Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


File:Logo of the IZY train service.png

File:Logo of the IZY train service.png Isn't this simple enough to qualify as {{PD-textlogo}}? Useddenim (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jeanne Manford marching with her famous sign in a Pride Parade in 1972.jpg

We need clarification as to the effect of the OTRS-confirmed permission on use of this image, which is identified as nonfree. So far as I can understand the "licensing", the copyright holder has granted Wikipedia-only permission, which ordinarily would not allow use of the image. However, given the historical nature of the image, it may be that the copyright holder is essentially declaring that the Wikipedia use does not raise problems under WP:NFCC#2 (respect for commercial opportunities), clearing the image for use as a nonfree file. I don't recall seeing this kind of permission for any other image, and while it strikes me as a very reasonable and appropriate compromise in the case of a genuinely nonreplaceable, historical image, I'm not entirely sure this is consistent with the nonfree content policy as it has been applied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Imma ping Missvain to explain a bit more what the "permission" archived in the OTRS system means. For the record, using historical images as non-free images when we have a Wikipedia only permission also happens on File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. No opinion as to replaceability yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I don't have an OTRS account anymore so I can't inform :( (I don't even remember this image, but, I processed thousands of OTRS permissions in the past). Missvain (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Magic93.png

I am wondering if File:Magic93.png needs to be licensed as non-free. The country of origin is Canada which has a threshold of originality similar to the United States so I this might be OK as {{PD-logo}}. The only possible problem I can see is the white slash through the letters "g", "i" and "c". Could this effect be considered copyrightable? FWIW, if this does need to be non-free, then it's use in CHLQ-FM seems to fail WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia

Can I use or quote articles of public interest in a book I'm writing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.68.166 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know the best course to proceed with this particular type of upload. I am creating the page for Irvin Borish. In addition to being a professional optometrist, he also painted in his spare time. I want to include a showcase of this talent in the article. Here is a link to the photo :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_in_Garden,_by_Irvin_Borish,_2002,_Collection_of_Beth_Roman.jpg

He gave away his paintings to his family and friends. In this case this painting is with his granddaughter. So - This is not entirely my own work. Also, this is NOT published work. Dr Borish is no longer alive. Would I need to get someone from his surviving family to provide the permission? Thanks for your guidance

Naren8642 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

In a word: yes. The copyright on the painting has not expired yet, and his heir(s) (notwithstanding other unlikely arrangements) manage them until it will. As always, be sure to ask for the kind of license we accept: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, please ask one of Dr Borish's heirs to send an email with their permission for a free licence to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. A suitable licence would be "Creative Commons 4.0". Once such a mail has been sent, please place a template {{OTRS pending}} on the file page to prevent deletion and add the licence to the file. De728631 (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Need some thoughts on an image permission on Commons

There is a great photo. It is being used as one of the images on Water polo at the 1900 Summer Olympics. The photo dates from 1916 but the uploader - who only uploaded maybe 5 images a couple years ago - says in the Summary that it was their own work. Are there any image-experts out there that could take a look at File:Au front.jpg and give me their thoughts here on whether not the image can remain in the article if it is passed to a GA status? The image could be removed but I hate to have that done if it is not necessary. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Help with image rotation?

I'm sure there is a more appropriate place to ask this question (so sorry!), but I'm not sure where else to ask if someone can rotate this image? I don't see how to do this, such as the bot rotation tool at Wikimedia Commons, but I may be missing something obvious. Is someone able to help with this request? ---Another Believer (Talk) 08:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer:  Done: As far as I know, we don't have a tool to do that like Commons does. In the future, requests like this should be made at a graphics lab. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 12:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for both taking care of the image and pointing me in the right direction for help. Much appreciated! ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Company logo upload

I'm trying to upload the logo of a company to wikipedia but it gets repeatedly taken down. Not sure what I'm doing wrong as I'm new. The logo that I'm trying to upload can be found here on the web: http://quarrio.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/quarrio_small.png and the company url is: http://quarrio.com Can you suggest me the necessary steps I must take to ensure that the file is uploaded and is not taken down again? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anasayubi (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That logo cannot be uploaded on Commons. You need to upload it here through Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and as a "non-free logo". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

File:KWBH-LP logo.png

Does File:KWBH-LP logo.png file need to have non-free use rationales? I tagged it with Template:NFUR not needed almost a year ago and then forgot about it unitl it was recently edited. Is there any reason why this should not be "PD-logo" and tagged for a move to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

uruguay peso notes images

Hi! Can i upload the peso banknotes images to wikimedia commons? Szajci pošta 18:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. Probably a question more suited for commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright than here, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Szajci: I'm sure that depends on age but there are already a few here: c:Category:Banknotes of Uruguay of which most are 19th century but two from the 1930s and a 2004 which is likely too new to be freely licenced for the commons. However, c:Commons:Currency does not have an entry for Uruguay. I'd still ask. ww2censor (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

how do i create my wikipedia page

how do i create my wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcysworld (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Your first article – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

i want to upload UI GreenMetric logo, here is the logo link : http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ui-greenmetric_grande_bg_w.png from this page http://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/workshop-ui-green-metric-ranking/ , i wonder if i can upload it on commons or must through upload wizard cause i still unconfirmed. thanks SartinatGM (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That'd be a non-free logo unless it was published over 50 years ago, I believe. @SartinatGM:, on which article do you want to use it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
i want to make the page about UI GreenMetric and still practice to make the page, and want to use the logo when the page is ready. thanks SartinatGM (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
According to our strict non-free policy you, SartinatGM, may not use a non-free image anywhere except in a mainspace article, and the notability of the organisation needs to be verified by reliable sources. So until the article is completed and no longer in draft or sandbox form, please do not upload the image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
ok thanks for your info SartinatGM (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it allowed to upload a picture of a company's logo in the info box if I am trying to write an article on this company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinotempwine (talk • contribs) 18:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but only after the article exists in the article space. See WP:LOGO for why and how. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

