience working with. I asked for an explanation since your stated reason for removal was an interpretation of policy; so is your claim about these other heralds. Your officious and confrontational response is not an explanation. I also see that you appear to be plowing through the Otto Perry collection, and it seems to me that the whole group could be discussed—discussed—at once instead of sending thirty different people scurrying over a long piecemeal list of deletions. Mangoe (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Children, please! "Whining"? "Waste my time?" It is time for a beer summit. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal image + wounds + Fineral

Can I use the following pictures for Death of Ahmed Jaber al-Qattan topic? The pictures are:

  1. Personal picture for Ahmed before he died.
  2. Picture for his body with birdshot (buckshot) in it just after he died.
  3. His body at the morgue which shows the autopsy mark.
  4. Two different pictures for his funeral.

Those pictures were release on a political forum for distribution, but the author doesn't mention any license for copyright. One of the pictures is taken from a media Facebook page, again intended for distribution.

This is one of the pictures.

I uploaded the images to the Commons, under Free Art License, but that was considered as copyright violation. 2 of those pictures have been deleted.

I was advised to upload them here at Wikipedia claiming fair use, is that OK? and how to do so? Bahraini Activist (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. You haven't tried to get them released under a free license yet. Contact the photographers or appeal on social media. This is high profile enough you'll have to register anything you get with WP:OTRS or risk deletion, perhaps for reasons not entirely aimed at improving the site. Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I have tried to get them released under a free license. The photographers don't respond, it seems they don't understand the importance of releasing the work under licenses. In my culture people just save pictures and publish them without permission. And in situations like those in Bahrain people want their work to be published regardless to their copyright.

How to appeal? Bahraini Activist (talk) 07:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

my own personal photograph that I took

My image does not have a copyright. It is my own personal photograph that I took. Could you please advise me on what to do, how to reference it so it is accepted by Wikipedia. Here is the image for Tony_Harrington,_aka_Doctah_X.jpg‎ (269 × 463 pixels, file size: 30 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenbellxx (talkcontribs) 21:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean File:Tony Harrington, aka Doctah X.jpg. You must add a freely licenced copyright tag and fill in all the details in the information template that I have added to the image. Many photographers use the template {{PD-self}} to release their images. ww2censor (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SO much. I'll do it, and thanks again!! I'm truly grateful. Karenbellxx----
Thanks again. I tried what you suggested but am getting very discouraged. It didn't seem to work. I appreciate your help, but Wikipedia sends me to so many links with so much information and it never seems to tell me what I need to know. What I need is a simple formula which is what I thought you tried to give me, but I must not be techy enough to make it work. I SO want to be done with this project. I'm sure you'd like that too! I think the article is interesting and the photo looks good. I wish I could get Wikipediat to accept it and let me move on. Please advise again. I'm SO sorry to be taking up your time. Thanks again. karenbellxx(----)10/16/11
Before you do anything irrevocable, you must decide what you really want to do with your copyright on this photo and you should be comfortable with the consequences of that decision. Do you want to reserve all rights, some rights, or give away all your rights on this photo?:
  • If you want to reserve all your rights, then the image cannot be hosted on Wikipedia (or on Wikimedia Commons).
  • If you want to give some rights but still want to retain some other rights (so that other people can reuse the photo but on condition that they must at least credit you as the author), then you can choose any of the available free licenses. If you're not sure which free license to choose, one that is often recommended is CC-by-sa-3.0 unported. If you want to use it, you can copy the tag {{CC-by-sa-3.0|Karen Bell}} to the image description page. If you prefer another free license, you can copy the tag associated with the license of your choice. Specify the name under which you want to be credited (it can be your Wikipedia username Karenbellxx or you can specify a different name for attribution).
  • If you don't care at all that anyone can do whatever they want with the photo and you want to give away all your rights on it (in other words, you want to give the photo to the public domain), then one recommended tag to express your decision to that effect could be Cc-zero. Note that if you give your photo to the public domain, you cannot change you mind later. So, before you take that decision you should read what it means there, and if that's ok with you then copy the tag {{Cc-zero}} to the image description page. (Or the tag {{PD-self}}, which has almost the same effect.)
-- Asclepias (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
While you filled in the information template completely you seem to have had difficulty with the licence. Perhaps you were thinking too hard about it because you just needed to add the {{PD-self}} tag just as it is written and not with the hidden display coding, template prefix or file name added. I have modified the licence to show correctly now and unless you are unhappy with it, the deletion notices can be removed. Should you want to apply a different licence per Asclepias' suggestions above, just change what is there for a different one. Hope that helps. Don't get disheartened by any initial difficulties; copyright can be a bit difficult but there are always editors available to help you. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
OMG, you are so kind. I appreciate your help more than you can imagine. So I'm basically done now? Do I remove the tags or does someone else come and do it? I'm still confused about that since it seems an administrator needs to do it. I think Wikipedia is wonderful,just that I'm not adept at it. You all have been so helpful to me, and I will tell everyone I know about you. Please let me know if I need to do anything else. karenbellxx(---) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.58.193 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the PD licence you added previously but incorrectly formatted, that I fixed, you have added a Creative Commons attribution licence. You can't use both, one of the other applies. Choose one and remove the other. You can also remove the deletion notices when you have done that. ww2censor (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I think that in my example I should probably have written "Karen Bell" (instead of "Karenbelxx") as an example of the attribution parameter, because if I look at the image page, that seems to be the name you used in the author field. Anyway, just write whatever you want as the attribution parameter (that is the part that comes after the vertical line, after "CC-by-sa-3.0|", in the template. It tells people under what name exactly you want to be credited). -- Asclepias (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll leave the license you put in. I can't thank you enough. You are a saint!!!!I would hug you if I could. Karenbellxx(----).
It won't let me remove the "delete" tag. It says I'm not an administrator. Duh!! I certainly am not. I can barely get in and out w/o asking you how! Please advise. I even have a copy of the Missing Manual here, but can't find it in there. Again thanks for all of your help. Karen.(----)
I've remove the deletion notice and refined the other information. Perhaps you were clicking on the "delete this file" link instead of editing the notice out like any normal edit. It is all fine now. ww2censor (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I am so greatful. You have been such a HUGE help to me and to Doctah X. Wikipedia is lucky to have you. Karen Bell )----).

