Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/March

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Draft:The_Others_(2013_Film)

Hello,

I just received an email from Wikipedia about my picture / poster "The Others" It is my poster, my picture, my movie. Draft:The_Others_(2013_Film)

They asked me to write down these informations ... I want ... but where?

So difficult to find.

Please give me the link

Copyright - Picture - Owner - Written by Jérôme Dolbert

Short Film - In her thirties, Vanessa is an executive assistant, and organizes a dinner party in a restaurant with her favorite co-worker Michelle, in order to introduce their respective husbands. The friendships of two couples are tested, but the dinner quickly becomes a nightmare. Copyright - Picture - Owner - Written by Jérôme Dolbert

I toke this picture, made it - Avril 2013 - USA - Los Angeles

Thank you for your reply,

Best, Jerome Dolbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDOLBERT (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the image File:The Others.jpg which you had in the draft article mentioned. So, are you telling us that you took all 5 photos in this film poster and are the copyright holder of those photos as well as that you created the design of the poster and own its copyright? If not, then you are not the author nor copyright holder of the image. If you the copyright holder then you should release it under a free licence by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. As it is now it is a non-free image and according to the ninth requirement of our non-free policy we do not allow such images to be used in draft articles, so until then, unless the image is verified as freely licenced, it will be deleted at least until the draft becomes a mainspace article. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sam Loyd lipreading puzzle

I'd like to use this image: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Figure-75-660x438.jpg to illustrate a wikipedia piece on lipreading. It appears to be out of copyright, but (1) can I use it and (2) how to cite it? Thanks, Ruth‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuthBCCampbell (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruth, unfortunately you only gave a direct url to the image and not the page it appears on so we cannot immediately determine its copyright status. However, I found where it came from: Cyclopedia of Puzzels by Sam Loyd which was published in the US in 1914 (see page 190 http://www.mathpuzzle.com/loyd/cop190-191.html). So it is in the public domain in the US and you should upload it to the commons using the licence template {{PD-1923}} and use it anywhere you like. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

please Wikipedia Admin help me,

my name is GodsTime Promise, Gospel music minister from Nigeria I want to have musical artist page on Wikipedia, please how can I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obinna promise (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Obinna promise. Please read WP:42 and WP:Your first article. If you understand these instructions and think the topic meets our notability requirements, proceed to WP:Articles for creation. (I am not an admin as this issue hardly needs admin attention.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Emblem on the page

The image used on the page Boys'_High_School_&_College_(Allahabad,_Uttar_Pradesh) as Emblem is not correct. As the school Emblem has been redesigned. It can be seen on the official site of the school as well http://www.boyshighschool.com/index.php/emblem.

The correct image is

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharad shared (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm researching and writing a book on merchant vessels sunk by U boat in world War 1. As part of this I'm hoping to use pictures of some of the ships and also vessels such as hospital ships, to illustrate various points. I've seen some pictures on Wikipedia as well as sites such as U-boat.net that have pictures I can use.

Some pictures have copyright info below them but most don't, can I ask what my legal position is on this. Do I need to credit where I found a picture or write to those that have copyright info on them.

It's such a worry, can you help or advise me please?

Best Wishes John McLelland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.242.193 (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

For wikipedia content you should refer to Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Images and other media and for the commons refer to c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. For general internet content you may need to refer to the website's webmaster for better details and even consult with an intellectual property lawyer because we cannot give you any legal advise. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wish to add unknown Sculpture signed Houdon