what tag to use

I wish to upload graphs that show my own work for which I am responsible. This work cn be used freely, should be cited when used and should not be altered. What tag is appropriate, please tell me.MaxWyss (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Think the easiest way is for you to upload them direct to Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard . Licence it (them) as CC BY-SA 4.0 and you will both retain the copyright and at the same time allow them to be used freely. Any problems, please comeback. P.S. If you upload a free image you are allowing it to possibly go on to be transformed and used in an another 'derived' image. You can not freeze it in stone. If this should be unacceptable to you then don't consider uploading it. However, there will be an audit-trail back to your originals if you fear your work being miss represented..Reading between the lines, I think your graphs would be of value in the right articles (since we don't don't appear to have anything like them) so do please persist. --Aspro (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@MaxWyss and Aspro: works that set the condition that they "should not be altered" (or "No-Derivatives", as we call them) are not acceptable licenses on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Err.. wasn’t that what I said above? Still, hope Max is still willing to upload his graphs and be happy to do so in compliance with WP/WC policies.--Aspro (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The comment was probably not easily understandable by someone unfamiliar with the rules. There's a serious risk that it sounded like "this is the tag you are looking for, go ahead and upload the files to Commons with it". Which is not what the user asked, will get him in trouble on Commons and will cause misunderstanding and frustration. It's better to give the straight and unambiguous answer to the question, and once that is clear, then maybe add other suggestions. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aspro: I agree that you added the caveat, but I also agree with the point made by @Asclepias: . In essence, OP said “How do I do X?” A response of “Here's how to do X” followed by a PS which might have been missed has the potential for leading to problems. OP might well have read the answer as confirming that their request could be accomplished and there was some legalese boilerplate that was not all that important. A better response is in the form “You canNOT do X, so if that is critical, you will be out of luck, but you can do Y, so you will have to determine whether the difference between X and Y (in this case, no derivatives) is key or a minor desire that is not critical.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Question on status of image DSCN6874b.JPG

Please advise as to the status of this image, file:DSCN6874b.JPG and if there is still an issue? Permission for use was given by Makk Studios on 2/08 via email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Sorry, I am new to the process.

Cstein99 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Status on image Americo and Eva Makk Painting Cathedral Wall.JPG

Please advise as to the status of this image, file:Americo and Eva Makk Painting Cathedral Wall.JPG. Permission for use was given by Makk Studios via email sent directly to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I am just learning the process. Any help is appreciated.

Cstein99 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Lookatme-ukregularcd.jpg

I have shrunk the image to 320px. The front cover has partial lyrics of the song Look at Me (Geri Halliwell song). What is appropriate size to make the verse illegible without harming the image quality? George Ho (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should consider the lyrics at all. If this is the cover, then this is the cover. Obscuring the lyrics does not make it WP:FREER. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
In that case... to which width shall I increase without increasing the risk? Or is the current size fine as is? George Ho (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If in doubt, tag it {{Non-free reduce}} and let the bot decide. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Question on status of image Americo Makk, Painting Cathedral Ceiling.JPG

Could you help with determining the status on the image file:Americo Makk, Painting Cathedral Ceiling.JPG? Makk studios sent permission for use directly to permission-en@wikimedia.org on 2/08, consistent with the insturctions from Wikipedia. Any help is appreciated.

Cstein99 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cstein99: now we'll just wait; there is a 130-day backlog in the permission process. I've tagged this (and the images above) to reflect that a permission has been sent. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Should I submit inquires on all the images I have on my draft to make sure they do not drop off?

Cstein99 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Cstein99. If you've sent the permission emails for all of them, you can tag those image pages with {{subst:OP}} which will place a message about it. We can help with this, too. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Public domain?

I am trying to establish the correct licensing information for a studio portrait photograph taken in 1916 of a woman who died in 1960 It is likely the photographer has died, and anyway there is no contact information. Would this be public domain by now? And what would the correct licensing information on WP be?--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have subsequently learned that her daughter who had the photograph of her mother in her possession died in 2004--Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Assuming the photo has not been published, then, according to the Society of American Archivists, "If the author (or the author’s death date) is unknown or if the author is a corporate body, then the term is 120 years from the creation date for the work".[1] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The daughter used it in an article about her mother in 1976, and gave permission for its use in another article in 2001. The latter simply gives the former article as the source. There is no mention of copywrite anywhere however. So I think you are saying we cannot use it unless we can get permission from someone? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
If it was lawfully published in 1976 without a copyright notice then (assuming all this is US) it is public domain.[2] So, did anyone hold the copyright in 1976 and, if so, was the publication lawful? I suspect (but I can't give a reference) back in 1916 in US copyright by default belonged to the person paying for the photo, not the photographer, but I doubt anyone here will agree with me. If so it could well be that the daughter held any copyright in 1976. I suggest you consider uploading it to Wikimedia Commons where there are people better-experienced in copyright issues than here and ask at commons:commons:VPC for advice. Thincat (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Picture

Hi I don't know why the picture are being replaceable. Please help what's the rule of wikipedia by uploading a picture here. Kazaro (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you but these photos are of people who are alive and the images are copyright. You do not have the copyright holder's permission to use them. A freely licenced image can be taken by another photographer and released under a free licence, so they are replaceable which is why they will be, or have been, deleted. We sometimes make exceptions for dead people, in those cases new image can be made so they are not replaceable. Hope you understand. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a better understanding of such issues. ww2censor (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Question about photo

File:Example.jpg

I wonder if I could add this headshot to the page for Calvin C.J. Sia http://www.hawaiiresidency.org/images/stories/Pediatrics/directory/sia.jpg.