Copyright rules

Do you suppose I could upload the twitter profile picture of my subject to use as a photo on my wiki article? Is that allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikita sss (talkcontribs) 06:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is regarding Sangita Santosham, I am afraid the answer is almost certainly no. While the English Wikipedia allows limited use of non-free content, all such use has to comply with an established non-free content policy. In this case, your proposed upload runs afoul of WP:NFCC#1, namely that a free equivalent is either available, or could be created. Because Sangita Santosham is still living, it's reasonable that a Wikipedia contributor could take a picture of her and license it for use under a free license. As such, using a non-free image of her isn't permitted. —RP88 (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So I suppose as long as I get an authorization to use her photos i can use anything I can get my hands on. I can try getting one from her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikita sss (talkcontribs) 17:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be proof of that permissions, so an email from her to the OTRS queue see Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit stating that you have a permission to release her photos under the free cc-by-sa-3.0 license. But please make sure that she is copyright holder. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Moral Majority

Is this pic [6] free? And would it improve Moral Majority? Thanks, – Lionel (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No. The artwork on the membership card is copyrighted by the Moral Majority. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, the picture itself is licensed as cc-by-nc, which is a non-commercial license, which means it cannot be used at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information.

Regarding File:Fradelle.jpg, the uploader stated he owned the copyright, but this was actually a painting done in the 18th or 19th century. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

PD-old-100 applies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that somewhere around here

there is a discussion about "freedom of panorama" (or something like that) in different countries. I know that in the United States the creator of a statue has the rights to images of the work, but I also know that this is not true of all other countries. I have a photo of a statue in Mexico and am wondering if it is copyright free or not. I have this spot bookmarked, so hope to hear from someone. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A photograph taken of a statue covered by copyright is a derivative work of the statue, and absent special provisions in law you'd normally need permission from the statue's copyright holder to contribute your photo to Wikipedia. However, you are correct, in many countries a special exception in copyright law eliminates the need to get permission from the statue's copyright holder if the statue is in a public place (and, as you said, this is sometimes called "freedom of panorama"). Over on Commons there is an excellent summary (at Commons:Freedom of panorama) of these laws for many countries. For Mexico, if you take a photo of a statue visible from a public place (either an interior or exterior public place) you can license your photo under a free license and upload it to Commons. Make sure to include the {{FoP-Mexico}} tag in the image description for your photo along with the image copyright tag corresponding to the free license you choose for your photo. The only gray area is if the statue is located in a venue open to the public but the venue requires a fee for admission. Whether such a venue qualifies as a public place is not yet settled under Mexican law. —RP88 (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and informative reply. The statue is indeed in a free, public place, but I have not been able to upload pictures at Commons in a couple of weeks. Not that i have been in trouble there, just when I hit "Upload" (or whatever), I wait and then get a FAILED flag. I will try to upload it at wikipedia and hopefully the tag that you've provided me with will work here too. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately freedom of panorama and dealing with the attendant subtleties based on country of origin is mostly a project of Commons. None of the templates for dealing with FoP exist here at the English Wikipedia. If I were you, I'd try Commons again to see if your issue with uploads has been fixed (if not, maybe inquire at commons:Commons:Help_desk or commons:Commons:Village_Pump). If you can't resolve your upload issues with Commons and end up uploading your image here, I'd encourage you to mention Mexico's freedom of panorama in the permission section of your image summary. —RP88 (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I might try contacting Commons and see what they suggest. I did load the image here [7], probably without enough explanation. But that is my problem now. I originally wanted the picture for an article about the sculptor that I found on the Spanish wikipedia - there was no article in the English wiki, but I could not seem to be able to post it there. However I think I am going to squeeze an article out of bablefish translations - which are about 47% better than my Spanish, and what ever else I can drum up. Sort of a scary thought. Carptrash (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people have had problems using the commons upload wizard but you could try using this upload page but make sure to fill in everything you can and then add the FoP Mexico template after it has been uploaded. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I wandered over to the link that Ww2censor provided and it looks promising. However since it is beddy-bye time here I am not going to give it a try tonight. Once the week starts (I get Monday off !) thing can get weird, but especially after I get an article on Ignacio Asunsolo ready I shall, in the words of Douglas McArthur, return. Carptrash (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In making over 7500 uploads to Commons, I've never used anything other than Special:Upload. It just about always works for me. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

1920's election artefacts

 Done --Senra (Talk) 21:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have access to a selection of election leaflets, pamphlets and photographs from the election campaigning of Frank Broad MP from 1918-1935. I wish to use a photograph of Frank Broad on his Wikipedia page but I am unable to trace the photographer or accurately date the photograph. The image I wish to use comes from a 1922 post-election thank you card. The card is part of a private family collection of similar artefacts. I have not yet uploaded the image. How do I go about ensuring that I use the correct copyright tags on the image after uploading? Does Wikipedia (specifically Wikimedia Commons I guess) need written permission from the Broad family? --Senra (Talk) 11:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is from the UK. Template:PD-UK-unknown may apply. If you consult the Broad family and they do not know the photographer, then you will have met the reasonable inquiry requirement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
A few things: anonymity in the UK is based off making a reasonable search into the authorship. If you can't find the author, after making reasonable inquiry, then it is considered anonymous. This applies even if the author transferred the photo rights to the family.
Publication is defined as making copies available to the public at large. Handing out leaflets to people on the street probably applies; sending out only a few to friends in the mail probably doesn't.
If the item was published before 1941, and is anonymous, then it is public domain per Graeme Barlett.
If it was never published within 70 years of the photo being taken, and is anonymous, it is public domain (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/3297/made §5, Sec. 1-3)
If it was published after 1941 but before 70 years of the photo being taken, it is copyrighted and you need permission.
If you can find out the author and his/her date of death, then it's 70 years after their date of death.
Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Whatever happens, if it was widely distributed it's going to qualify as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, so can be uploaded to Wikipedia. If you can determine the UK copyright status, it may be possible to transfer it to Commons. Jheald (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Help required