Can i Upload Image of Item ( day of Purchase) when i became owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbrocante (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • @Superbrocante: I am not sure what object you are talking about, but generally speaking for sculptures you'd need permission from the creator of the sculpture as well because the sculpture's copyright applies to photographies thereof. Assuming you took the image of the sculpture, that is.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Superbrocante. If the sculpture is by Jean-Antoine Houdon, he died in 1828, so his work is not copyrighted. On the other hand, your sculpture is almost certainly a reproduction, and photos of the original sculptures are far more encyclopedia worthy. If your sculpture is an original, you have hit the jackpot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

photo problem

when i download a topic on wikipedia from "download as pdf " why can not i find the attached photos of the topic in the pdf file ? i think photos are very important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.205.71.188 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this is more of a technical problem. Generally, the photos should be included in the PDF version of an article. I just took Skyway Monte Bianco and tried the "download as PDF" option. The result contained all three images from the right edge of the website and the panorama photo at the bottom. What I did notice though is that images from infoboxes (and the entire infobox as such) apparently are not exported to the PDF file. At least for Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi I only got the group photo but not the portrait from the infobox when I created a PDF export. De728631 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Pictures for a Wikibooks Project

Alright folks I have had an issue with some of the images I uploaded recently.

  1. When I am searching images with the tbs=sur:fmc added on the url bar how sure am I that the the material is free for use?
  2. Can I upload pictures from social media like Instagram from people I follow since they are open to me?
  3. For instance if I want to use this picture how should I credit the author?

Sorry for so many questions but I have a deadline for tomorrow so any swift reply would be much appreciated.Srepanis (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

1. It tells you that someone, somewhere, tagged it as being free, but you can't be sure unless you check the source and you're convinced that the material is legitimately offered as free.
2. No, unless they're explicitly offered under a free license.
3. In a way that follows the terms of the license offered. It may also depend where and how you use it. For example, for an unmodified reproduction on a website, a possible credit line could be: "Drone and Moon, photo by Don McCullough, licensed under CC-BY 2.0". If you upload the photo to Commons, you format the informations with the available templates.
-- Asclepias (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers! Srepanis (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

upload of public state form (such as a change of name form for the state of Michigan

is this allowed? Can I upload publicly accessible forms for changes of name and the like from states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rraspberry(023) (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but that depends on the complexity of the form and its design. Provide a link and someone will look at it. ww2censor (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding Image

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfriday365 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer if he told himself, please. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh Dear... This should be so easy. @Matt Schrier. I'll leave aside the point, that Wikipedia is not here for you or anyone else to serve as a soapbox. Where your coming from is clear enough though – so lets get down to satisfying your issue about adding an image. As you are photographer, create an account on our sister project Wikimedia Commons'. Then it will be available to all our projects. Use the Wikimedia Upload Wizard here:[1]. I can take it that you understand copyright. A suitable license would be {{CC BY-SA 4.0}} (just cut and past that in) providing you pressed the shutter yourself when it was taken. If not, we have an OTRS system where you can request the photographer ( the guy that pressed the shutter – even if it was under your direction) emailing us with her/his permission to use image. The editors on Wikimedia Commons are more used to these grey-area issues. You no doubt have lots of other issues going round and round in your mind at present. Focus on the Wikimedia/Wikipedia protocol for satisfying this one. Does that help Matt? --Aspro (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
By the way. Have you already posted the image that you would like to be used, else where on the Web? If so, link here to that image and we will look at it. Remember, some image post manipulation software (example Photoshop) can remove the EXIF data. We need that in place. As a photographer, you will know what that means and know how to keep it attached to the original image – as it came- straight off the camera. We are not psychic, we can only go by the evidence you give us. If you create a user account today or tomorrow on Wikimedia Commons and then report back here giving your user account name. We can add that user name to our watch list Then if you upload an image, one of us may be around to smooth out any problems. No promises – we are voluntary.--Aspro (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Screenshots of Wikipedia.com Article

Greetings! If I want to use a screenshot of a Wikipedia article in a book I'm writing, who would I contact at Wikipedia for permission? This isn't about the content used in the article (I understand that there may be permission and copyright issues there), but rather the overall website look and design, and I've been assuming that I'd need to contact Wikipedia for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boboswrench (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, For questions to, and permissions from, the Wikimedia Foundation, you can start from this page. The question is in part about the content of the article that is shown in the screenshot. There is a difference between the licensing of the text and of other content of the article. The page about reuse should answer that part. For the rest, the use of the Wikipedia logo is governed by this policy. The rest of the page design looks simple enough. The MediaWiki software is under the GPL, but that may not be necessary for your question. Please contact the Wikimedia Foundation for official answers or permission requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

