Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/January

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Why did you remove the image when the copyright owner emailed you the proper permission

On the page for George William Thompson, there was an image of the individual. I just noticed it was removed.

Back on May 17, this image removed:

(cur | prev) 02:57, 17 May 2016‎ ImageRemovalBot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,781 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (Removing links to deleted file File:George W. Thompson, International Trade Attorney, Adjunct Professor and Author.jpg) (undo)

However back on April 8, the photographer released the photo for use and sent the appropriate mail. What is up?

TargetPublic (talk) 07:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Al Anthony

Hi TargetPublic. According to the deletion log, the File:George W. Thompson, International Trade Attorney, Adjunct Professor and Author.jpg was deleted by an administrator named Explicit on May 17, 2016 because it did not have proper permission. It is possible that Explicit was not aware that an email had been sent to OTRS. I have pinged Explicit, so perhaps he will be able to provide you with more details. Deleted files are not really gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view. They can be restored fairly easily after the fact by an administrator if the licensing issues are evenutally straightened out. It's the end of the year right now, so many editors are busy with the New Year holiday and might taking a break from Wikipedia. Wait a few days and if you still don't get a reply, then you can either post something at User talk:Explicit or ask for help at WP:OTRSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ticket tracked, not sure why it was overlooked but the image has been restored and the OTRS confirmation added. @TargetPublic:, you need to re-add the image to the article. Nthep (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TargetPublic (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thullal

It is not a copyright image.. It is a normal jpg image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyas Kanna (talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Shreyas Kanna. Is the image you're referring to File:Thullal.jpeg? All files uploaded to Wikipedia are required to be provided with a copyright license as explained in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files. Someone here would be more than happy to help you resolve the matter, but more information about the image is needed to help is determine its copyright status. Do you remember where you got the image? Is it a photo you took yourself or did you find it somewhere online? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Shreyas Kanna, the image in question appears to be a movie still that tineye.com finds though I cannot access the image pages to see exactly what it is and what its copyright status is. We take copyright status very seriously and generally images you find on the internet are copyright to someone. It does not matter that YOU copied them, but without their express permission under a free license we cannot use them, except in exceptional circumstance per our non-free policy. For film articles such as Thullal (film) you have edited, we usually allow an image of the movie poster to be used as identification in the infobox so long as all 10 criteria of the non-free policy are met. However, I cannot find one easily. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to find out the problems editors have with images, such as you are having. ww2censor (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Best logo

File:Waterfirefox.jpg A logo of Waterfox File:Waterfirefox 100x100.jpeg A Resized Logo of Waterfirefox File:Waterfoxicon100p.png A Resized Logo of Waterfox File:Firefoxicon106p.png A Resized Logo of Firefox

Since Uploading my Two files since January 1 and Two files today I have linsce Logo I Recevice a Message at My User Talk Page Yesterday and Tonight I have to read them. How I can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Jhon Gaspar (talk • contribs) 10:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, please don't upload different sizes of one and the same image file. Wikipedia has a built-in software that can resize an image as you need it, so there is no need for many different thumbnails to be uploaded. As to the messages on your talk page, you uploaded these images with copyright tag for non-free content. Non-free content on the English Wikipedia, however, requires a fair use rationale why the particular file is needed to improve the reader's understanding of a specific article. So you were asked to add a fair use rationale for these images. The articles about Firefox and Waterfox however, do already have logos and it turns out that these logos have been released by Mozilla under a free licence. See e. g. File:Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg.

So what should you do? Commons:Category:Mozilla Firefox logos has many superior Firefox logos and File:Waterfox Logo (redesigned 2015).png is also superior in quality and resolution to your upload of File:Waterfoxicon100p.png. The combined logo File:Waterfirefox.jpg moreover raises the question if you just made this up or if it is being used by any official software product. So, instead of transferring your files to Wikimedia Commons I would rather argue for deleting them. De728631 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Dj Ravi Belaganj.com

Dj Mixing Download Song Belaganj {Khaneta} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Raaj Belaganj (talk • contribs) 15:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any questions regarding the copyright of Wikipedia content? De728631 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

If the problem is Uploading Images I do not Own... Why even the text like the "Track Listing" and Other descriptions have been Remove??

Recently I edit a page name "Dong Abay" He is a Filipino Musician from the Philippines. An Indie Musician but quite well known and surely he is my number one Idol when it comes to music. What i want to point out is that i know many things about him go to almost all of his recent gigs. Research a lot, and that is the time that I realized why not improve his wikipedia page especially many OFW (Overseas Filipino Workers) and Filipino outside the Philippines want to know more about this guy who makes high class lyricism when it comes to Philippine Society and other issue such as Politics, Poverty, History, Life.

I know the consequences about the images but I tried as much as i can to tell to it's owner that I will use his/her image in a wikipedia page for Dong Abay and other artists. I even put references so that It will not remove or deleted because as I know if you have a authentic source your edit will not be deleted or some sort.

But when new year 2017 came I receive this message and booopp! it's all gone, like I didn't spent a lot of time editing this one precious page that I truly respect and never meant to put vandalism on it. What I didn't understand User:WayKurat point out that I need to stop to put images I do not own, but why do he or she whoever he/she is need to remove the texts i put? Texts with authentic references music that this guy really wrote, help to wrote and sings. Songs that really comes from him?

So please reply on this and enlighten me why this things have to happen to me.