I have uploaded a file File:Map_mumbai.gif I have also added a source http://202.54.119.40/basic_map.htm but still I am getting message for copyright. The source is Public Domain and anyone can use it so what can I do please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkalein (talkcontribs) 07:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The source is copyrighted, because Indian governmental works enter the public domain 60 years after their creation. I have deleted it as a copyright violation. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want a non-copyrighted map that depicts the same thing, you could ask on WP:GL/MAP and see if anyone would make one for you. That is where our volunteer map-makers hang out. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Iphone 4 Box

File:IPhone 4 box.JPG

De minimis is claimed for the image of the iphone 4 on the box lid (the copyright of which is almost certainly owned by Apple). I do not believe that de minimis applies in this case because there is no way that the image of the iPhone 4 can be considered incidental to the subject of the photograph. Further, the photograph has been taken to deliberately include the image. The principle further fails because the test of whether obscuring the image would significantly affect the subject matter of the picture fails - because it clearly would. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I note that the iPhone 3 box picture was deleted for precisely this reason. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I concur with your assessment. However, the image is on Commons. We can't do anything about it here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There is now a deletion nomination on Commons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Sf1912.jpg

I have uploaded this file: File:Sf1912.jpg, a Christams seal issued in 1912 in then Russian Finland. I was unaware who the author was. Now I have discovered that this Christmas seal had been designed by Väinö Blomstedt who died in 1947. I am uncertain now if there is any copyright covering this picture. Finnish post stamps issued prior to 1945 do not fall into this category, but I do not know how it looks like with Christmas seals. I hope it is in public domain now, but I would be happy if you could check this. If the image is copyrighted, please delete it. Thank you. Kiejstut9 (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

well if is not considered a work of art, the copyright expired in 1962. (template:PD-Finland50) but otherwise expires 70 years after author death in 2017. (Template:PD-Finland) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry: I'd say it's a work of art, and we'd have to wait until 2017. Somebody want to do the deletion honors on Commons? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

linking websites

Hi, please can you tell me how you link a website on your page? For example when writing Skysports how do you make it so if you click on the name it will direct you to their website?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.92.232.178 (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Opta Sports page already has all the links it needs. You correctly added links in this edit, but they were removed by a bot because these particular links are not allowed to appear in Wikipedia because they have been used for spam. I would stop trying to add these links, and also read WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

BP 110 is this correct?

I added the copyright tag "Promotional material" to this file File:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baha_3_BP_110_sound_processor.jpg Does it look OK now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josabeth (talkcontribs) 11:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid the image File:Baha_3_BP_110_sound_processor.jpg can't be used on Wikipedia. It's a non-free image of this device, but we'll need someone to create a free image for us to use it here. (We can't reproduce someone else's copyrighted image without their permission in this case.) – Quadell (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

image:HillsdaleMichignaDowntown.jpg Copyright

I uploaded the image mentioned. Wikipedia is threatening to delete it unless I release copyright data and permission from the original author. Below the image I recently included the FULL email exchange between the author and myself, in which he is clearly giving me permission to use his image. I would like the deletion warning removed immediately. Brother Atticus (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Brother Atticus

image:HillsdaleMichignaDowntown.jpg

You didn't upload it to Wikipedia; you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. You have to discuss its deletion there. Even ignoring technical requirements--a pasted-in email is generally not considered trustworthy enough--the permission is not sufficient. "Use on your web site and personal use by viewers are fine with me. I'd appreciate it if persons planning commercial use would contact me first to discuss their intent. I may or may not request compensation from them, depending upon their proposed use." is not good enough.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I don't see how the most literal possible statement of permission, presented outright to boot, can be "not good enough." Secondly, how can I provide a "link" to a statement of permission that was given over email? Am I supposed to hand out my email password? Brother Atticus (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Brother Atticus

It seems to me that the phrase "depending upon their proposed use" suggests that the image is not free. "Free" means the proposed use does not matter. Carptrash (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Because it's not a free license; it restricts commercial use. You need to use OTRS. And again, you need to discuss this on Commons, not Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

about the book 'the space program'.

what ponit of view does the author present in this acticle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.84.123.90 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our policy here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Weird image source issue

I have no idea if there's a better place than this one to point this out; I apologize if I picked the wrong page. I was curious about the source of File:35wBridgecollapse.gif so I looked at the description page and ended up pretty confused. Apparently (as far as I can surmise) the file was uploaded to Wikipedia, and then to Commons, and then for some reason, the Wikipedia description was replaced by the Commons description, which says "This file originated at Wikipedia" and links back to the Wikipedia description, which now just says "This file originated at Wikipedia" and links back to itself.

I don't know what, if anything, should be done to correct or improve this situation, but I thought I'd point it out to those who may have a better understanding of this stuff. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it used to say that - note the commons pages says "Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is/was here" - not a lot of use for most. But if someone on commons wanted to check all the history that did exist here, then they could do so (providing they are an admin here). Seems to be different now, one image I moved recently, now says just "Transferred from en.wikipedia"  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It makes sense for the Commons description to link to the original Wikipedia description, but I don't see why it makes sense to replace that Wikipedia description with the Commons description that just links back to the Wikipedia description that isn't there anymore. The fact that admins can still look at what used to be on the Wikipedia page doesn't make it all right. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong photo on ASTRA National Museum Complex's page

Good afternoon,

My name is Eliza Penciu and I'm working in the marketing department of ASTRA Museum from Sibiu. I would like to change the main photo of the page which belongs to Astra Library not to ASTRA Museum with one of our National Museum Complex. Which are the possibilities to do this very important task?