The photo appears on this public website: http://www.hawaiiresidency.org/pediatric-residency/calvin-sia-md

The article Calvin C.J. Sia had been accompanied for many years by a photo that the subject of the page had taken by a relative and then uploaded it, but it was recently removed by someone claiming it belonged to the person who took the picture, not Sia, who asked that it be taken of himself.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airsick656 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Certainly not that particular photo. There is no indication on the website that it has been released under a free license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This is not possible. The photo you mentioned is copyrighted an non-free and we may not use images of living persons under a fair use clause. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, fair use images can only be used if there is no freely licensed alternative. But anyone could take a photograph of Mr. Sia and publish it under a free licence. De728631 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Concur with Finnusertop and De728631. I'd also like to add that the person who takes an image, unless paid by someone to take the image and/or they release rights, holds rights to the image...not the person who is the subject of the photograph. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pet Shop Boys - Super.png

I would like to know if the image File:Pet Shop Boys - Super.png is eligible to be copied to Wikimedia Commons, given that it's basically yellow text against a hot pink circle. snapsnap (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. The threshold of originality in the source country (UK) is significantly lower than in the US. This is quite likely not free in the UK, so Commons won't accept it. That's also why there is a {{PD-USonly}} template at the page. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for what may be a common question. We are a United States newspaper that has been contacted by an individual who wishes to post photos of two deceased U.S. individuals in two separate entries on Wikipedia. The photos are the work of the newspaper's photographers and the newspaper holds copyright to these images. We wish to grant permission for use of the photos in connection with these specific entries and for no other purpose, particularly by third parties. I believe the photos might logically be tagged as "non-free with permission." Does this designation give the newspaper protection against attempts at unfettered free use by third parties? Your response is appreciated. I apologize if I have framed the question poorly or asked in the wrong place. Battlegraphics (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia uses something under fair use, that certainly does not mean that any one else has a "free" use, so you are certainly covered there. Any reusers of fair use material on Wikipedia have to justify it for their own use, so fair use on Wikipedia is not as convenient for others as free use. Fair use applies even if there is no "permission to use on Wikipedia". So for the cases you mention you may as well just supply the images under fair use and not worry about a special permission for use on Wikipedia on those articles. The only advantage I see is that you could supply a high resolution image which would not normally be permitted for fair use. An image with 300 to 500 pixels of resolution would be satisfactory. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Our non-free policy is much stricter then the legal fair-use but likewise confers no rights on third parties and if you read the template {{Non-free with permission}} it clearly states the terms. Generally we will accept non-free images of deceased people but only as identification of the subject in the article about that person. Even so, for deceased people who are very likely to have freely licensed images available elsewhere, we could decline to use a non-free image, or if a free image turns up your image would be deleted. Here is an image File:Austin Andrew Wright, courtesy David Bocking.jpg used similarly to what you would like to do. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Stock certificate

Hello, folks. I'm writing an article about a particular company that had been privately-owned up until the point that shares were sold to the general public. I happened to stumble across an image of one of the original stock certificates. It was issued in 1968. The resolution of the image is not all that great, but I can see something that might be a copyright notice. And so, I have no intention of uploading it to Commons. My question here is -- do any of you see any plausible fair-use argument that I could make for including the image in the article on the company? It would be placed in the section that discusses the "going public", but there would be no discussion of the certificate itself (and certainly no sourced commentary on the visual appearance of the certificate). In case it matters, the company ceased to exist in the late 1980s.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Unless the stock certificate itself (and its appearance in particular) is discussed, the image is not needed for the reader to understand the discussion (WP:NFCC#8). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portrait_of_Sonam_Rapten_1595-1658,_Regent_of_Tibet.jpg

I have uploaded the subject file. Its owner wishes to submit the public domain permission. I have studied your copyright rules and proedures but cannot find how or where the owner should submit the permission. Also I cannot see any Ticket number to refer to the file. Please do not delete it. Please tell me where and how I should tell the image donor to send her permission. Thank you so much. MacPraughan (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In this case we do not need a confirmation for a public domain licence. This a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork that is not copyrighted itself due to old age. The Wikimedia foundation's official position is that such faithful photographic copies of a public domain work cannot be copyrighted either. So you could just replace the current licence template with {{PD-art}}. De728631 (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for your response. MacPraughan (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

File:1947 NZ Test team.jpg

File:1947 NZ Test team.jpg is group photo licensed as {{Non-free biog-pic}} for Colin Snedden. It's also being used as the primary means of identification in stand-alone articles about five other members of the team: Don Taylor (cricketer), Brun Smith, Roy Scott, Ces Burke and Tom Burtt. I asked if there was a way to use the team photo to create separate images for each individual at WP:GL/P#Cropping a non-free image, but the request was declined. Since the files description says the it was scanned from the book Great Days in New Zealand Cricket (published in 1958), Can this possibly be considered to be PD as {{PD-US-not renewed}}? Is it better to have a single non-free file used for all of the articles, or to try and find a non-free file specific to each individual for use in only that particular article if conversion to PD is not an option? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me it was published in UK.[3] Is that right? If so it'll be very likely still in copyright won't it? I see the reason for not cropping was on technical, not copyright grounds. I don't see why having several cropped scans with NFURs should be objectionable for deceased subjects. I have only used the Crop Tool on commons but it claims to work elsewhere. Thincat (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I just remembered {{CSS image crop}} (see example {{CSS image crop|Image = 1947 NZ Test team.jpg|bSize = 2000|cWidth = 200|cHeight = 300|oTop = 462|oLeft = 1480|Location = right|Description=<center>Brun Smith}} ) so you could just use the single image. Thincat (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to do all of that Thincat. The question in it's most basic form is whether it's preferred to have the same non-free non-free photo being used in multiple articles or using the photo to create multiple non-free files to be used in one article each. If the latter is preferred per WP:NFCC#3, then I guess the technical aspects of the cropping come into to play. If there was an stand-alone article about the team itself, then using a non-free team photo would be quite obvious (assuming NFCCP was satisfied), but I'm not sure if that's the case for individual team members. Moreover, I'm not sure how the {{CSS image crop}} works with WP:NFCCP, since it's still a use of the photo which requires a separate specific fair use rationale per WP:NFCC#10c Maybe I should bring this to FFD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we are only concerned with how we interpret (and extend) the WMF resolution on "minimal". FFD interprets NFCC in the most stringent way possible with regard to multiple copies and I think that is merely self-indulgence by authoritarian individuals. However, even taking that, if each player had their own separate cropped photo and the team photo were deleted that would surely be accepted. For me it makes no sense in terms of law or WMF to be disallowing these and even NFCC leaves the matter undefined. In my view, multiple display of single images (or parts of images) should be entirely acceptable. Thincat (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