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardoversuso16 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you asked @WayKurat: why they removed your text contributions too? When there are controversial edits we usually ask the editor first before seeking help at noticeboards like this. As to your image upload, it is not allowed to use images of living persons that you did not create yourself without explicit permission from the photographer or copyright holder, and even a licence "for use at Wikipedia" is not sufficient. Such photographs must be freely usable by anyone for any purpose, so we need a written permission from the photographer or the artist's agency sent by email. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Photos from Press Information Bureau (PIB)

Hey,

I recently uploaded some photos from the PIB Photo Archive on Wikimedia Commons. These photos are release under the following license [1]. As per an administrator on Wikimedia commons, they were deleted since they were not explicitly released under cc-by-sa-4.0(or any other free license) and thus not acceptable there. I was suggested to look at En:Wikipedia and upload these image files under the Fair use policy. There have been photos from PIB which have been uploaded and allowed under this policy and here are some examples: en:File:Agni-V missile.jpg and en:File:Shaurya Missile.jpg. I have uploaded 4 images under the Fair Use policy looking at this example. They are: en:File:Birender_Singh_Dhanoa_COAS.jpg, en:File:Shirish_Baban_Deo_CAS.jpg, en:File:Anil_Baijal.jpg, en:File:Bipin_Rawat_COAS.jpg. The rationale is that the Government of India does not release official photos under any official license but simply states that they are free to use. Since, this is not acceptable by Wikimedia Commons, we are forced to upload these photos under Fair use policy tom illustrate articles. Also, there is no other way to obtain Photos from official Indian Websites since they all have the same policy. Can someone please shed some light on this matter if these images are allowed here and correctly uploaded? A lot of work goes into uploading and improving articles and it would be great if these are allowed here. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

While the site says they are free to use, that doesn't make them copyright-free images, so we would be evaluating them under non-free content requirements. For the articles on rocketry they may be okay since being able to obtain free images of rockets lifting off is not something readily assured, but when it comes to the images of living persons, that's an absolutely no. If people are living, we can expect free images of them to be taken, so we do not allow the use of non-free save for very exceptional cases, and I don't see that here for those images. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

My argument here is that is very difficult to obtain images of serving armed forces personnel in full dress uniforms since this only happens at ceremonial occasions and access to them is tightly controlled by the Indian government. I think it is also not readily assured that their images will be taken by someone neutral/free and thus this be treated as an exceptional case on the lines of rocketry. This would be helpful in better illustrating the articles. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adamgerber80: I think you have analysed the situation well when you state that it is very difficult to obtain images of serving armed forces personnel in full dress uniforms. So by that statement you confirm that the very first requirement of non-free policy cannot be met, which refers to the fact that if an image could be made even if very difficult, means that such images, which are not freely licensed, cannot claim use under our strict non-free policy. ww2censor (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I understand your logic and extending that logic then why are images of rockets lifting off (from the same source provider PIB) are allowed. Obviously, it would be difficult to get these images but these images could be made. I fail to understand how the first requirement is applicable in one case and not the other. In my opinion, No free content of these images exists anywhere since PIB is the only public source for them and under wikimedia commons rules it is not considered free (or so I am told but I disagree). Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think that File:Birender_Singh_Dhanoa_COAS.jpg, File:Shirish_Baban_Deo_CAS.jpg, File:Anil_Baijal.jpg and File:Bipin_Rawat_COAS.jpg fail WP:NFCC and should be deleted. Do you any specific other images that you think are acceptable on the commons which you think are non-free? I can see the argument for the rocket images but still think they too fail NFCC but each case is taken individually on any deletion nomination page. Unfortunately, being the only public source does not mean that no freely licensed images could be made. I have previously reviewed the Indian copyright page [2] you mentioned and due to the specific restriction that images material must be reproduced accurately I interpret as meaning no modifications are allowed making the license unacceptable to us. ww2censor (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Derivative works using fair use content

File:ConvergEvoEyesjpg.jpg, File:ConvergEvoSkinjpg.jpg and File:PseudogeneBrafjpg2.jpg are licensed as CC 4.0. The files are described as derivative works created using fair use content. Fair use content implies a copyright is involved, doesn't it? Do the individual elements of the final images need to be treated as non-free content? Is a non-free use rationale needed for each of these elements? -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of non-free works to make new works, without permission, are still non-free and replacement images can easily be made of the first two images. I'm pretty sure a freely licensed replacement can be made for the third one if it is based on available common knowledge. ww2censor (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible with some derivative works of non-free content (the typical case is a photo by a Wikipedian licensed CC of a copyrighted sculpture, see Template:Photo of art). However, all of the examples you link to woefully fail WP:NFCC#1 and should be deleted (there is nothing in those images that is irreplaceable by free images; freely licensed photos of lemurs and human eyes abound) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ww2censor and Finnusertop for helping to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons screenshot

Is there a simple way to fix the licensing of File:Overwrite.PNG? It's a screenshot from Commons and the only reason it seems to have been created was for use in this Teahouse discussion. The uploader posted in the same discussion that he doesn't care if the file is deleted, but I am thinking that it might possibly be useful to another editor. Technically it's not a Wikipedia screenshot, so I don't think {{Wikipedia screenshot}} can be used, but c:Template:Wikimedia screenshot seems applicable. Can this be moved to Commons? -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It can be moved to Commons, because as a file that is in use on a Wikimedia project website, it meets c:COM:SCOPE. The right license there would be c:Template:Wikimedia-screenshot with |logo=no – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop. I can tweak the file's description and tag it with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, but the Commons licensing template won't work on Wikipedia. How should I license the file to get it ready for the move? -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} plus {{GFDL}} – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Finnusertop. If I messed anything up, please just fix it accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

CC2.0 license

@Marchjuly and Finnusertop: Folks, just when I thought that I was set to sail on the smooth oceans of the commons, I tried to "license" this image, which is composed of a collage of 3 images with CC2.0 and 1 with CC3.0 licenses. Then, I found that the "lowest" CC option on the upload form was 2.5 ,and the boat started taking on water. What to do? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately this image (the girl on the left) is not freely licensed; it has a commercial restriction. It is also best to upload each individual Flickr image first and then upload your montage linking to the already uploaded images. I seem to recall there is even some wiki formatting that montages several images into one but I can't find it right now. Surely you can find appropriate existing commons images that you can crop? This commons category alone has 1300+ images of smiling women and there are many other categories you can search through. ww2censor (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