Thank you very much,

Eliza Penciu ASTRA Museum Sibiu phone: +40269202413 www.muzeulastra.ro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizapenciu (talkcontribs) 08:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Eliza Penciu, I'd be happy to help you. I assume this is regarding the page titled "ASTRA National Museum Complex"? The first thing you have to understand is that Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. This means that if ASTRA Museum Sibiu owns the copyright to a photo that you would like to upload and use on that page, you need to arrange for the photo to be licensed under a free license, such as the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (Romanian version). Wikipedia has a page that discusses how to donate content to Wikipedia. Probably the easiest way to do this is to upload your preferred photo to the www.muzeulastra.ro website, then send an email from a @muzeulastra.ro email address that references the URL to that image and indicates it is available to use with the language from the template at WP:CONSENT. Then upload the file to Wikimedia Commons and place {{OTRS pending}} on the image page. Someone from the OTRS team will reply to your email, indicating whether the content and your license is acceptable and update the page to indicate that the confirmation of the license has been received. If you require additional assistance please let me know, I'm happy to walk you through the process. —RP88 (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like this photo on Commons was uploaded by you. Is this the photo you'd like to use on the ASTRA National Museum Complex page? If so, all you have to do is edit that page to use the photo you've already uploaded to Commons. You still should arrange for Alexandru Olanescu to send an e-mail with the language from the template at WP:CONSENT indicating that he is willing to license his copyrighted image under a free license. As it currently stands, the folks at Commons might delete your photo on Commons sometime in the future since there currently is no indication in the photo's description that the uploader (Eliza Penciu) had permission from the photo's author (Alexandru Olanescu). —RP88 (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about picture on David A. Huffman

Picture: File:David A. Huffman.jpg

A new user Adamforum (Talk) added this picture in good faith to the article David A. Huffman. See also Talk:David A. Huffman#Photo.

I have no experience with copyright on pictures, so I'm not sure if the copyright status is ok. Can somebody with more experienced have a look here? Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 22:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The image is on the commons, not here, and there is no evidence to verify the FAL copyright status of the image, so it has been nominated for deletion. Several websites use the image but only two attribute the image to anyone except two University of California Santa Cruz webpages that attribute themselves and a photographer Don Harris. The image is likely in copyright. Because he is deceased it may be acceptable to use a local upload of this image under the non-free content policy guidelines but a reasonable search for a free image must be made before doing that. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that was written for editors like you. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi thank you Ww2censor for your help; I learned already a few things. I will keep the two provided links for reading later. -- SchreyP (messages) 06:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have to wait a certain amount of time before uploading a non-free content logo?

Do you have to wait a certain amount of time before uploading a non-free content logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosimo, Inc (talkcontribs) 16:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you have to satisfy the requirements for non-free material, so it has to be used in an article and serve a useful purpose. For new users they can't upload images until they have been here 4 days and edited 10 times, so that may be your situation. You can ask at WP:FFU if you cannot see an upload button. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

image uploading

The image is created by me.So i dont know what information to be added to it..Plase guide me as soon as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilima kale (talkcontribs) 07:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Nilima kale. For images we need information such as a written license for use. THis can be the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Also you should provide the information such as who made the picture, by what means, when, and what is it a picture of. Go to File:Rule engine.png click edit and add in all this information. There are information and copyright templates that could be used, and there would have been a chance to fill them in at upload time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:OC-104.jpg

Its source has become unreliable: the FOX.com has shutted down its The O.C. webpage along with this image. Therefore, this image's copyrights and rationale should be considered, and the permission to use it is considered, as well. The administrator Postdlf told me in my talk page: [8]. What are your solutions? --Gh87 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Postdlf told this user that FOX.com no longer hosting a page for The O.C. does not matter regarding whether this image's use is valid or not. As seen in that link, Postdlf explained fair-use to Gh87. As did I.[9] 174.137.184.36 (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:OC-325.jpg

What about this one? Its source is gone, thanks to FOX. Does using it with a dead source violate anything? --Gh87 (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The copyright does not go away when the website closes. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Magic: The Gathering card images in set articles

I am the uploader of Jace added to Worldwake and Valakut added to Zendikar both copyrighted Magic cards. I'm pretty sure that they satisfy non-free content criteria as detailed in their fair-use rationale, but I'd like some broader input before I continue. If this is acceptable I plan on adding one or two card images to each of the Magic: The Gathering set articles. Crazynas t 20:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

File:AlanHaleSr.jpg

This is the unsourced image. It was claimed to be a "Public domain" image, but the description is the only information the data contained. Therefore, I changed the licensing tag to unknown. What are your handlings for this matter? --Gh87 (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Pasni1.jpg

I'm trying to nominate the above for deletion. Can someone help me out please. Admins had deleted some of the uploader's images before [10] but I'm not sure which tag to use. The uploader appears to be an individual by the name of "Kaiser Tufail" [11], possibly this guy and he claims that the images he uploaded belong to "D M Saeed" @ www.pasnionline.sitesled.com [12]. That's admission of copyright infringement. As I tried to delete them user:Mar4d began reverting me [13] so I came here for help. Thanks.--Jorge Koli (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not using the right tags that's why I am reverting you, because then you'll go around tagging all other images and will get them deleted for the wrong reasons. On Pasni1, you first put the copyright infringement tag although the blog link you gave where you think it is copied from is wrong and the image upload date is older than the date of that link. You then put the no-license tag even though the image has been around with a Creative Commons License since 2007. Thus, the F4 criteria does not seem to apply in this case. F11 is probably more of what might match. Mar4d (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You still don't realize? He uploaded someone elses image without providing a permission. In such incidents the files must be speedy deleted from Wikipedia, no ifs whats or buts. The admins who do the deleting know what to do when an editor places a wrong delete tag.--Jorge Koli (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Kushal konwar.jpg

Hello, I uploaded one image in Wikipedia with file name Kushal konwar.jpg. I uploaded it from the weblink http://www.assaminfo.com/famous-people/21/kushal-konwar-or-swahid-kushal-konwar-or-martyr-kushal-konwar.htm. I added this information to the image's Source. Is it ok? Is there any other points I should take care of?--Mouchumi (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

suitable tag

can you get me a suitable tag for this gif? i'm kind of newcommer so i don't know what to do File:Leri-Gogoladze.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by P1rvela (talkcontribs) 19:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but because we cannot verify the copyright status of this image, we cannot use it here. You have no date, no author and no copyright information and because Leri Gogoladze is still alive we cannot make a fair-use claim, though we would still need to know the date and author, because an image of him could be made. You state that "everyone can use it" but that is not actually true, I think what you means is that anyone can view it on a webpage but that does not give viewers any permission. ww2censor (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you need me to do?