File:No18.jpg

The above image is a photograph taken in 1916. According to the file description it was uploaded on 19 September 2014, 19:35:20, and the source is given as "own work". This is the licence shown, under Creative Commons. The information does not seem to me to add up, but perhaps someone can tell me how to make sense of it? Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously they are Old Photos so not my "Own Work". However about 2 Years ago, I got around it OR so I thought, by using Snagit Application and resizing the images or working on the images as my "Own Work". That seemed to be OK with wikipedia althought from time to time the rules have changed and a lot of my so-called "Own Work" has been removed. Hope this helps. Foxhunter22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunter22 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of this uploader's images are unlikely their own work, so their claim, for the older images are false. Maybe the 1960s are their own but one can't be sure. Nelson's Pillar was destroyed in 1965 so any intact images would mean he is around 70, certainly a possibility but unlikely. File:No18.jpg and File:No12.jpg are from this Flickr album of the National Library of Ireland. File:No8.jpg is a Lawrence Collection image also found on Flickr. File:NelsonP2.jpg appears to come from this blog webpage and says it was loose in a purchased book, so we don't know the author or if it was even published. File:Nels15.jpg looks like a poor copy of File:Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Sackville Street ^ O'Connell Bridge, Dublin, Ireland, ca. 1899.jpg. Without checking every upload it looks like this uploader claims everything is their own work, even an illustration from 1660! I think the rest of this uploader's images need more information and closer scrutiny. ww2censor (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Foxhunter22: The reason you "got around it OR so I thought" was because no one reviewed your uploads until now. We take copyright status very seriously and this is possibly one of those cases where your lack of knowledge has been hidden until now when a spotlight has been pointed at your uploads. Well when you find images on the internet, or elsewhere, and modify them just a bit, or not at all, they are derivative works and YOU do not acquire a new copyright. The copyright remains the same as the original but you claim everything is your own work. It appears you never actually provide a source for where the image came from especially as shown by the links I gave above for 5 images. Having a source would mean we could determine their copyright status because they are, by your own admission, not your own photos. If you could please provide the sources, then we can see which images can be kept, along with any that are identified as freely licenced. Copyright is a complex issue and maybe you just don't understand it well enough yet. BTW, I only see one of your image uploads here on the enwiki, all your other uploads are on the commons and really any further discussion should take place there. ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Well thanks for the Information especially surrounding Copywrite. It is true , most if not all of my other uploads are in the 'Commons' Section. That last imate I uploaded , I took a snagit image from Youtube of Éamonn Mac Thomáis and uploaded that for the profile image. It has since been removed. So yes I understand it is a very complex issue. Most of my "Own Work" was just trying to make the Wikipage more interesting !! Whether I plan to upload any more images in the future, well I doubt it ! It is a complex issue and any other Photos I upload I will check the copywrite and the source and do it that way. Kind Regards. Foxhunter22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunter22 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsure whether image is public domain or not