1929 image copyright question

Hi, question mostly aimed @RP88: and @Ww2censor: re the ongoing Ufa-Pavillon am Nollendorfplatz: I wonder if you could advise on the copyright status of a photo (photographer unknown) taken in a public place in 1929 and published there that year? I imagine that {{FoP-Germany}} would apply, but what would its copyright status be in the US? NB The figures are of the German equivalent of Laurel and Hardy above a well-known portal. Sic transit gloria mundi... MinorProphet (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The photo is here: Film-Magazin (1929). MinorProphet (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A good place to start when evaluating if a work is PD in the US is Hirtle's chart at Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States. From what I can tell, that issue of the publication does not contain a copyright statement. Furthermore, I've checked US copyright records, and it was never regIstered or renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office. If that that issue of the periodical, Film Magazin, was first published in Germany in 1929 and the photographer is anonymous, then as a work first published outside the US by a foreign national between 1923 through 1977 without compliance with US formalities (notice, registration, renewal) the photo is in the public domain in the US if it was in the public domain in Germany on 1 January 1996 (the date the URAA restored US copyright protection to foreign works that had previously fallen into the public domain due to failure to comply with US copyright formalities). Unfortunately, if the photographer is truly unknown then the German copyright to his or her photo did not enter the public domain until 70 years after publication (i.e. 1 January 2000). As such, it's copyright was restored in the US by the URAA and will protected by US copyright for 95 years after publication (until 1 January 2025). —RP88 ^(talk) 14:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it'll just be an external link for a while, then. Thanks for your clear and concise explanation. By the way, I came across a photo on Commons (de:Datei:HebbelZuschauerraum.jpg) of a similar interior in another building by Oskar Kaufmann, the de:Hebbel-Theater. It just has a {{PD-old}} tag, although no US copyright statement: is it mistagged? >MinorProphet (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's on German Wikipedia, argh. >MinorProphet (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

RP88 gave a good answer to your first image but you are incorrect, c:file:HebbelZuschauerraum.jpg is actually on the commons but only used in a German article, where you found it, but should probably have a US tag too, being a 1908 published image, however, it could depend on the actual photographer's death date if they are known. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgive me if I seem dense, but what's the difference between the interior photos of the Hebbel-Theater, and those of the Theater am Nollendorfplatz in the Berliner Architekturwelt, if the death of neither photographer is known? Have I been battling with non-free use definitions in vain? PS I may need some sleep. >MinorProphet (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

At the very least c:file:HebbelZuschauerraum.jpg is lazily tagged. However, if it depicts any of the creative elements of Oskar Kaufmann's architecture, then it is might not be free in Germany since Oskar Kaufmann died in 1956 and {{FoP-Germany}} can't be used for an interior photo. If Oskar Kaufmann's architecture is de minimis in that photo then a better copyright tag for the photo would probably be {{PD-anon-1923}} instead of {{PD-old}}. I've updated the license on that photo, but if you think Oskar Kaufmann's architecture is not de minimis in that photo it should probably be deleted from Commons. Interior photos depicting Oskar Kaufmann's architecture published before 1923 can be uploaded to EN.WP instead of Commons using {{PD-US-1923-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=2027}} (the 2027 would have to replaced with a later year if the photographer is known and they died after 1956) —RP88 ^(talk) 03:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Lyrics databases

Do we have a list of online lyrics databases that pass WP:COPYLINK? I thought I'd seen one, but the only thing I can find is the second bullet in the "Points to avoid" section of WP:Lyrics and poetry. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

what CC license to use on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ConEvoEyes2jpg.jpg

Folks, some of you may remember the problems with my first attempt at making an image showing convergent evolution of eye color in humans and lemurs. I have now replaced all 4 eye images with croppings of squeaky-clean images. Still, I wonder what cc license to use, since not all 4 source files had the same. They were, one each, cc2.0, cc3.0, cc4.0 and PD. I would have used 2.0 if it was an option. Instead, I used 2.5. Please advise me if that is correct or if I should use a different type. Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Best License for screenshot image

Recently I uploaded a new version of File:Talisay City Hall.jpg which a screenshot version of it on wikipedia, what the best license should be apply to it? Thank you Nick Jr. (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick Jr.: That depends on what the screenshot was taken from. If it was taken from copyrighted software, the same copyright applies to the screenshot as applies to the software. If the software is nonfree, the image would be too. Since this building presumably still exists, any nonfree media of it would be replaceable since someone could take a free photo of the building. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade then what could be the best license for it since it is a screenshot of a building? Nick Jr. (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nick Jr.: There is no "best" license. The license is whatever the copyright holder says it is. Given that that isn't you, then you have no authority to alter or change the license. Since that license is nonfree and the image is replaceable, the image will be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

When you say this c:File:Talisay City Hall.jpg is a screenshot, I assume you mean you took a screenshot of an image that was displayed in your browser on your computer. That means it was not YOUR photo. So what is that website and is there any specific copyright notice that stated it is freely licensed? You also state: which a screenshot version of it on wikipedia, so do you mean there is already a version of this image on wikipedia? If so, what is that image? Usually the original photographer is the copyright holder and for us to keep the image we need their permission and without that it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@ww2censor Hi Sir thank you for your response actually the image that i've mention earlier is already deleted.Thank you Nick Jr. (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually the image that was here is the same as the one the commons c:File:Talisay City Hall.jpg. It is still there but now, instead of saying it is your screenshot, you claim it is the work of the "Mayor Eddie Gullas of the City of Talisay" and the link you provided does not show the image, so that claim appear to be untrue. You need to link to the actual page the image appear on AND show that it is freely licensed. ww2censor (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification, the deleted image is not the same as the one on Commons, and was deleted as it was replaceable fair use. --Whpq (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. @Whpq: but when I reviewed it this morning it looked like the same image both here and on the commons. Maybe it was a error conflict or something else. Anyway the current image is now on the commons with a Facebook source, so I have nominated it for deletion. If you know anything else please weight in over there. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

After looking this over, it appears that Nick Jr. uploaded an initial image as fair use. This is the one that I saw and tagged for deletion as replaceable fair use. It looks like Nick Jr. then uploaded a second image under this same name. I suspect that this second image is the one you saw (and I was previously unaware of as I did not notice it in my watchlist) and is the same as the Commons file. -- Whpq (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Jewelry designs

Hi all, at what point would a jewelry design become like the cover of The White Album and a photo of it be in the public domain? I have an engraved silver belt buckle that is a pretty generic design that I'd like to photograph, but I know that normally a work of art is copyrighted, just like a sculpture or other piece. Anyone have a sense of where the line is? Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

File media for Armend Rexhepagiqi

Hello, I created a new page for Albanian Singer Armend Rexhepagiqi ( right now is under Draft: Armend Rexhepagiqi).