A picture I uploaded has a deletion notice and tag on it. I own the picture and therefore have rights to it's use. If I selected the wrong release, what kind of release do I have to post? I certainly can't ask someone who doesn't own the copyright to send an email releasing it. I put all this on the image page, I don't know what you need here. The picture is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thorne_webb_dreyer.jpg Thanks, wmhanks (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No, the fact that you own the picture does not give you any rights to use it. See the Copyright Office FAQ.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
You indicated that the photo was taken by Cynthia Bloom, so she may be the copyright holder, unless it was a "work for hire" in which case the person paying may own the copyright. We need the copyright holder's permission to use the image and only they can provide a licence for the image even though you own a copy of the photo. ww2censor (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Your description indicates that the photographer was Cynthia Bloom. As the photographer it is likely that she holds the copyright to that photo, the fact that you own a copy of the photo she took doesn't mean that she transferred her rights to you. If you'd like to use this image on Wikipedia you'll need to contact Cynthia Bloom and get her to license the copyright to this photo under a free license. Wikipedia has a how to guide that covers how to go about getting permission to use other people's work in Wikipedia. If you have any additional question about how to do this, please feel free to ask me. I'd be happy to walk you through the process. —RP88 (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
* Thank you for your offer to help sort this out. I have not been clear in my communication regarding the thorne_webb_dreyer.jpg picture. I base no claim on simply having my hands on the picture and therefore "owning" it. I have been a professional writer and editor for over 33 years. My work has been accepted by some of the most respected publications in the world. I do know what it means to "own" or "hold" copyrighted material. The article in which the image is intended to reside is about a leading figure of the 60s anti-war, underground press, and protest movements. And, though I have stuck to the facts and not engaged in promotional fictionalizing, am nevertheless a close personal friend of the subject of the article, Thorne Webb Dreyer, as well as the larger community of those who protested the war in Vietnam and fought for civil rights. Many of these friends from college days are still friends today. Our underground newspaper in Austin, "The Rag", was one of the first and most influential of what came to be known as the "underground press". After a well-noted reunion in Austin, Texas, it was decided to continue lending our voices to the issues of today, and to use the media of today -- the Internet. So the Rag Blog was born.
The point of this anecdote is to describe the relationship our community has with each other and our work in "the movement" -- it is much like Wikipedia: collectively owned, operated, sourced, and shared with one another. The image in question was taken by one of our group at a fundraiser and was given to the subject of the article, Thorne Webb Dreyer. When I asked for images that I could use in the article, Thorne provided this one and several others. It was not ready for publication, being basically a snaphsot. So I put several hours of PhotoShop work into making it presentable for display in the article. No one else is claiming copyright for the image, it has never appeared on any other website or publication and would probably continue in obscurity had I not taken the time to crop the image, clean up the background, and adjust the histographical properties.
Most of my experience with copyright has been with my own work which usually carries the standard writer's "reserve all rights" provisions. I am not familiar with the different forms of copyright described on Wikipedia pages. If any ownership is attributed or may be claimed to this image it is a collective right held by our community of activists for political and social justice. I have spent several hours prior to uploading the image on the help and information pages and read the ones that were refereed to me in this post. However, it is still unclear to me which type of release applies if any. Having described the origins and circumstances of the path the image has traveled to arrive at this stage and for this use, I hope you can simply tell me which form of release Wikipedia requires, if any.
I am concerned we may be making more of this than reason would call for, given it's just a snapshot that no one claims any copyright to. However, being merrily and ever willing to be cooperative and helpful, I will sign the release you feel most appropriate, again, if any. Bear in mind, any mistake I may have made in wording or the type of release I selected on the upload page comes on the heels of a seemingly endless sequence of difficulties in formatting and link style and placement that I have already encountered in the course of publishing this, my first article for Wikipedia on Thorne Webb Dreyer.
It is a fairly complex article as you can see if you look at it. So I hope you will forgive any untoward reaction to what seems to be yet another enormous time sink -- both mine and the editors and volunteers who have been kind enough to help me. I realize that this background and explanation is somewhat more "windy" than I would have liked but I am trying to save others time by fully describing the circumstances regarding the use of this image. In that way I hope we may simply select the appropriate release or, alternatively, I will provide written assurance that I have the right to use it. Remember it was not taken by a professional photographer, it is not a work of art, or of the slightest commercial interest, I have contributed to it substantially by editing the image so, in it's present form, it bears little resemblance to the original photograph. I am well acquainted with all parties involved. There is simply no problem in using this picture of the subject of the article. Thank you for your consideration, wmhanks (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that this is subject for which you have some passion. However, from the situation as you describe it, we're still going to need permission from the photographer, Cynthia Bloom, since your image is a derivative work of her original photo. Under current law Cynthia Bloom acquired copyright in the photo at the moment she took it, the fact that a copy of the photo is now in your possession doesn't change that fact. Similarly, the fact that it has never appeared on any other website or publication actually weakens the possibility that we could legally use your image (since publication before 1989 without complying with certain copyright formalities would put the photo in the public domain). The main legal issue that is important here is that Wikipedia needs clear evidence that Cynthia Bloom has agreed that her material can be used freely by Wikipedia AND its downstream users, and that such use might include commercial use, for which Cynthia Bloom would not be entitled to royalties or compensation. Do you know how to contact Cynthia Bloom? If you do contact her, follow Wikipedia's instructions on how to ask her to give a free license to her photo. If you feel contacting her in order to ask her to give a free license to her photo is impractical, another possibility would be for you to take your own photo of Thorne Dreyer. Let me know how you'd like to proceed, and I'll see what I can do to help. —RP88 (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
* Thank you for your understanding of the issue. I will do as you suggest. Happy happy, Joy joy, wmhanks (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright for Postcards

Hi,

Any suggestion on how to classify an old postcard? There is no printing company or date on it.