I recently made an article on pilot Mary Barr and have been looking for a copyright-free image I could use of her. Because she worked from 1974 onward with the US Forest Service, making her a government employee, i've been looking for an image of her taken during this time period as a part of official business, as such a government work would be automatically public domain. In that regard, one of the sources I found for the article from a newspaper piece, found here, has two photos of Barr. The top one is very clearly taken by the newspaper itself not long before article publication and, indeed, it says below it that it belongs to columnist Woody Morgan. The second photo, however, has no copyright marks on it. In addition, the description to the right of it says it was taken in 1975, a year after she joined the Forest Service. I am pretty much 100% certain that this is a official government photo of her at the time, which is also why the paper didn't have to put any copyright statements under or next to it. But how do I make certain? What are my options right now? SilverserenC 01:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an answer yet, but that second photo appears to have been exhibited at the Smithsonian based on this page [2]. But that doesn't necessarily make it PD. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It being most definitely in a plane though from the wider framing (and that it was exhibited at the Smithsonian) does make me a bit more certain. But i'll keep looking as well. SilverserenC 02:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
More, apparently the photo is in the possession of the San Diego Air and Space Museum, and there's three possible images based on this archive they have at Flickr. [3]. The three are tagged without any copyright info, and if you go to their user page on Flickr "The San Diego Air & Space Museum is participating in The Commons on Flickr to further the Museum’s educational mission and increase public access to its collection of photographs. The Museum’s images that are part of The Commons are marked “no known copyright restrictions,” indicating that the Museum is unaware of any current copyright restrictions on the works so designated, either because the term of copyright may have expired without being renewed or because no evidence has been found that copyright restrictions apply." So this would be a reasonable assertion that these are in the PD, as long as you link to the SDASM's account information. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: You're awesome. So, which do you think would be better, the first or second one? The first seems to have better center framing and lighting, though the second has her in her pilot uniform. SilverserenC 02:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
In their collection? I would upload both (they can go to commons), and probably the first one as an infobox image and the second one later in the article. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The SDAS Museum has those copies of the three photographs, which it used in one of its exhibits in 1981, after which they were stored in a box. See box 6 in this list. Items for the exhibit were collected from various sources. The actual sources of each item are not listed. Either the Museum didn't keep notes about the sources, or it did keep notes but doesn't mention them in this list. Without knowing the original sources of the three photographs, their creators, the history of their publications, we can't tell their copyright status. We can't hide behind the fact that the Museum uploaded them to flickr. The wording of the full text of the disclaimer leaves the impression that they didn't really try to find the copyright status. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Public domain? Or too complex?

Is this public domain, or is it too complex? If it's PD, how do I license it (i.e PD-text, etc.)? Thanks. Seattle (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd use {{PD-text}} when you upload it to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Blackstar (Front Cover).png

Is this image eligible for copyright in the U.S.? The artwork is copyrightable in the UK due to low threshold. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It would likely be PD in the US only due to the simple star shapes. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Magazine photo without renewal

If a magazine copyright was not renewed, would that apply to the photographs in the magazine? See https://www.flickr.com/photos/vieilles_annonces/3731459746 with Natalia Tanner at left. This site indicates that no copyright renewals were sought for any Jet magazine issues. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that this issue is missing from the Google Books scans,[4] so we can't see the context of the photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-free screenshots for illustration purposes

Hello! So, I was planning on using the Non-free web screenshot form for an image I took in the Yandex Maps street view in order to illustrate a topic for the transportation section of a city's article which I couldn't have otherwise shown, however I'm not using it for critical commentary for the website itself, this would be to use the image for something unrelated. Is that possible? Thanks! Please ping me, as I likely won't find this place again very easily and I don't want to add it to my watchlist. Coderenius (☎) 21:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Coderenius: As long as there is a free alternative, i.e. someone (not necessarily you) some day could come up with a freely licensed solution, we can't use any non-free images. Your description above makes it look though like there is an option that someone else could draw a transport plan or take a photograph of the facility in question, so commentary aside, I'm afraid you can't use any Yandex screenshots anyway. De728631 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: I understand. Thank you! Coderenius (☎) 22:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Uploading photo for addition to biography

Hello,

I'm trying add a photo to my biography of Dr. Jonathan Rosand and was hoping to use the one available on his lab's website:

http://www.strokegenomics.org/team/

Would this be a violation of Wikipedia's policies? The photo isn't copyrighted, but I understand from Wikipedia's policies on media that most images available on the internet are not considered permissible for upload.