I posted a photo of him but it says that I gotta provide the copyrights, who did the photo, where it came from etc.

I don't know how to put it in quotes or [b] <ref> <<< like this for example. Could you please send me the sample and I'll fill it in ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimJimmyBRabbit (talk • contribs) 00:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you do not know the photographer and the website where you found the image has obviously no free content, you have to assume that the photograph is copyrighted and non-free, and uploading it here is a copyright violation. Photographs of living people at Wikipedia need to be free to use by anyone, so I had to delete File:Armend Rexhepagiqi at Kënga Magjike 2006 awards.jpeg. As a rule of thumb, please note that almost all content you find on the internet is copyrighted and non-free unless a free licence has explicitely been granted by the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

What happen to the Copyrights after the file is uploaded

My title asks for it self I would like to know what or where can i find the information on what happen when I upload a file on wikipedia.--Sebastienb06 (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sebastienb06: Could you please be more specific? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It all depends on the licence you select. Generally, we require a free licence that enables anyone to re-use a work for any purpose including commercial activities. So if it is a photograph taken by yourself or another image entirely created by yourself and you would like to retain your copyright you should go with a licence from the Creative Commons pool. These licenses cannot be revoked but you will retain your copyright and anyone else who uses the file needs to attribute you as the author.

The opposite option would be to waive all your rights in the image and dedicate it to the public domain. That means that anyone can use the file but it not required to attribute you and you would not be able to control any further use of the file.

That said, please be aware that you can only upload someone else's works if the original photographer or artist has agreed to publish the file under a free licence of their choice. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

delete image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CTCFLoopDevReg1jpg.jpg

Folks, based on @StarryGrandma:'s reply to my question at the teahouse ("Is this image file legal?") the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CTCFLoopDevReg1jpg.jpg should be deleted. Is this enough notice, or should I do something else? Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with StarryGrandma's analysis. Moreover, neither of the authors seem to work for the NIH but instead Cell credits them as Emory University staff. So there is no final evidence that this image was prepared as a US government work by NIH employees which makes it a copyvio. So I deleted the image at Commons. De728631 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@De728631:Thanks! DennisPietras (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Organization Logo i.e. image file appears on site with a copyright but it is not, I had the image designed for the Organization's use as we see fit

how do I post my organizations logo. I bought and paid for it. Yes it is up on my organizations website http://dreamchallenges.org, which has a wordpress template that puts a copyright on everything posted, but as I own the image for use beyond that website, i.e. for use anywhere i want, I would like to post it here. How do organizations like IBM (who I know have very strict rules on the use of their logos) have their logo on their wiki page, but you keep deleting mine when I own it. What do I need to do? I am not sure what to do, I am not violating a copyright it is my image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaesem (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Blasem if you are the original copyright holder of the logo (i.e., the creator of the logo) or if you now hold the copyright on the logo (someone else created it, but officially transferred the copyright to you), then you can possibly upload the file to Wikimedia Commons under a license of your choosing. Depending upon the specific of the situation, you may be required to email OTRS and explicitly state you agree to release the file under a free license. Please take a look at c:Commons:Upload Wizard and c:Commons:OTRS for some more information. If, on the other hand, you are not the original copyright holder of the logo but have received permission to release it under a free license, then please refer to c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. In such a case, the original copyright holder will need to explicitly state in an email to that they agree to release the logo under a free license.

Please note that all files uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons are required to be provided with a copyright license and those which are not will be deleted. There are various types of free licenses which are accepted by Wikipedia and Commons, but only those which allow the file to be downloaded by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime for any purpose, including commercial purposes, are accepted. So, if you don't want people taking your company's logo and using it to make some money, I don't recommend you release it under a free license because such a license cannot be revokded after the fact if your company changes its mind.

There is another option to a free license which will allow your logo to be used only on English Wikipedia called non-free content. Permission from the original copyright holder is not needed in such cases, but this kind of usage must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which is pretty restrictive. Many of the company logos you see on Wikipedia are non-free content, so this might be something for you to consider. However, non-free images are only allowed to be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9, so you cannot use such an image in a draft. It would be best to wait until the draft has been improved as an article before uploading any non-free image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Aside: This OP has a problem. He is running a not-for-profit crowdsourcing org (a bit like WP is crowd funded). Yet, he does has a COI by promoting it as a single user account. Think the org is notable as a good example of what crowed funding can do and achieve. Yet, of now it is difficult for me to say that this article is WP notable as it stands. Does anyone have any ideas (other than glib suggestions that they find a cure for cancer etc which is not in their remit). --Aspro (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture to be added to bio on wiki

Hello, I have had problems in the past uploading images and not having the correct license as per wiki regulations. I have now contacted the photographer directly and received consent to use the image on Wikipedia with the appropriate credits. How can I do this to make sure not to make any mistakes that will cause me to be banned again. The photographer even mentioned her email can be given to confirm the consent to use. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalsulaiman (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A permission to use an image on Wikipedia alone is not sufficient. Wikipedia content is free to use for anyone, so we need a free licence from the photographer that allows anyone to use the image for any purpose including commercial re-use. Unless the photographer agrees to such a licence, e. g. Creative Commons 4.0, we cannot accept photographs of living people. If the photographer is willing to grant such a free licence, you can upload the image at Wikimedia Commons and then she needs to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org explaining that she agrees to the selected free licence for this image. De728631 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It would help us to know what your personal relationship with Ghida Fakhry is. Do you work for her? Why does she need this article created? Etc. Provide as much information as you can.--Aspro (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello I am actually working for Ghida. I am her social media strategist and I have been working to update her online presence and she wanted/needed her wiki page updated and with current information. All of which has not been an issue but she wants to include an image for her bio which has been a challenge, can you advise me on how this usually works? I have requested the above consent etc from the photographer and will revert with that as soon as possible. Let me know any further questions you may have and I will happily reply with the answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalsulaiman (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lalsulaiman: First, since you're being compensated or employed to edit, you need to make the mandatory disclosures described here. (Just disclosing it on this page is not sufficient). That aside, you need more than "consent to use the image on Wikipedia". The photographer would have to agree to release the image under a free license. That means a license that permits anyone and everyone to reuse and modify the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes. If the photographer is willing to do so, please have them follow the steps as outlined in donating copyrighted materials. But for articles on living persons, a free-licensed image is required. "Permission to use on Wikipedia" doesn't cut it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