File:Enochdhu Ardle's Grave Postcard.jpg

It was purchased off E-bay.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlsnider (talkcontribs) 14:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's tricky to answer that, but there's another concern that may make the question of copyright null and void, and that is, I presume this site is still standing? If it is, that means it is possible to get a free replacement for the image by having someone take a photograph of the site today. (Scotland, under UK, has freedom of panorama). That would make the use of a non-free work improper to start with. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
While you tagged File:Enochdhu Ardle's Grave Postcard.jpg as non-free and its copyright status is unclear, a replaceable image File:The Giant's Grave Barrow - geograph.org.uk - 1003378.jpg with an acceptable licence is available on the commons, so we cannot use your upload unless you can show it is freely licenced. It may not be as pretty but its copyright status is clear or someone can out and take a new image. ww2censor (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Image from a published academic paper

Hello, I would like to use an image from a paper in Hormones and Behavior, published by Elsevier. What should I indicate that as when it comes to the licensing of the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissafales (talkcontribs) 02:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That depends on several factors. Is the image freely licenced, is in the public domain or is it still under copyright? Where and when was it first published, and who is the author. Remember that most images found in magazines, journals and on websites are copyright, and we cannot use them without express permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Translating Pages

Hello, I am translating a Spanish wikipedia page into English as a class assignment. I would also like to move the photos over from the Spanish Article to the English article, are there any copyright issues with this since the images are already on Wikipedia? Additionally, what is the best way to go about adding images to a Wikipedia article? It is my first time doing it.

03:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about the Spanish version of ¡Democracia Real YA!, all the images in that article are already on the commons, so they are available for use in all the language wikis. Just make sure to use the English work "File" not the Spanish "Archivo" as the image prefix. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

WSJ, Bloomberg

Can I upload photos from WSJ and Bloomberg? --Wall Street CEO (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No and no, unless you can get permission from the copyright holders. The WSJ image, if based on common information, is easily replaceable by someone making a graph based on the original data and the Bloomberg image is specifically attributed to a Bloomberg photographer. Except for some special non-free cases, we only accept freely licenced images whose copyright status is clear. ww2censor (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I just started making graphs based on the Hedge Fund Research, Inc. data and then I realized that it might violate terms of use. (HFR Global Hedge Fund Industry Reports) --Wall Street CEO (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Facts are not copyrightable, so, as ww2censor mentioned, if you'd like to use a graph on Wikipedia but can't because it is copyrighted you can instead upload a graph of your own creation based on the original data. You can use any public source for the information when creating your graph (even reverse engineering the values from the original copyrighted graph). However, if you have privileged access to data that you've agreed to not disclose to third parties, then you can't make graphs based on that non-public data. —RP88 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Logo usage

I know The Grateful Dead has a copyright on the Dancing Bears LogoGDDancingBears.jpg... I am wondering if there is any way to use the Dancing bears Logo or just one bear on a sign for a cafe that I am opening? Is there any way around it, something I can donate money to, or any way at all to incorporate the Dancing bear on my sign? Please Help! Lovelightnamaste (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • This board is specifically for folks who have questions about using copyrighted media to contribute to Wikipedia. We are experts on Wikipedia policy, specifically, and not necessarily copyright law in general. You'd probably do better to contact the rightsholder directly. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading difficulty

Hi There, I am finding it very hard to upload an image to a page. Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemoskos (talkcontribs) 02:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You cannot upload here until you are an autoconfirmed user which happens after you have been registered for more than four days and made more than ten edits. ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Alternatives are to upload to commons or to ask at WP:FFU. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright tags in order? Please check.

I overlooked putting a copyright tag on the image File:Dreyer and Kampus Kop, The Rag.jpg (a bot brought it to my attention) so I went back and added it. Could someone please check to make sure all the image releases are in order for the article Thorne Webb Dreyer? Also I asked in another post for help in formatting the images so they work well with the copy layout. Thanks, wmhanks (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I will excuse you from not creating a proper wikilink to the image description - the subtle addition of a colon is something that I took a long time to discover. All your image uploads need reviewing. I do not see where you "went back and added" a tag to the specified image. You have taken enough flack from me over the last few days, I will leave someone else to sort out the images. All I will say is: these images should probably be on the Commons (cf. Malmesbury) not here and following this edit the layout of the images in the TDW article looks perfect to me - we do not use table markup to position images. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Podcast_icon1.jpg‎

Hi there - I found this image using a simple search of "podcast". It appears to be an image that is commonly used on the internet and I cannot find its unique source. I obtained this image from the following website on October 25, 2011: http://www.pieterhendrikx.com/sap-businessobjects-itunes-podcast-dslayer/

I have added the "unknown source" tag since it was the only one that really fit. Do you mind letting me know if this is sufficient source information? I am new at all of this and would very much appreciate your help. Thanks. Nessalkr (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That podcast logo is by Peter Marquardt and is freely licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.0-de. A nicer version is already available on Commons at File:Podcastlogo.jpg. I recommend you just use the existing version from Commons since images from Commons are automatically transcluded on Wikipedia — just use File:Podcastlogo.jpg wherever you intended to use File:Podcast_icon1.jpg‎. It would probably also be a good idea to put a {{db-self|rationale=Duplicate of image on Commons}} tag on your uploaded image to request that a helpful admin delete your duplicate image. —RP88 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable with free use?

File:Tony the Tiger debut.png is a new file used on Frosted Flakes and Tony the Tiger. Did some checking and Kellogg's had a big campaign in Life magazine when the cereal was new. First ads are in 1953.