1940 image with {{PD-US-not_renewed}} license

Hi, I have a question about commons:File:AContinentIsBridged.png. I took it out of the Franklin Booth article when I realized that it was made in 1940+. But, then saw it has the {{PD-US-not_renewed}} license. It was made in 1940 and the author died in 1948. I am unfamiliar with this licensing tag. Is this image in the public domain and free to use?—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it was even published without a copyright notice. The uploader made recent contributions on Wikipedia. You can ask him/her: 1. Why he/she chose the tag "PD-US-not renewed" over the tag "PD-US-no notice". 2. If he/she checked into the copyright records, for what names, and found no renewal entry. Commons:Category:Bell Telephone Magazine has hundreds of files and there doesn't seem to have been a deletion request. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, it sounds like this is a non-issue. I have just never heard of the not-renewed or no-notice tags before. I will double-check, though. Thanks.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Permissions

Hello, I am creating a new page for a transportation app. I received permission from the marketing manager over email to use the logotype and the icon for the page, and he seemed delighted. However, I only expressed that it would be used on Wikipedia. Do I need to state that it could potentially be used elsewhere on different sites after upload. Or, do I need to send him a license for him to agree to? Thank You. RES2773 (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, logos are usually used under fair use but securing a free license (which needs to be provable somehow, say by a notice on the company website or an email from an official address to WP:OTRS) is also good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The Donald

We have an article called Saturday Night Live parodies of Donald Trump. I would like to have this [4] (or similar) picture in it. Would that be allowed per fair use? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say not. It fails NFCC#8 because the essential information is effectively conveyed by the article text. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: The image portrays the two men who have portrayed Donald Trump as well as an appearance by the real Donald Trump. Although the text describes this, the image shows that Trump stood next to the two SNL cast members. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
"It shows" is not an adequate NFCC rationale. Proving the accuracy of text is not, in general, considered an appropriate reason for including a nonfree image. Saying "Meryl Streep wore a red dress to the Academy Awards" would not justify adding a nonfree image of Streep in the red dress. Similarly, per WP:NFC#UUI, you can't use a nonfree magazine cover to show that a person appeared on the magazine cover. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Yoshiman6464, I see the different Trump-impersonations as a sort of fictional characters, and the only way to show Hammond-Trump and Killam-Trump is via copyrighted image, like say Miles O'Brien (Star Trek) or Quark (Star Trek). And of course, I really like that picture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
That would be a lot more persuasive if this article was about the character Donald Trump (fictional character), but it's not. The article is about skits in episodes of a TV show. This is a major difference in the significance of context (WP:NFCC#8) (cf. things like the cover of an album are virtually always allowed in the article about that album, but almost never in other articles that discuss the album). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, that´s sadly reasonable too. Grasping for OTHERSTUFF straws... Dead Parrot sketch? Actually, "significantly increase readers' understanding" works for me in this context, as in "this is what Trump and his SNL-replicas look like". Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: and @Finnusertop: - As the image is now being nominated for speedy deletion, I would like to clarify my arguments for adding the image. I added the image not just because of the above reasons but also because similar articles, such as Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin, had a similar image of actors. The image in question was placed into "Files for Deletion" in 2008, and the result was keep. In regards to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument, of course "Meryl Streep wore a red dress to the Academy Awards" is not notable, but there are plenty of articles depicting notable dresses that use non-free images such as Yellow Valentino dress of Cate Blanchett and White floral Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn. Similarly to this instance, most SNL depictions of politicians are not included since they lack an article; for the case of both this article and Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin, non-free images are needed to depict the actors who portray the politicians. In regards to Finnusertop's argument, the image is important not just by the actors portraying the politician, but also the fact that Trump appeared on SNL. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 05:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Yoshiman6464: there are good arguments both for and against the use of this image. Had I been aware of the outcome of the rather similar case with Sarah Palin at FFD, I probably wouldn't have speedied this image. Now that I have, let's wait and see what happens. As for the fact that Trump appeared on SNL, I don't consider this a good argument as it can be conveyed by text alone with perfect clarity: "Trump appeared on SNL alongside with actors portraying him." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Yoshiman6464 The Palin-Clinton deletion discussion was a nice find, wish I´d thought of that. I think Finnusertop is right about Trump in the picture (but it´s nice that he´s there), there are plenty of pictures of him that can be used wherever. The critical thing here, like with Clinton/Palin, is the actors doing what they do. If the image is kept, I think it could also be of use in Donald Trump in popular culture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Logos from Various Theme Parks within company