Thank you! Nhv2001 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Nhv2001, any recently made photos and other creative works are automatically copyrighted even without an explicit notice, so you can't use this one. Only if there was a disclaimer that the images on that website could be used under a free licence you would be able to upload it here. De728631 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually the image is most likely copyright to the photographer and not to the organisation unless the contract also involved transfer of the copyright. Besides which it looks like you might be Neil Vaishnav from the same team which means that you have a conflict of interest. The copyright holder can verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oath Keepers video

I'm currently looking for more sources for Oath Keepers and I've come across this Youtube video. It hasn't been taken down by Fox and it's been around for almost 7 years, but it looks like a copyright violation to me. Is it? R. A. Simmons Talk 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hardball is an NBC program and they own the copyright, not the people interviewed and even so the YouTube video has standard YouTube licence which does not specifically allow commercial or derivative uses, so using it here would be a copyvio. ww2censor (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Just figured I'd ask the more experienced editors over here. Thanks. R. A. Simmons Talk 23:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

How to add copyright?

Hi, a warning has been provided to me that File:Lapring Language.jpg ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lapring_Language.jpg) will be removed if appropriate copyright isnt declared soon. I am a new user and dont have idea about it! Can You please help me? I would be glad to get ur help as soon as u can!

This image as well as the corresponding article have been deleted as obvious and blatant hoaxes. If you can produce reliable scientific evidence such as links to articles from academic journals about this language and culture or a link to any university's project I might consider restoring the article. But the image itself was neither professional nor of a sufficient quality to be educationally useful in a Wikimedia project. De728631 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

morgueFile license

What do people think about this license? It seems fine, except for the stand-alone part may preclude it from being usable here... thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 03:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The "stand-alone" basis appears to be in opposition to the commercial use allowed. Maybe email them to clarify and ask them to use a precise Creative Commons licence we understand instead of an ambiguous custom licence. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The prohibition on identical reproduction appears to be a basic policy of their site, and a term of their legal agreement with the original authors, so they're not likely to change it. However, the authors are identified and it is possible to contact an author directly to negotiate different licensing terms. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

hate speech and media

The je suis charlie hebdo holds a cover page picture of 2015 issue which ahould.be removed from wikipedia as it gurts tge sentimemts of muslims and can cause an uproar. Please remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiajiajiajia123 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Jiajiajiajia123: Please see Wikipedia is not censored. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Flickr photo permissions problem

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with File:Horizon Organic Fat-Free Milk 1 gallon.jpg? That photo, in the "Summary" section, has a link labelled "Permission" that leads to https://www.flickr.com/photos/76969036@N02/8216045310 . On that page there is a link labelled "Some rights reserved" that leads to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ . But it's been tagged for speedy deletion because of permission problems. What did I do wrong? Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you have faithfully copied the flickr permission. However the picture is of a milk bottle, and someone else probably owns copyright on the label prominently pcitured. We need permission and or a license from Horizon Organic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I doubt it. For one thing that's not what the tag says. Maybe it's mis-tagged. Can you point to WP policy that says we would need a license from Horizon? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyright is complex. If I took a picture of an existing creative work, that is a considered a derivative work. While I have the ability to copyright and license my photograph the way I see, I am still interferring with the rights of the original copyright owner of the item I photographed. So while I may license the image freely under a CC-BY clause, the work can still be considered non-free because of the original item's copyright. That's what is happening here, the Flickr uploader has allowed their image to be shared CC-BY, but it still is a derivative work and the original copyright of Horizon has precedence in determining non-free. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Besides the derivative image copyright issue mentioned above by Masem, the use of the image File:Horizon Organic Fat-Free Milk 1 gallon.jpg in two article does nothing to enhance that articles. In Gallon it add nothing special that a generic one gallon milk container would add, so this particular image is unnecessary and in Horizon Organic there is already a company logo in the infobox, so the image of a one gallon container that has essentially the same logo on it adds nothing to the article that can not be provided by prose alone. In fact there no mention of the type of containers the company uses, so it is redundant. BTW, here is quite a nice freely licenced image of some gallon milk containers which can be uploaded to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
A milk bottle is not subject to copyright protection. See [5]. But I'm more interested in seeing the WP policy that you base this on. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not the bottle - as you point out, you cannot copyright the shape of an object that has some utility like containers, furniture, cars, etc. But the graphics on the label is what is the issue, that's copyrightable. There's no direct policy I can point to , just knowing how copyright law work, but I would direct your attention to Commons' page on De minimis, which points out where sometimes copyrightable elements can be in a photograph and not considered to be a derivative work, but this requires the elements to be not the focus of the image; in this picture, the label is definitely a centerpiece of the image. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works - the image of a plain bottle is not subject to copyright but the image of a bottle that has a copyright logo on it makes it a copyright image, known as a derivative work and that does require the permission of the copyright holder, hence my suggestion to use an image that has not copyright information on it and avoid the problem. Besides which Flickr users are able to apply any licence they like to an image but it may not be correct, as is the case for this image which is why uploads are reviewed to verify their copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll give a different answer from the others, but unfortunately it will also lead to the conclusion that the image is unusable on Wikimedia. If the question had been only the usual "label on a whole bottle" situation, I'd have suggested to forget about uploading the file to Wikipedia and to try uploading the file to Commons, where it may have been accepted per the type of precedents you mentioned, although going from a glass bottle of vodka to a plastic gallon of milk is a step, but the principle could be the same. But before we even consider the pictured object, the first thing that should trigger alarm bells is that this flickr account is strange and probably cannot be trusted. I can't figure out what the account gains with the lot of multiple copies of images, but a large proportion of the images of products seem copies of marketing photographs, probably from the websites of the companies. Many images even have the marks of their sources. So, the photographs are probably not the works of the owner of the flickr account and if so the license tags are not valid. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right. Now what do I do? Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Well I gave some pretty good pointers in my first post above. File:Horizon Organic Fat-Free Milk 1 gallon.jpg will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