First and before you go any further, you must add the tag {{connected contributor (paid)}} to the very top of the article's talk page. Save, then fill in the tag details. Read: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Then at the top of your talk page add one of these tags Template:Paid(which ever one you think is most appropriate). Likewise fill that in. Only then should we get back to the uploading image question of yours. Of cause, also read COI. We can't hold-your-hand any further as we are all volentary and so you will understand we don't do paid-editors work for them. --Aspro (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo of a postcard?

File:Hijiri88's postcard from Wikimedia Taiwan.jpg

I was assuming there'd be no problem with this, since it's a postcard sent to me by Wikimedia Taiwan as a reward for my contributions to Asian Month, but I'm actually not sure about the copyright status of, e.g., the image on a stamp issued (presumably) by Taiwan Post, which is clearly visible in my photo.

I filled in the upload form to the best of my ability under these circumstances (it took a lot longer than I expected since the tool apparently doesn't like it when users play it safe and presume an image is not free but might be fair use on the relevant Wikipedia user page). Apparently this wasn't good enough, and I really don't know what the proper copyright tag is.

Any help?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri: the stamp is definitely c:Template:De minimis, so don't worry about it. Whether or not the rest of the card (or your photo thereof) contains any originality or not, I can't say. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi! I'm trying to add a photo for Renewable Heat Incentive scandal. What type of copyright would this be? Or can it be uploaded to WP? --st 170e 14:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@St170e: the copyright will belong to whoever took the photo, whether that was Gerry Adams or someone else we don't know. So no it can't be uploaded to Wikipedia as doing so would be breaching someone's copyright. You could always contact Gerry Adams to see if he did take the photo and would be willing to licence it - see WP:CONSENT for the process of granting consent. Nthep (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thanks for your reply. I doubt I'll be able to get Gerry Adams to licence it; could I upload it with a non-free tag? I believe it meets the criteria since there is no other image that I can find which shows the actual resignation letter being signed. st 170e 16:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You could try but you'd need to make a strong case about WP:NFCC#8 and how seeing a picture of someone signing a letter adds contextual significance and isn't just decoration. Nthep (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Will faill NFCC#8. The reader does not need to see a picture of Adams signing a piece of paper in order to understand the statement that McGuinness resigned (or even the description that he "signed his resignation" letter). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, fair point. Thank you for your comments! st 170e 17:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Another quick question

Basically, I want to upload an image from this page. Per copyright rules, I've had a look and I've found this. It basically states all images are covered by parliamentary copyright, but can be reused without permission subject to the rules listed there (which the image meets). Is this acceptable? st 170e 23:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it looks like you can't use any of those images because the page you linked clearly states a commercial use restriction. It does not look like the NI Assembly uses the {{OGL}} license that the UK government uses for some of its sites, such as the Foreign Office. ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Big South Conference Logo (2017).png

Any opinions on whether this can be converted to {{PD-logo}}. Country of origin is the United States so it seems simple enough in my opinion to be below c:COM:TOO#United States. FWIW, I'm not trying to circumvent FFD, and will discuss it there if needed, especially since the way it's being used in certain articles does not seem to satisfy WP:NFCCP. It just seems that conversion to PD is an obvious solution to me, so I'd figured I'd ask for some feedback first. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems ok to convert it to me. Only the "big" part is of interest, and that's just a circle around it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Photo of a photo

Would a photo taken of a photograph on display as part of a British museum exhibition be suitable for use on Wikipedia? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That photo will be a derivative work of the original and depends on when and if the photo had been published, and when the original photographer died. Pretty much anything less than 70 years old will be copyright unless it was UK government work, in which case 50 years applies. Can you be more specific? You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that goes through many of the issues like those you ask about. ww2censor (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I have been looking at freedom of panorama and the UK does say it isn't a copyright violation to take pictures of things on display if they're open to the public. That is OK because the photo I have is of a display in a town hall museum however, its a canvass photograph that I had taken the picture of and I'm unsure as to whether it fulfills Section 62 of the Copyright Patents and Designs act as being copyright exempt. I have also taken a picture of the board describing one of the exhibits but I am more confident that that does but would like a bit more advice before I decide to post it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to be careful because in most instances freedom of panorama is for 3D objects like sculptures and buildings which photos and paintings are not. So using the term "things on display" needs to be considered as to what those things are. You clearly refer taking a photo of photographs. You could post it on Flickr using a non-free license, such as "all right reserved" for us to review and then change that license if it is considered acceptable. ww2censor (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Voter Guide Images

What is the status of photos published in state voting guides like this one. State of Oregon sent copy to every household in the state and cover says “Pamphlet is the personal property of the recipient elector” (i.e. individual votes), but there are no notes inside to indicate author or status of images. Are voter guide photos Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Vermont is not one of the few US states whose work is considered to be in the public domain. See: Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments. As you probably know ownership does not confer rights to copy such an item. The images are certainly copyright to someone, maybe even to the author. ww2censor (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Foreigner - Agent Provocateur.JPG

Now that File:Foreigner-I-Want-To-Know-Wh-297484.jpg is marked free to use in the USA, how would this affect the usage of the Agent Provocateur album cover? --George Ho (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

GIS data files and creating maps

Can someone point me to some discussion about using GIS shapefiles and creating maps. I haven't been able to really find a policy that answers the questions I have.