Hello there,

I was wanting to improve pages on Wikipedia, such as White Water Bay (Oklahoma). I uploaded the logo to the commons, which I guess is the wrong place to upload the logo. I was wondering if I cited the source from the website if it was allowed. I am also an employee of this company, and would like to add all the various logos to the various within the company, with given source information, etc. to improve the site, as I've noticed other parks have their logos uploaded.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iizwhoiiz (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iizwhoiiz. It sounds like the logo in question would be a candidate to upload locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. Generally, non-free logos are allowed to be uploaded if it can be shown that they meet all of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. Typically, the hardest one of these to satisfy is WP:NFCC#8 which requires that there be a pretty strong contextual reason for wanting to use the logo. If you are planning to use the logo as the primary means of identifying "White Water Bay" in the main infobox at the top of the article, then NFCC#8 should be satisfied no problem. Things become trickier, however, if you're planning to use the file somewhere within the body of the article or within another related article. You can uploaded the log yourself if you want as explained in Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1 or you can ask someone to do it for you at Wikipedia:Files for upload. You can probably even post the url for the image here at MCQ and someone will probably see if it can be uploaded. This basically applies to any other non-free logos you want to upload as well.
Finally, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide since you mentioned that you are an employee of White Water Bay. COI editing is not expressly prohibited by Wikipedia, but it is something which is highly discouraged. Although uploading a non-free logo to serve as the primary means of identification at the top of the article is most likely not going to be seen as a problem, trying to add too many images or make significant changes to the content of the article might. Just be aware of WP:COIADVICE when editing and make an attempt to discuss things on the article's talk page before making any major changes to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Compliance

I have several questions regarding images I uploaded to Wikimedia for use in my Wikipedia submissions which I may have tagged incorrectly and were subsequently deleted. Select images, despite their wide and varied uses, are researched from public educational sources with comprehensive knowledge on the relevant subject to include history, government, foundation and other publication sources which may also include online sources such as Wikimapia. These images of person/s and places appear in copyrighted biographical, educational and general informational publications, United States federal government publications, on public memorials and so on and are generally widely available to the public with varying degrees of quality, size and format. The images I submitted are those of the highest quality existing in the public domain in some form or another including as signs in public places such as cemeteries, streets, paths, on posters etc. and appear to be widely used.

Therefore, I believe they would comply with Wikipedia’s policy and guidelines on non-free and fair use.

I have read the information available on WP in this and other regard but remain uncertain on how exactly to proceed in order to correct my submission and avoid image deletions in the future.

Please can you help guide me by responding on my talk page?

Thank you! I am new to Wikipedia and appreciate the privilege of being able to submit questions and historically relevant information for editorial consideration and readers education.

Respectfully https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:History_1History 1 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@History 1: all your uploads at Commons, bar one which is the subject of a deletion discussion, appear to have been deleted because they were copyright violations. It looks like you had sourced them all to the Gene Vance Jr Foundation which is a copyright violation unless the copyright holder(s) - who are probably not the Foundation - provide, to Wikimedia, emailed agreement to the image being placed in the public domain or being freely licenced. Please note that being widely available on the internet, even in Federal government publications, does not make an image public domain unless the copyright holder agrees to make it so. If you wish to contact the copyright holders and ask them if they do wish to licence the images then please see https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/ for a tool that allows copyright holders to send Wikimedia consent. Nthep (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Images from the NIH are OK. What about USDA images?

Hi again. I know that images from the National Institutes of Health are OK for the Commons. What about images from the USDA? As a specific example, at https://www.fs.fed.us/research/highlights/highlights_display.php?in_high_id=703 there is an image of "black fingers of death" (no kidding!) which I would like to put on the commons and incorporate into the stub article Pyrenophora seminiperda, which is the fungus that causes BFODs. The image appears to be attributed to Susan Meyer, USDA Forest Service. Please advise. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up. There is a similar image of BFODs from the USDA on Flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/5885449628 That one is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0 Is that one OK for the commons? The question about USDA images in general still stands, though. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
ND photos are not ok for Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like a case of Commons:Template:PD-USGov-USDA-FS. If you want to be completely sure, there's a form on the USDA website for contacting Susan Meyer. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
What I've been able to glean doesn’t seem terribly helpful nor definitive. The image links to a multi-faceted agency that manages and protects 154 national forests and 20 grasslands in 43 states (and something or other in Puerto Rico). Most information presented on the USDA Web site is considered public domain information but the image (which I have forensically examined) has no EXIF meta-data and so is of no help at all as to copyright status. As an experiment, it may worth emailing at contact and asking them. Can I leave it to DennisPietras (or someone) to contact and phrase in such a way that he/they/she/ or it, gets over to the USDA that they need to make clear (in this day and age of the internet) the copyright status of all their images. This is not commercial organisation that has to consider costs, as it has its hands in the deep pockets of the US tax payers. So they just might smarten up their act when their short-comings are pointed out to them.--Aspro (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Aspro You forensically examined an image???? Are you a CSI wannabe? Or are you just trying to get another barnstar? I'll contact Meyer for sure and try to make an educational presentation to USDA about image rights, but that is going to be at the very limit of my ability to be nice! Bummer about ND not OK for the commons. I'll let you know what I hear. Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Think I can brake this down to chewable chunks of explanation or a pons asinorum for want of a better phrase. Forensic, in it simplest sense, means attempting to establish who did what, when and how. Modern digital cameras imbed information into the image file. Which normally stays there -unless someone removes it (knowingly or unknowingly). For example picked at random the image 62emeMarmaluke.jpg. Go to the very bottom of page and you'll see the Meta Data. Click on show extended details and you'll see even more. That shows 'who', 'when' and 'how'. Some cameras also have built in GPS, giving the 'where' (although this last feature doesn't seem to work too well on London Underground tube system). So all I did or meant, was to forensically examine the image you gave, for any meta data it might still have attached. As for joining CIS... now that's a thought! The whole cast appear to portray caricatures with problematical personality disorders. I'm sure that with a little guidance from the director, combined with my innate acting abilities, I won't have any problem getting a job on the show. Thanks for the suggestion ;-) --Aspro (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Aspro I used the contact form for Meyers and then got an autoreply stating that my message had been sent to [an email address], so I sent an email there with the permission form at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates When I used the contact form for the USDA Forest Service I got an autoreply "Thank you for contacting the Forest Service webmaster." but no specific email address. We'll see what happens. DennisPietras (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Good work, although the Commons form may puzzle her, because she should not use it if the photo is PD-USGov, which it probably is. Hopefully, she will simply confirm that this photo was made as part of her work for the FS and she will understand to not use the Commons form in this case. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This, I think, comes down to the crutch of the matter. Although they may declare that.... and I'm posting it in full: “Most information presented on the USDA Web site is considered public domain information. Public domain information may be freely distributed or copied, but use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Attribution may be cited as follows: "U. S. Department of Agriculture." Some materials on the USDA Web site are protected by copyright, trademark, or patent, and/or are provided for personal use only. Such materials are used by USDA with permission, and USDA has made every attempt to identify and clearly label them. You may need to obtain permission from the copyright, trademark, or patent holder to acquire, use, reproduce, or distribute these materials.” Emphasise mine.Then they goes on to say: “ It is the sole responsibility of you, the user of this site, to carefully examine the content of the site and all linked pages for privacy, copyright and licensing restrictions and to secure all necessary permissions if applicable”. Emphasise mine again.This is legalese which says that whilst they 'try' to to identify and clearly label all images it it the user that suffers any legal consequence from their mistakes. The lawyer they employed to write up their Policies and Links has made a mess of it. They should be stating clearly which images are in their option Public Domain also. If the they make a mistake they should have cheap insurance in place (like other publishers) to reimburse any copyright holder that has been wronged. Getty Images and other image libraries indemnify the people that use their images at around the first $100,000 of legal costs should a mistake occur (and think about it- what images on this USDA site would have any where near that commercial value – as they don't publish images of films stars in the nude). The USDA is a government org., (financed by the US taxpayer), that many depend on for images and appears to encourage the 'free' use of images but without the USDA taking any responsibility what-so-ever. Would be happy to join other image up-loaders to Wikimedia Commons to bump this up on WC in the vain hope that USDA drops its legalistic two-handed attitude. --Aspro (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aspro and Asclepias: Wow! I almost can't believe what is in extended details! No reply from the USDA/FS today, but it is a holiday today in the USA, so I didn't expect one.DennisPietras (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To demystify things, there is something which DennisPietras and other image up-loaders may find useful -if they don't know already. There are apps that one can install in one's own browsers that can quickly look for any EXIF data in the image at a mere click. Because there are so many OS's and browsers available, I just give a link to a site that gives an overview from which editors can pick their preferred option (and there are other's that are not mentioned). 10 Best Exif Viewers To Read Photo Details Effortlessly. One doesn’t have to be a TV CIS Star to realise that if the image meta data shows it was taken by A. Smith and the John Doe up-loader professes it is his own image – there is something obviously amiss.--Aspro (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aspro: Thanks! Let's hope that the John Doe's of the world don't find out about this! DennisPietras (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aspro and Asclepias: Well, you learn something new every day, so to speak. Susan Meyer sent me an e-mail reply with a .dat file!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Eventually, to avoid paying for an app that was advertised as being free, I just opened it with Open Office. After paging down through lots of ##################################### etc, I finally got to this passage