do I have an appropriate permission to post an image from Caltech Archives onto Wikipedia?

I have obtained written permission from the Caltech Archive to use an image from their archive on the Wikipedia "Blood Lead level" page.

The image can be viewed on the Caltech Archive website http://archives-dc.library.caltech.edu/islandora/object/ct1%3A1924

The signed "Materials Release" agreement between me and Caltech Archive, in which Caltech Archives agrees to allow me to post this image on the Wikipedia Blood Lead level page is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B34DzaODYbePNXE1LVBzYjlOaUE/view?usp=sharing

Is this an appropriate permission in order for me to go ahead and post this image on the Wikipedia Blood Lead level page?

Jrandomcanuck (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jrandomcanuck. This won't do because it doesn't identify the actual copyright owner, or the place where the figures were first published. And a release only for Wikipedia isn't enough. We need a license that permits reuse by anyone for any purpose, requiring only that reusers attribute the source. See Creative Commons licenses. The Caltech Archive may or may not be able to give you such a license, because they may not know who owns the copyright. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Until this image is released under a free licence it is non-free and fails WP:NFCC#1. This seems like just the type of image that can be drawn anew, not a copy but a new image providing the same concept. Ask at the Commons Graphics Lab at c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. ww2censor (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ed Johnston

Thank you for your reply. I'll contact Caltech Archives and see what their response to what you've written is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrandomcanuck (talk • contribs) 19:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles W. Phifer image

I had trouble uploading that image of Charles W. Phifer. I know where it's from--an 1854 pamphlet issued by the U. of North Carolina commemorating its graduation day. Which never was copyrighted, and is old enough to be in the public domain anyway. I filled out the upload form but it wouldn't allow me to upload it. Similar question with the image of Charles Dewitt Anderson I tried to upload. That's an image given to me by the family, of a photo taken in 1900. Somebody please let me know how to get these uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballardice (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This often happens the first time around. Better to upload this image to our sister project so that the image can be used by everyone. This is the link to Wikimedia Commons [6] . In the permissions box cut & past this : {{PD-US}} . Including the double parenthesis for and aft (these things... {{). This will identify the image as no longer in copyright. Add as much info about the image into the description as you can.--Aspro (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

NataliaLuis.JPG

NataliaLuis.JPG I am the owner of this picture, it has been removed a few times from the Profile Box of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalia_Luis-Bassa