Specifically I want to know if I can use the data from https://gisdata.mn.gov/ . Much of the data doesn't specify a license. It's my understanding that data created by the State of Minnesota is considered public data [4] so I would assume all resources created by entities of the state would be fair game. I'm interested in using the data in QGIS to create maps for Wikipedia. 67.4.195.124 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

How does this have copyright?

Does the Manchester Metrolink logo meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection? It's just geometric shapes and text. -- Juandedeboca "All men dream... but not equal" 01.50 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that it is similar to File:Clerical Medical logo.svg, which was deleted on Commons. The UK has a very low threshold, and more simple logos were deleted after a court case (See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos and c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Clerical Medical.png). It is certainly not PD in the UK, and is thus not suitable for Commons. We'll need someone else to comment on the US status, as I'm not very good with that at the moment. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In the US this logo is certainly PD but not in the UK, so if you do upload it here you will need to tag it as {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}}. ww2censor (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Better yet, use {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, which produces the same output. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So this picture should be deleted? --

Juandedeboca "All men dream... but not equal" 00.44 19 January 2017 (UTC)

uploading image for use

Hi there,

I am trying to change the image in the Infobox for Cliff Thorburn (Cliff Thorburn); as he doesn't like the image that is currently being used. He has an image on his website; http://cliffthorburn.ca and would like to use the image from the front page of his site.

The image is copy-written by the photographer and we have permission to use the image on his website and Wikipedia. However I can't upload it as I am not the photographer. What would I need to do to get the image up there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advisorgee (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @Advisorgee: You'd need that the photographer allow everybody to use it, including commercially or in the form of derived works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Advisorgee: Get the photographer to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT to verify their permission. ww2censor (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

title

I am Wikipedia new account open in my bio data how to upload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIVAKUMAR E (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi SIVAKUMAR E. The meaning of "bio data" is not clear from your post. This noticeboard deals primary with questions related to the licensing of things such photographs, audio files, etc. So, if you have questions about uploading a photo or some other media file to Wikipedia, then this is the place to ask. If you can be more specific, someone would be more than happy to try and help you out.

On the other hand, if you're talking about uploading textual information about yourself (for example, a personal profile), then I think a better place to ask your question is at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Just for reference, Wikipedia does allow editors are allowed to upload some personal information to user pages so please refer to Wikipedia:Userpages#What may I have in my user pages? for more details. Wikipedia does not, however, allow user pages to be treated as personal websites or social media pages so please refer to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site for more information on that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Kummel.jpg

File is photo of a bottle of Kümmel. A non-free use rationale has been provide for the bottle's label, but there is no copyright license provided for the photo itself. Assuming the uploader Glane23 is the person who took the photo, then I think all that is needed is for a free license for the photo to be added, right? However, the file's description is a mess of broken template syntax and apparently contradictory information. On one hand it looks as if the file is being claimed as "own work", but it also looks as if it's is being attributed to somebody named "cervus" and was originally posted on Flickr by cervus under a "cc-by-sa-2.0" license. Anyone have any idea on how to clear this up? I was going to bring to FFD, but figured I'd ask here first to see if there's a clear simple fix that doesn't require any discussion. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I presume it refers to https://www.flickr.com/people/cervus/. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I posted the image in 2008 from Flickr where it was posted with a CC-BY(2.0) license in 2007. I updated the template in 2010. Someone edited the template in 2011, adding some duplicate parameters. I've now restored it to the 2010 edit. Note, however, that the image is no longer posted to Flickr and the Flickr file with the image was not archived. Does this help or make it worse? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Glane23. I was able to find an archived version of the url, and I added it to the file's description. It does not, however, seem to contain any information about file's licensing, and I'm not quite sure how that impacts the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad you found that and too bad it does not have the license information which appeared with the original image. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I see someone added another image of a different kind of kummel to the article. It's from Commons and appears to be free. Why not trash the older free use image as it seems to be no longer needed? Free images are always preferred over free user images. I've tagged it for deletion. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The new file is a text-book c:COM:PACKAGING copyvio. Speaking of Commons, they have c:Template:Flickrreview so that they can keep track of things. Maybe we should too. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

For reference, I started a discussion at c:COM:VP/C#Photos of bottles of liquor yesterday about the Commons file, partly out of curiosity and also to see if the non-free was needed per WP:NFCC#1. I was going to wait until that discussion was resolved before commenting about the Commons file here, but since I do think Finnusertop is probably right about the packaging unless it can be shown to be in the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that the packaging is probably an issue here. It looks a bit too focused to qualify as de minimis as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Raster image replaced by vectorized image

(This seems like the best board to bring this up, apologies if not.)

File:5.56x45mm_NATO.jpg has been used on some articles. Not only is it stored in duplicate on en-wp and on Commons, but a second editor created the better File:5.56x45mm_NATO.svg (exact same drawing, but in a vectorial format, so no artifacts/pixelization etc.). What should be done if anything regarding the .jpg? The problem is that the .jpg is under a CC-BY license, so just nuking it does not seem an option. Moreover, I do not know whether a .svg can constitute a better version of a .jpg when it is a different file format. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You could tag it on Commons with commons:Template:Superseded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Which copyright tag should I use on my image?