Kellogg's continued the campaign in 1955 with a series of celebrity endorsements known to adults and kids:

Since none of these ads have a Kellogg's copyright mark, could a portion of any of them be a suitable replacement for the non-free file? Thanks, We hope (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally a collective work's copyright notice, such as one for a magazine, is sufficient to to count as notification for all the contributions in the collective work. However, US copyright law 17 U.S.C. 404(a) specifically excludes advertisements from this collective notice — they need their own individual copyright notice (see Copyright Notice Circular 3, pg 3, "A notice for the collective work does not serve as notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. Such advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement.") Works published before 1978 required a valid copyright notice or the material was in the public domain, so advertisements not originating from the magazine or newspaper itself without their own copyright notice would now be in the public domain. This may also apply to advertisements without notices published before March 1, 1989 (in this period it may be possible for an advertiser to have reclaimed copyright by registering it with the Copyright Office within 5 years, so you'd have to check for that). However, to be clear, this only applies to U.S. advertisements in U.S. magazines as advertisements from foreign companies may have gotten their copyright restored by the URAA, and ads in non-U.S. magazines published in countries other than the U.S. might be copyrighted under the laws of that other country. So, if you can confirm the requirements of {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1989}}, you could use these images. —RP88 (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Family License Needs to be created

Please could we have a new Copyright Category - Family License. This covers all photographs taken within a family of family members. The issue I have at present is that I uploaded a family photograph taken by my grandmother of my grandfather that was passed to my father who then passed it onto me. All of them are now passed away so I have possesion of this photograph. However wikipedia deleted it as I had siad it was my work (fair enough it wasn't, but how else was I supposed to categorise it?). However I'd love to be able to upload it to a new Family license?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslox (talkcontribs) 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You may own photographs created by family members, but that doesn't necessarily mean you hold the copyright to those photographs. If my grandmother created a photograph, I wouldn't be able to license it in her name. (My grandmother is still alive, and may well object. It's her right, not mine.) Once someone dies, the copyright passes to the next of kin. If you are the only heir, or if you are the heir who has received all copyright to your grandmother's works, then you are the copyright holder and can indeed license it however you like and upload the image here. But if there are other living heirs, then there may be disagreements between them as to whether the images should be licensed under a free license. I'm not sure how those would be worked out, but I'm sure it differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
If you are the only heir, simply upload it and tag it under a free license (such as {{cc-by-3.0}}). On the image description page, state who created the photo, that she is deceased, that you are the sole heir and copyright holder, and that you release the photo under a free license.
If there are other heirs, but you can confirm that all of them consent to releasing the image under a free license, then do just as above, but state those details as well. If you're still unsure, feel free to ask for further help, either here or on my talk page. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, have updated my pages accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameslox (talkcontribs) 12:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Request second opinion

Does File:The Jakarta Post Logo.jpg meet the threshhold of originality? I don't think it does, but I wanted to double check before uploading to commons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be simple enough for PD-simple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding a logo image file for use on a draft page

I have drafted a subpage of my user account that is dedicated to what I hope to turn into a published article about Barton Malow Company. I've created an info box on that page and wanted to upload our logo for use in the info box. Is this appropriate?

Kmcnair1 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait till it is an article, unless the logo is so simple it is public domain. Use a place holder image if you need to get an idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions regarding CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0

I have some questions about the use of CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 license in a website (a public forum) in order to publish some of it's content into Wikipedia:

  1. Is it possible to apply this license to content from a specific date so that all content published before this won't be included with it? (ex: I only want content from 2011 to be included in this license and the rest to stay reserved) How to do so?
  2. Is it possible to change the license later after applying it? (either to restrict copyrights or to increase them) and if copyrights are restricted, does this mean that the work published would be considered as copyright violation?
  3. Is it possible to only include some parts of the website under this license and keep the rest of it as it is? How to so do?
  4. What if someone changed some of the content which he/she copied from the website, is that considered to be a copyright violation?
  5. If the forum (website) is licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0, does this mean that all pictures which their owners (the original photographer) decide to publish them are licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 as well?

Thanks, Bahraini Activist (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

NC and ND are not acceptable for works entering Wikipedia. The most restrictive license we accept is CC-BY-SA. Broadly speaking such licenses are never revocable. For some types of uses it may be acceptable to say that works created after a specific date are licensed differently than works that came before, but it can depend on the specific license used and whether the new works directly depend on the old ones. Dragons flight (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, let's talk about CC-BY-SA then. Thanks for answering 2 questions, can you answer the other 3 as well? Bahraini Activist (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that virtually nothing posted to a web forum is going to be considered useful here, since with very rare exceptions a web forum is the quintessential example of a non-reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
What if the photographer only published his work on a web forum? Doesn't this makes it the original source? Bahraini Activist (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's another matter entirely. I was mostly addressing the text/information content of such fora. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as just releasing the works on just part of the website, you should be able to do that with an explicit statement somewhere on the site that only certain works are released and providing some way to clearly identify which ones are and which ones aren't. (e.g. "all images, but no text" or "this particular image" or "photos of this event only") --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Basic help with image licenses?

As you no doubt have noticed have substantial knowledge text-wise but still don't understand image licences (which started with the issue of coats of arms - which by the way I do know a lot about and some of these got rejected). Perhaps you could give me some basic help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabelina (talkcontribs) 21:52, 26 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Coat of arms are based on a description, which probably cannot be copyrighted, however, the representation that someone comes up with is copyrightable, so if you use any work by others that is not public domain then you have run afoul of copyright. You yourself can draw the coat of arms your self based on the formula and then you hold copyright that can have a free license granted. A particular coat of arms may be possibly used under fair use if there is an article about it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Images for Folding@home