"Hello Dennis It is no problem to use the image. As part of a US government research product, it is in the public domain and not subject to copyright.

Cordially Susan

Dr. Susan Meyer, Research Ecologist USFS RMRS Shrub Sciences Lab Provo UT"

So, could you please tell me how to present this to WC as proof that it is OK to use the image? Also, could you please tell me some other reason that USDA would use a program to send .dat files other than costing taxpayers more money? sigh. That was only a rhetorical question. No reply from the webmaster yet. Also, I do realize that the image is automatically copyrighted, but let's assume that she doesn't understand that and is giving us the equivalent of CC-BY-4.0 siiggghhhh...... Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Her answer is perfect as it is. She understands the situation and confirms what we expected. The image is not subject to copyright in the United States. That's why we have the PD-USGov templates to express that status. She could not give a license, because she never owned a copyright. You do not need to present this mail to anyone. Just upload the file to Commons, link to the source webpage and express the status with the template PD-USGov-USDA-FS, linked at the beginning of this conversation. Commons already hosts 1,697 files from the FS with that template, and thousands more with other USDA templates, so that's not something controversial. The suggestion to confirm with the photographer was primarily to reassure you, because you seemed unsure. You can send a copy of the mail to Wikimedia if you want, but they advise against sending them mail when it's not really necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aspro and Asclepias: Done! It's at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BFOD4TC.jpg if you want to see my brain cramp, sigh. Do either of you know how I can correct the text caption (that is, what wc calls the description)on the wc site? I pasted the species name of the fungs twice, instead of the species of grass seeds (Bromus tectorum). I've corrected that on the wp article, but I'd also like to correct it on the wc file, if possible. No reply from the forest service webmaster yet. Thank you DennisPietras (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aspro and Asclepias: DUH That was an embarrasingly easy way to edit the description. Sorry for the extra question. DennisPietras (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, hope from this experiment that Susan Meyer gained some comfort from knowing that others (outside her discipline) are interested, acknowledges and appreciates the work that she does. Well done Dennis. --Aspro (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually hope that this might nudge her into becoming a wp contributor herself!
In cases such as this, the only necessary question is whether the attributed image author is an federal employee or not. There is a copyright statement here that states every effort is made to attribute non-USDA material as such. Of course image reviewers need to be mindful of any suspected externally supplied images that occasionally get in and may be inadvertently not attributed correctly. So she and her colleague can be encouraged to contribute their own work without any hesitation. ww2censor (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

enwp policy on the Public Domain Mark?

On Commons, images from Flickr tagged with the Public Domain Mark are tagged with c:Template:Flickr-public domain mark, which stipulates that the file must either be relicensed under a more specific PD tag, or else deleted within 7 days. Meanwhile, on WP:FLICKR, it specifies {{PD-old-80-1923}} next to the public domain mark, with no designation as to whether or not it is OK. That license tag is one of many relicensing possibilities under the Commons policy, and actually doesn't even exist on enwiki.