I recently uploaded the image File:BroadLaneWivenhoeTown21Jan2017.jpg to wikipedia but I am unsure about which copyright tag to apply to it. I took the image myself and don't mind it being used on Wikipedia, but I don't know which tag would be appropriate to use on it. Thanks, BarnabyJoe (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@BarnabyJoe:When you upload your photos to Wikipedia, we request that you release them under a license that permits anyone to "redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially." There are various licenses that fit this description, but the most common is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. Put simply, this license says that anyone can use the image as long as they credit you and agree to release modified versions of the image under the same license. If you choose this license, place {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} at the bottom of the image page. If you don't like the terms of that license, you can pick a different one from this list and place the template at the bottom of the page. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There are several other popular copyright tags you, as the author, can use, such as {{Attribution}} and {{PD-self}}. This page WP:TAGS and ones linked from that page show all your options. ww2censor (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Permission to include a Royal Academy archive photograph

I would like to use a 1906 group photograph of art students from the Royal Academy archives, along with its caption. I have received the email below from the RA giving me permission. What is the procedure (if there is one) so that the photo and caption can be included in a Wikipedia article. I would also like to put the name of one student in bold (the subject of the article). Do I need to ask for further permission to do this? David hewick (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC) 'Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 3:01 PM

Subject: RE: For the attention of Andrew Potter New email from Dr David Hewick RE: I am researching a work of art. Copyright query

Dear David

Yes you may use this photo for your article, but we do ask that it’s a low resolution image only, you can upload the image off our website.

http://www.racollection.org.uk/ixbin/indexplus?_IXSR_=lPmxLVa_3ni&_IXSP_=0&_MREF_=100564&_IXSS_=%252asform%3d%252fsearch_form%252fallform%26_IXresults_%3dy%26exhibitions%3dtrue%26_IXACTION_%3dquery%26all_fields%3dDOVASTON%26archives%3dtrue%26_IX%252ey%3d0%26books%3dtrue%26_IX%252ex%3d0%26works%3dtrue%26_IXMAXHITS_%3d18%26_IXTRAIL_%3dSearch%2bResults&_IXACTION_=display&_IXSPFX_=templates/full/&_IXTRAIL_=Search%20Results Please can you include our credit: Photo credit: © Royal Academy of Arts, London Best wishes

[redacted name]

Picture Library Administrator Picture Library, Royal Academy of Arts, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J 0BD

According to the website, the photo is dated around 1903 without a known photographer. Thus, I believe (but would wait for confirmation) that that would make it a public domain image (even the website says it is out of copyright). Thus, this can be uploaded to Commons under a public domain license. However, the fact they seem to want to claim copyright is similar to the issue over from the National Portrait Gallery (see National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute). To follow how those images are handled, you should still upload to Commons but you may to use the PD-Art tag there (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). You might want to ask for more help there on this issue. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Masem. I would like to acknowledge the Royal Academy. However, the PD-Art- tag page is no longer available. I will seek further adviceDavid hewick (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Logo of the IZY train service.png

Isn't this simple enough to qualify as {{PD-textlogo}}? Useddenim (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Christopher R. W. Nevinson photograph in National Portrait Gallery (UK)

The following photo has a Creative Commons license of limited non-commercial use which is known as a CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license and is found in full at the following page: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ . Can the photo be used within Wikipedia's pages, specifically the Christopher R. W. Nevinson article? The sitter died in 1946, the photographer died in 1959. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

In a word: yes. Insofar as there are no known free photos of Nevinson (and since becuse he has decead, none can be created) it qualifies for WP:NFC. Neither non-commercial use (NC) nor no-derivatives (ND) licenses are the kind of fully free licenses that Wikipedia normally accepts, so what we are are doing is an exception. With this exception comes strict rules to follow (WP:NFCC). Luckily, photographs of deceased persons are one of the most straightforward uses of content that is not fully free: the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard will guide you through the process of uploading the image as fair use. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thank you so much - wanted to make sure. Shearonink (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Image Copyright

I want to ask that can I use a websites Official Portrait with websites own reference for wikipedia. For example https://www.ispr.gov.pk/front/main.asp?o=t-chiefs&dept=cons in this page is the picture of Naval Chief free of copyright and what are procedures to upload them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseeb Malik 07 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Haseeb Malik 07: Afraid not, according to Pakistan's copyright law: "Copyright in a Government work shall, where Government is the first owner of the copyright therein, subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published."

As the website has a good contact list you could always email them and see if they are prepared to licence the image under a suitable licence, see WP:CONSENT for the details of the process. Nthep (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining comprehensively. Haseeb Malik

Images relating to LifeRing Secular Recovery

The article LifeRing Secular Recovery is presently nominated at DYK. It includes two images, File:LifeRing Secular Recovery logo.png and File:LifeRing Secular Recovery Ring logo.png, which are duplicated at unused files File:LifeRing Secular Recovery.png and File:LifeRing Circle2.png. The first three files are listed as fair use, the fourth as own work. I request that the fair use rationales of the first two be evaluated by an admin with experience in fair use images. The third will soon be deleted as an unused fair use image, and the fourth is, I suspect, a copyvio eligible for speedy deletion. Mramoeba is the uploader of the first three images and is also the DYK nominator (joined in September 2016, fewer than 500 edits), the fourth was uploaded by Noeismet (only 3 edits to en.WP, back in 2013). I am in no doubt of Mramoeba's good intentions, I would just appreciate a check on these images before the DYK nomination proceeds to the main page. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I notice you are an admin active here, any chance you could take a look so I can get back to the DYK nomination? Or anyone else who might be willing to comment / help? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The license of the first seems fine for me if we follow the "better safe than sorry" principle on "selection and arrangement" copyright, the rationale needs expansion. The lifering on its own is probably {{PD-simple}} though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Jo-Jo Eumerus, but I don't understand what to do (if anything). What rationale expansion should the uploader (Mramoeba) do? Template:PD-simple seems to me to say it doesn't apply to logos, and who might I ask about whether it is PD? Help! Thanks, EdChem (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

In order:

File:LifeRing Secular Recovery logo.png: The rationale template needs the now empty fields filled out.
File:LifeRing Secular Recovery Ring logo.png: Probably qualifies as {{PD-logo}}.
File:LifeRing Secular Recovery.png is basically the same file as File:LifeRing Secular Recovery logo.png.
File:LifeRing Circle2.png: Same file as File:LifeRing Secular Recovery Ring logo.png, but larger and with a white background, I believe.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have been following this as my rewrite is up for dyk. Thanks @EdChem: I have filled out the empty line on rationale box for 1st image (as per above) and as I understand it I think that's all I can do. Mramoeba (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding photo that I paid to have taken and have the full rights to use but did not take myself...