I own the pic, please tell me the right tag to be able to appear on the Profile Box!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urregoluis (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Urregoluis: Did you take this picture? If so, under what circumstances? (It looks like there have been a variety of photos with different filenames but I see one that you uploaded that is a B&W portrait of her -- I'm assuming you're referring to that.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@Urregoluis: Actually, Urregoluis, there may be bigger problems here. It looks like your real name is Veronica Urrego, but you have uploaded photos that you credit to Roger Kemp, Andres Landino, and others. Are you authorized to upload their images here? If so, why? And are all of the images you tagged as your own work actually taken by you? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur. I look at www.andreslandino.com, and see a very prominent warning " ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Reproduction of any content of this website is forbidden without my written permission ANDRES LANDINO". We do not have written permission. Such images can't be kept here. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

these pictures are copyrighted, uploaed from Turkish media to digital camera, and reuploaded to Commmons. 1, 2, 3, 4 (62.205.74.95 (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

Not sure this is really fair-use

I came across this image File:Percy Jackson Portrait.jpg in the article Percy Jackson, and I have serious misgivings about whether it is suitable for use in Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure which of the 10 guidelines it violates, and so I'm not sure what to do about it. It seems like a "A publicity image", and it's certainly not required for use in the article (especially as it is appropriate to only one section of the page).

Should I remove it from the article? Are there any tags I should place on its file page, or specific warnings I should give to its uploader? Thanks in advance. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The only thing that image might violate is WP:NFCC#3 - identifying a fictional character in an article about that fictional character seems like it probably satisfies WP:NFCC#8.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's actually probably okay, presuming that the character article meets the GNG, a non-free image of the character from an official work they are in is within reason, since the entire article is about that topic. --MASEM (t) 19:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Major Tom

I noticed that the Major Tom article didn't have an image, which seemed odd for such a recognisable pop-culture figure. However, it turns out that Bowie only actually portrayed the character in the original Space Oddity video, where he's always obscured by either a space helmet or a strange mirror-tunnel effect. (Additionally, the only copy online is quite blurry and seems to have been taken from a VHS.) I was thinking of adding an image I found online, which helpfully includes both Bowie's face and the "Major Tom" space suit (as well as the alien/angelic women discussed in the article), but it seems to be a fairly obscure behind-the-scenes photograph and I haven't been able to identify the copyright holder. Any ideas? —Flax5 21:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Mmm, seems like this is the sort of topic where no free image is likely to exist as it would be by default a derivative work. So use it as fair use?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Is it a problem that we don't actually know who took the photo? —Flax5 16:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, because it makes it difficult/impossible to verify that it's a free image in case it actually is.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
So which would be the better option, the photo or a still from the video? —Flax5 08:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting help with license tagging for image

Requesting help with license tagging for image: File:SydneyMorningHerald 13Feb1955 page19.JPG

Shown in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on February 13, 1955. There is no name listed with the image, only FACT correspondent and a cartoon doodle and short story.

Writemorerightmore (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks copyright to me and I don't see that {{PD-Australia}} can apply because it was published before 1 January 1946 which seem to be the important date because the image must be freely licensed in the US, where the wiki foundation's servers are located, as well as the country of origin. Even for Australia it misses out by about 6 weeks. ww2censor (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Reich et al. (2009) chart

File:Reich (2009) Ancestry Estimation Chart.png
Reich (2009) Ancestry Estimation Chart

I've just uploaded this file, which I created by redrawing the original chart in Publisher and conerting it to png. But I'm simply not sure abut the copyrights; see also copyrights for Nature: publishing licences and permission requests. And via NCBI (emphasis mine):

"Wholesale re-publishing is prohibited
3. Archived content may not be published verbatim in whole or in part, whether or not this is done for Commercial Purposes, either in print or online.
4. This restriction does not apply to reproducing normal quotations with an appropriate citation. In the case of text-mining, individual words, concepts and quotes up to 100 words per matching sentence may be reused, whereas longer paragraphs of text and images cannot (without specific permission from NPG)."