So, is there a formal English Wikipedia policy or accepted practice as to the treatment of locally uploaded files from Flickr licensed with the Public Domain Mark? — Train2104 (t • c) 22:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:John Florescu-TV show.jpg

File:John Florescu-TV show.jpg was uploaded as public domain, but the source url provided for the images does not provide any indication of such a thing. I've asked the uploaded about this at User talk:MariaOlteanu#File permission problem with File:John Florescu-TV show.jpg and was provided with this link. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, there is some kind of "CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain" declaration, but right below that there is something which says that the content of the website is copyrighted. Is CC declaration good enough for this particular file to be PD or is something more specific to the file itself required? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The CC0 declaration on that page says that it applies to the section "Who we are" of that page, which is the short text of presentation of the business who publishes the website. It does not appear to be a declaration about everything published by the business. Besides, the upload to Wikipedia is too poorly documented. There is no context of the source of the image, no indication of who created it. From the upload, there is no evidence that the business declared this image to be in the public domain, and there is even no evidence that the business ever claimed to have been the copyright owner of this image. -- Asclepias (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Asclepias. I suspected that might be the case. I've informed the uploader of this discussion and advised her to ask any further questions she may have here so that others can also help her. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The webpage that has the CC0 notice seems to be the only one to have it. All other accessable pages just have © at the bottom of each page and any searched pages require registration, so without appropriate details we cannot keep this image. An OTRS verification would also work. ww2censor (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Asclepias & Marchjuly. You are correct describing the mentions above regarding the CCO 1.0 UPD declaration. I contacted the online project owner and just received the confirmation that the image can be used for wikipedia. However, I understood this is not following the guidelines for the media copyright files and the owner must fill in the explicit declaration of consent to Wikipedia OTRS for verification. I am sending this information as a reply to the online publisher. Can you please advise how much time do they have to fill in the document?
Thank you for all your help and vigilance. ---- User:MariaOlteanu
@MariaOlteanu: The copyright holder needs to be aware that Wikipedia use only is not good enough for us, we need a free licence. There is no time limit because even if the image has been deleted it can be restored when the OTRS verification has been made so long as they mention the image name as uploaded here. However, currently the OTRS system is rather backlogged, so for a speedy solution I'll make a suggestion that the copyright holder consider placing the image on a separate webpage together with a copyright licence that we accept (have them select one at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses preferably one of the Creative Commons ones) and whose url is not linked elsewhere, so it cannot be easily found except by those who have the url but registration for their site is unnecessary to view it. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and wasn't sure about the copyright issues on logos. I wanted to upload a picture of the Carnation company logo to their wiki page. Is it possible to use an image like this under the fair-use policy? http://bigredkitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/blogger/_8Wde_YQM5cI/SsJGK6lVd2I/AAAAAAAAEb8/-4Moz2BeFUE/s1600/carnation_logo.jpg

Alternatively I can take a photograph of a tin of Carnation milk and use that but I wasn't sure if that was still protected by copyright even though I would be taking the photo myself. Thanks! Loweredtone (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

You can upload it here at Wikipedia with fair use rationale by using the template {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. On the file page you just need to add {{Non-free use rationale logo |Article=Carnation (brand) |Use=Infobox | Owner=[[Nestlé]]}} and {{Non-free logo}}{{Trademarked}}. Anything else will then be displayed automatically.
The process is also mostly automated when you use the following commands: "Upload file" from the toolbox on the left, "Wikipedia -> old guided form", click "brand" where it says "It is the logo of ...", fill in the parameters Article, Use and Owner as I noted above (you can ignore the rest of them) and then choose "Logo" in the Licensing drop-down menu. De728631 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Loweredtone. Taking a photo of product packaging can be tricky depending upon the specific circumstance as explained in c:COM:PACKAGING. The same of the tin itself is probably non-descript enough to be considered a utility type of object which is not eligible for copyright protection. The product packaging, however, may be something considered to be above the threshold of originality for the country of the product's origin, and therefore be eligible for copyright protection. Purchasing the product gives you the right to use it as you please, but it does not equate to a transfer of copyright of the any of the branding, etc. associated with the product. It might be possible to argue de minimis if the packaging is not the focus of the image and the tin is just shown in the background, but that does not sound like what you're trying to do. As De728631, posted above you can probably upload the logo as a non-free logo as long as you are able to show that your intended use of it satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria. If that's the case, I think it would be better to try and find the logo on an official Carnation website such as this or this and use that as the source for the image. It also tends to be easier to justify non-free use per WP:NFCC#8 when a logo is being used as the primary means of identification at the top of the article than when it's being used in a section within an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the info MarchjulyDe728631 - it's much appreciated. Taking a photo sound like it might be quite complicated copyright-wise so I'll try using a logo under the non-free use rationale. Loweredtone (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's entirely reasonable to take a picture of a logo and use that image under the same fair-use criteria as a logo found online. This is how we got the image at School City of Hobart, for example; I walked past one of their schools, photographed the sign with their logo, cropped out everything else on the sign, and uploaded it under a fair-use claim. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we include the full translation of the Nazareth inscription?

See Nazareth inscription#Text. This is a similar issue to the poem one above, and as at that one I'd like User:Moonriddengirl's comment about this. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The inscription itself is too old to be copyrightable. However, translations are copyrightable so we'd need either to claim fair use, make our own translation and freely license it or find a freely licensed translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Photo of Harold Burnell Carter with David Knight and a Merino Sheep.jpg

I have received this message when attempting to put a photo in the article: Harold Burnell Carter

"Thanks for uploading File:Photo of Harold Burnell Carter with David Knight and a Merino Sheep.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)"

I don't know what copyright tag to put on this picture. I have looked at the tag list and nothing seems to cover the situation. The photos is the frontispiece of a published book, 'The Australian Merino', by Charles Massy. Can you help?