Hello. How do I add a photo that I paid to have taken and have the full rights to use but did not take myself...? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKGWIKI (talk • contribs) 00:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Charles Glenn Wallis image

I have an image of Charles Glenn Wallis which I would like to add to the article about him. The image is from the 1940 yearbook of St. John's College, Annapolis, Maryland, and was sent to me by the librarian of that College. It seems to have been provided to the College originally "Courtesy of Life Magazine". Is it likely to violate any copyright laws if it is attached to the article? I'm not clear on how to attach the image to this question.

Don Martin 19 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Don Martin 19. If the image you want to use can currently be found online, you can add a link to it to this discussion as explained at Help:URL. If Charles Glenn Wallis is the article where you want to use the image, then it might be possible to upload it locally to Wikipedia and use as non-free content per item number 10 of WP:NFCI. Non-free images of living persons are generally not allowed per Wikipedia's non-free use policy, but non-free images of deceased persons are often allowed as long as it can be shown that a replaceable freely licensed image does not exist or cannot be created (Non-free content criterion #1). I don't think replaceable fair use is going to be an issue in this particular case because Wallis died in 1944, but the remaining nine non-free content criteria do also need to be satisfied. One thing about non-free use, however, is that it is pretty restrictive and most likely would only be allowed if the image was used as the primary means of identifying Wallis at the top of the article; in other words, using the file in other articles or sections of article is going to be much harder to justify. If you want to be able to use the image more freely on Wikipedia or to make it available for use by other language Wikipedias, then I think it's going to need to be clearly established that the file has either been released under a free license or has already entered into the public domain for one reason or another. FWIW, 1940 seems like a long time ago in real time, but in copyright time it might not be long enough. So, this might be something which requires a little digging to properly resolve. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars The Last Jedi.jpg

Does the current film poster for Star Wars: The Last Jedi meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection? I'm inclined to say it does not, after glancing at some of the other Star Wars logos at commons:Category:Star Wars logos, but I would appreciate a second opinion. Mz7 (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The logo alone does appear under the threshold as the other SW logos, but the poster with the starfield exceeds it, and would be treated as copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Mz7 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Photograph Upload: Attribution

I want to upload a photograph on a Wiki document I am drafting that I obtained from a book published in 1982. Where do I insert the attribution to show where the photograph came from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdcrain (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Where it came from is usually the source but here we also have a {{attribution}} copyright licence template. However, it is highly unlikely an image in a 1982 book is freely licensed unless it is a US government publication or similar public domain source, as most, though by no means all, copyright is 70 years pma. Besides which the author of the book may not be the copyright holder of the photos they used in the book; you need to review quite carefully. Any image you upload should have a fully completed {{information}} template (click on the link to see who to use it and what fields are required) giving all the details about the image. If the book is online give us a link so we can assist you further. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"Attribution" and "where the photograph came from" are different things. "Where the photograph came from" goes in the "source" field. In this case, that would be the information about the book from which you copied the image. "Attribution" usually is the information about the photographer and it goes in the "author" field. You should do a research to identify the photographer. If the question is about File:Anna & Dolin 1929.jpg, I'm guessing this photograph might be by Dorothy Wilding, because of this, which might be from the same session. Photographs by Dorothy Wilding are not free. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright policy for buying photo

If I purchase a photo of the subject I am writing about from a newspaper, such as The Chicago Tribune, or Tumblr, can I upload the purchased photo on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdcrain (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No, not unless the image is freely licensed which is unlikely. Possession of a photo gives you no rights over copying the image, that copyright usually belongs to the original photographer, even if YOU rephotograph an image, and the copyright term is usually, bar a few exceptions, 70 years pma, i.e., after their death. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to see most of the issues why images are rejected. ww2censor (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please help

I don't understand my these photos - which I have permission sent in from the copyright holder - keep being taken down. Additionally one of the photos that has not been taken down in a cropped version of a larger one that does keep being taken down. I dont understand....Please help - it is the page regarding Aaron Resnick the Architect Michaelphmccarty (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Michaelphmccarty: I see in the image page you stated that permission to release the photo under a free license was sent in. However, it wasn't confirmed. The process for copyright holders to confirm permission to release under a free license is at donating copyrighted materials. Once OTRS has confirmed the permission, they'll post to that effect on the image page to confirm it. Do keep in mind that "permission to use on Wikipedia" is not sufficient, the copyright holder must be willing to release the photo under a free license (normally CC-BY-SA). I also note that you have several previous images that were tagged as "OTRS pending", but OTRS did not ever receive the release, so they were deleted as well. We take copyright very seriously, and making sure images really are free to use is very important. I'm afraid it's not optional. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Stanley Leopold Fowler

Hello

I am new to wikipedia and have written an article on Stanley Leopold Fowler ....His daughter Sally-ann Fowler has given written permission ( in e-mail) that I can use the pictures provided to upload with the article to support it. The trouble is I don't know if this is acceptable and through which portal to upload (article, wikicommon or anywhere else). It was suggested that she opens an account and upload the images but she has stated that at her tender age this would be a nightmare. Sally-ann has freely given the photos to me and expressed this in her e-mail. Please advise. Thank you in advance :)

Thewayweis (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thewayweis: The real issue will be, who actually owns the copyright, if any, to those photos she has in her possession. Copyright subsists, depending on the country, most often with the photographer, until 70 years after their death. If these are family photos and she is the heir, she can freely licence them and on the commons they have a specific copyright template for such images found at c:Template:PD-heirs. However, if she is not the copyright holder we need more details so we can help you. She does not have to register for an account, she can just verify her permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT here on the enwiki or at c:COM:OTRS on the commons which both show the text for email permissions and the team will follow up but do tell her to be patient as there is a backlog of quite some time. You can also forward those email you got directly to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org but by using the commons, the images will become available to editors on all the language wikis. ww2censor (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

File:USM Oran (logo).jpg

Seems like this file is simple enough to be converted to {{PD-Textlogo}}, but I cannot find anything on the TOO of Algeria at c:COM:TOO. Is there any reason why this needs to be WP:NFC#non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The above also applies to File:Usmba.png, File:ZSA Témouchent logo.gif and File:Crt rouge.png. Any reasons why these files also need to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)