Hi there. I'm inquiring about several images relating to the Folding@home article. I can handle text fine, but I'm a little shaky at trying to handle all this copyright license stuff, so if someone could give me some advice or help me out here I'd really appreciate it. I'd like to know how to solve some of the unresolved license issues regarding File:F@H Logo 2007.png, File:LifeWithPlayStation Folding.jpg, and File:F@h v7 novice shot.png. This may also concern this image which I may get onto the article eventually if it fits. Yes, I'll be changing the description to a template in all of these images, but I'd like advice on what I should do exactly. Dr. Vijay Pande has given me permission for these images here but I'm still not sure if I have things right. What's the maximum size possible for a screenshot? Did I get sufficient permissions? What should I do to get things proper? I've read up on these things, but I'd like some help from people with some experience in these matters. If you have some answers, feel free to post on my Talk page; that might make things a bit cleaner. Thank you any help you provide, Jessemv (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:F@H Logo 2007.png looks OK. Although Wikipedia looks to be able to use File:LifeWithPlayStation Folding.jpg from permission granted, it is pretty unclear what this permission is, so it still needs to be treated as unfree and to comply with the policy should have a smaller image replacing it. File:F@h v7 novice shot.png also has the same vagueness about the permission granted. and so it needs a fair use rationale. If the software copyright holder is so will ing to grant permission, perhaps he is willing to grant a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, inchich case he can use the email procedure in WP:PREMIT to grant that permission in a way that can be confirmed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Question about release

Does this (in Indonesian) qualify as a release of all pictures under CC-BY? Google translation here. If so, our Indonesian celebrity articles will be much, much, much prettier. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an indication in that translation that they give permission other for use only on Indonesian Wikipedia. I don't know what the policy is there, but here a file licensed for use only on Wikipedia is elegible for speedy deletion under F3. —teb728 t c 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I am basing my question off the second letter

    "Untuk setiap foto yang Anda ambil dari situs KapanLagi.com dan kembali dipublikasikan di web lain, dimohon untuk selalu mencantumkan logo KapanLagi.com atau menulis source: KapanLagi.com dalam setiap penggunaan foto tersebut. Kami harap apa yang kami berikan bermanfaat bagi user. Saran dan masukan selalu kami tunggu."

which translates as

For every picture that you take from KapanLagi.com and publish it on another website, we request that either the logo of KapanLagi.com is shown on it or that source: KapanLagi.com is written for each use of the picture. We hope this is useful for users. Suggestions and input are welcome.

(emphasis mine); having "di web lain" ("on another website") implies that use is allowed on more than just the Indonesian Wikipedia (which has more liberal policies of fair-use, as we both know). Any thoughts? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I would take "another website" to mean other than KapanLagi.com—particularly since Indonesian Wikipedia does not publish pictures on websites other than Indonesian Wikipedia.
The request does not indicate that a free license was desired. If you think KapanLagi.com would grant one, ask them explicitly for a free license, and have them send it to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org, as described at WP:COPYREQteb728 t c 11:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Done.

    Selamat malam, saya hendak bertanya mengenai lisensi foto. Saya melihat bahwa KapanLagi.com sudah memberikan izin kepada Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia untuk menggunakan foto dari KapanLagi.com dalam artikel mengenai tokoh-tokoh Indonesia. Namun, sayangnya izin semacam itu tidak dapat dipakai oleh Wikipedia lain; Wikipedia lain memerlukan lisensi bebas, misalkan creative commons. Agar kami dapat menggunakan gambar di artikel kami, bisakah KapanLagi upload gambar-gambar tertentu ke Flickr dengan lisensi CC-BY-SA; kalau hendak memberi lisensi bebas untuk kesemua foto di KapanLagi.com, mungkin bisa dikirim secara eksplisit dalam bahasa Inggris ke (email redacted). Terima kasih sebelumnya.

Fingers crossed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I not understand why you ask them something about flickr, they probably not know what flickr is or what you want from them. Also you talk too much about Wikipedia.
Simply ask them if they agree freely license (a specific work!) so that anyone can reuse it freely, for any purpose, for educational purposes and teaching and for commercial purposes. The acceptable license terms are attribution and redistribution under similar conditions ('share alike'). The required licensing terms are free reuse by anyone, in any form or medium, for any purpose, under a free license which is irrevocable.
I set one exclamation mark: The free license grant must say what work is meant, it can be one photo, all photos from one article, all photos they created, all photos from their website (if free of third party copyrights), unlikely it can apply to future publication, making contracts about not yet created works is often not possible under many countries laws. --Martin H. (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd be surprised if they did not know what Flickr is, and that was just to avoid them having to send many, many, many emails to OTRS if they choose to license individual images. I don't have any specific images in mind, but since they gave blanket permission to the Indonesian Wikipedia I wouldn't be surprised if they considered giving a blanket CC-SA-BY license to their images. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Uploading a pic for which there is no free equivalent

I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andy_Harter.jpg and to my knowledge there are no free sources of a picture online. Would it help if I asked Andy to email in consent to use the image or release it with an appropriate licence? 09:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janderson99 (talkcontribs)

Since Harter is a living person, someone could take a photo of him and release it under a free license (one that allows reuse by anyone for anything). That being the case there is no possibility of using a non-free photo of him. So you need to get a release under a free license as described at WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 10:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
OK I got Andy to agree to release the picture under a free licence so as the original was swiftly deleted I guess I shall have to upload again but a freely-licensed picture. Janderson99 (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Please forward the permission as described at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot from MCAS test

I want to upload a low-resolution screenshot from a freely available MCAS test, which can be found here. However, I am unsure if this is fair use and also am unsure of which license I should use. I would be using the image to give the reader an example of what a question on the test looks like. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education publishes the tests here. Chris (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Does it aid understanding of the MCAS? Low resolution means that you probably cannot read the text, so is that useful? There are 10 criteria for fair use to meet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
No, perhaps not. I think I'll skip this one. Chris (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Substitute an image - need help

Hello

I am New Media Manager at Central de Cervejas, the leading portuguese brewery and owner of the Sagres brand. I have been trying to substitute the photo of the Sagres beer bottle, but I cannot do it (using a 64bit PC with lots of firewall and Proxy restrictions).

File:Sagresbottle.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Sagresbottle.jpg

The thing is, can you please do it for me please? If so, to who can I send the new image?

Tks Luis Cardoso (phone # and e-mail address (Redacted))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Videomorphose (talkcontribs) 14:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can license it under a free license (which allows reuse by anyone for anything) you could follow the steps at Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission#If you would prefer just to send us the photo. —teb728 t c 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)