Many Thanks, Ben Carter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benito Cartero (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

From your talk page I see this is the third image you uploaded that has been deleted. As I pointed out in the post immediately above this one, copyright status has to be determined and several factors apply, so those need to be answered before we can advise you if any appropriate copyright tag applies to the image mentioned. The book you mention was published in 1990 so images in it are likely still copyright. ww2censor (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Licence for cropped or edited version of an image

This is another dumb question, sorry. Sometimes I come across an image which should be cropped or otherwise edited for a particular article. I don't want to replace the existing image, which might be used elsewhere. I am happy to Photoshop the image, but when the time comes to load it into Commons I don't know what to do with licencing. Common sense tells me that the original licence should apply, but if the original was uploaded by somebody else as their own work then I can't see how to force the system to recognize that. Is there some straightforward solution? --Gronk Oz (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Cropped images should normally use the same licence as the original to together with a link back to the original that goes in the "other versions" field of the {{information}} template. In the source field you can add a link to yourself as the person who cropped or modified the image. For retouched images there is a template {{retouched}} where you can add appropriate modification details (the commons version takes more details).
If an image has already been uploaded to the commons, which is where all freely licensed images should be uploaded, you can use the CropTool (turned on in your Commons "Preferences", under "Gadgets" to crop and upload an existing image, either as a new image, or overwriting the existing image, together with all the appropriate details copied from the original image. It also places a link to the new extracted image in the original file page and visa versa. It has been mentioned this tool works here on enwiki images but it is not listed on the local preferences page so I doubt it. ww2censor (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Brilliant - that's just what I needed. Thanks, ww2censor. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

How to source a previously approved image

Hi again! I've got a screen capture image file from a National Institutes of Health video already certified (I don't know if that is the exact term) as OK to be on WC. I'm in the process of further modifying it to make an additional point. When I upload that derivative of a certified image, do I credit it to the original NIH source, or just to the certified image file, or both? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've uploaded the image. I imagine that the normal review process will let me know if there is a problem, but if anybody wants to look at it, it is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:H2AZchroMediator4TC.jpg DennisPietras (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Quoting full, presumably copyrighted, translation of short poems fair use?

I wanted to play it safe by asking here. I might just give up or try my hand at my own translation if it seems inappropriate to do otherwise.

I'm working on our article on the medieval Chinese poet Li He. My sources include a fair bit of literary criticism on some of his better-known poems, so I've included the full (public domain) Chinese text in preparation for going into more detail on what critics say about them, but the Chinese text is fairly useless to most of our readers without a translation.

I currently have access to one published translation of at least one of the poems (which is eight lines long) in this book, and have found several possible bootleg uploads of other translations of other poems online which I don't want to quote or link to for obvious reasons.

But would quoting the former in its entirety be pushing the limits of fair use? I did something similar on Ariwara no Narihira some time ago, but those translations were shorter and were not meant by the copyrighter to stand as independent works but to assist in understanding his literary criticism.

Another solution I've been throwing around in my head is to quote the full text in Chinese, and only quote the translation in a few lines that my critical sources show particular interest in.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between what WP:NFCC says and how Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text interprets this. The former insists on "textual excerpts from copyrighted media" while the latter considers "brief quotations of copyrighted text" okay. Excerpts are by definition only a part of the work, while a work can naturally be brief in its entirety. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that very short works were in mind when the relevant portion of NFCC was being written. We're already permitted to use entire images in certain circumstances (e.g. a logo), and when a copyrighted textual work is so short that any portion would fail to suffice, I don't see the difference. In fact, we're already doing this in the William Carlos Williams article (search "woodchunks"), and our article about his poem "The Red Wheelbarrow" quotes the entire poem. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about something so short, but I'd like to hear what User:Moonriddengirl has to say about this, as I know that we've deleted as copyvio short translations before. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly the original Chinese version is PD. Translations are considered derivative works under US law (it's not a mechanical conversion) so the English translation would be copyrighted, but you are speaking about a compilation of material (the book you've linked), which falls under this. Thus, the few lines of English-translated poems (I see three on the page you're waiting to fill) are likely fine as they do not represent a severe copy-taking of the full book, and especially considering how short these are (it would be like staying you couldn't use all 5 lines of a limerick). If there were much longer poems, several stanzas, then definitely pick-and-chose would be recommended, but I think you are fine with 3 representative translations (w/ attribution). I would still wait for Moonriddengirl to provide input, they're the local expert on text-based copyrighted concerns. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Masem: @Doug Weller: @Nyttend: @Finnusertop: Thank you all for your comments, and I appreciate your insights, but per below I actually think Asclepias has provided the answer. If our article doesn't use Hinton's translation in the context of a discussion of Hinton's translation, I suspect it might be fair use. Ironically I think it would be fair use of the Chinese text if that were even relevant, but the Chinese text being public domain means it isn't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's always return to the basics:
1) Q: What is the copyrighted work? A: The copyrighted work is the translation, the translated text, the work of the translator.
2) Q: Who is the author of that copyrighted translation? A: The author is David Hinton.
3) Q: Will that copyrighted work be used in the context of a substantive critical commentary of that work of translation or in the context of a substantive critical commentary of David Hinton's works as a translator?
The proportion of the copyrighted work used is a secondary issue that would begin to matter only if the use is in such fair context. If the use is not in such context, the use of any proportion would not be fair. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Huh... that's a good point. I wasn't even really thinking of that -- Hinton presents it as Li He's work, and I was gonna do the same. I was going to focus on critical commentary of the Chinese poem with the translation only used as an intermediary to assist readers, but I guess it might fall afoul of fair use rules if my use doesn't have a fair use rationale in relation to Hinton's work. I might just go ahead and consult Hinton's translation, as well as the Japanese and English critical works I have access to and some good dictionaries, and make my own translation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2017/February&oldid=1138542474"