I figured that this would be solved by redrawing the chart, but I'm not sure. So, what do others think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion you have copied their diagram too closely to be able to claim the creative artistry is entirely your own. I am comparing https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Publications_files/2009_Nature_Reich_India_Supplementary.pdf Note S5 Figure 4 page 40. Without that you need their permission. You have the same colours, angles and style of lines, size of text. However, you could fairly easily redraw it using your own creativity but based on their data. That would be perfectly all right – there is no copyright in the data. You might consider taking written notes about all the information you want to include and then, trying to put the original diagram right out of your mind, drawing a diagram in your own way as if you had never seen their artwork at all. For example, I suspect you could place the various populations in a different order at the bottom. Good luck! Thincat (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Backwoods Home Magazine classified ad

I want to upload an image of the Backwoods Home Magazine classified ad that inspired the film Safety Not Guaranteed.

The file is located at http://static.businessinsider.com/image/55421fd3ecad048714bdc387/image.jpg

The source is located at http://www.businessinsider.com.au/safety-not-guaranteed-meme-2015-5?r=US&IR=T

Is it ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship?

New9374 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have obtained permission to use our logo on Wikipedia. How can I upload it so that it is not rejected, please? --Wikip~ (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

We do not accept images that are for Wikipedia use only, only freely licenced images, however, logos are normally accepted in the infobox of the company/society/organisation's article as a non-free image, unless it is so simple that it not copyrightable. It must comply with all 10 non-free content policy requirements. Use a fully completed non-free rationale such as {{Non-free use rationale logo}} AND the licence tag {{non-free logo}} (click on the links to see how to fill them in). Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This is exactly the usage I want to make of it: input it in the infobox of the organisation's article. The problem is that last time I uploaded it it was deleted. I provided the permission to 'Permissions - Wikimedia Commons' [Ticket#2016031710018834] but the logo was not restored--Wikip~ (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
In that case you should post a note, with as much details as possible including the file name, at c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard where one of the OTRS volunteers will investigate but if the permission was only for wikipedia use it would be rejected. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, ww2censor for your help. --Wikip~ (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The OTRS backlog is two months. Your mention of the OTRS communication is from two weeks only and the refusal of your undeletion request is from less than one week. As mentioned in the undeletion discussion, if the OTRS communication is already in the line to be dealt with by a member of OTRS and if it includes a free license, the file will be restored. However, when the OTRS members get to this ticket, in two monts or so, it is predictable that they will not accept the restoration if the communication is worded as reported above. That is because files on Commons must have a free license, which must be issued by the owner of the copyright. On Commons you wrote you have obtained «authorisation from LDWA to upload this file onto Multimedia commons» and here you wrote you have obtained «permission to use our logo on Wikipedia». That is not a free license. So, it can't be accepted as such, and sending it to OTRS does not change that. I think the problem comes from the fact that you uploaded the file to the Commons site (which requires a free license) instead of to the English-language Wikipedia site (which does not require a free license for the particular type of usage you intend). If the owner of the copyright issued a free license, the file can go on Commons. If not, an option would be to follow the first suggestion given by Ww2censor in his first reply at the beginning of this section, and upload the file to Wikipedia, as a non-free logo, with a non-free use rationale and a corresponding status tag. If you upload the file to en.wikipedia as a non-free logo, a permission from the owner of the copyright is not required by Wikipedia, but you can mention it. You can upload also to some other Wikipedias, after checking their local policies to see if they accept non-free logos. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Asclepias for your help. I uploaded it as you suggested. Hope it stays there. But it looks too big on the infobox. Now I have to find a way of shrinking it or upload a smaller one. --Wikip~ (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
When it is necessary to adjust the size of the display in the infobox, you can add the parameter "logo_size" and assign a value to it, for example 128px. See the documentation of the template for details about the template. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks, Asclepias for your help. It looks fine now, after being shrunk. --Wikip~ (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thought many infoboxes automatically resize their image to fit so it may not be necessary to force the image size. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
In this case (Infobox organization) it has been necessary. --Wikip~ (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2016/March&oldid=1142595928"