Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/August

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

House.gov

While this issue arose because of a specific image ([1]), I feel it's wide enough ask a more general question. In particular, do we have any clear consensus on whether images at [2] can be presumed to be in the public domain? As is a common problem with US government websites from my experience, I can't seem to find any clear statement on copyrights. Furthermore, it appears to me that the Congresspeople have more or less complete control over their invidual websites which could mean they may upload images they have the right to republish, but which are not in the public domain and since most of their websites and the general Congress website doesn't say anything about copyrights, it's not like they're doing anything wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Postage-free-ireland.jpg

Am I right in thinking that this image is mistagged? Assuming the uploader did not create the envelope design, is it likely to be in the public domain? Guest9999 (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

{{PD-text}} seems to apply and the only part that could be copyright is the Irish government harp logo but, having been in use for more than 50-years, it is covered by the Commons:Template:PD-IrishGov licence. ww2censor (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed mistagged; it should be {{PD-because|The text does not have sufficient creativity to be copyrighted and the copyright on the Irish government harp has expired}} rather than {{PD-self}}. Stifle (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
That is even better Stifle, I have applied it to the image. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No CC 2.0 in dropdown menu

I want to upload this image from flickr. It's licensed under Creative Commons 2.0, but all I get from the dropdown when I try to upload is CC 3.0. What to do? Radiopathy •talk• 02:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Use the Commons upload form for flickr files.[3] Or even you could use one of the helper bots to transfer the file for you.-Andrew c [talk] 02:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Image in my bio page is copyrighted

Hi Wikipedians,

Someone uploaded a photo of me to my wikipedia bio page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christopher_soghoian.png

That photo was taken from my website.

That image has not been published under a CC/public domain license. Therefore, it should not be used on wikipedia.

This is not to say that I am some kind of copyright scrooge. Several of my CC licensed photos have been used on various wikipedia pages, and I have no problem with that..

For example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hand-cranked_knife_sharpener.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csoghoian (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The image was uploaded to Wikipedia Commons, not here but I've tagged it for deletion and removed it from the article.[4] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots from flight simulator software

I would like to confirm Wikipedia's position on the particular matter of flight simulator computer software screenshots. I feel that these may have slightly more complex copyrighting terms due to the fact that they may often contain images of free content. Allow me to explain (I would also appreciate it if any flightsimmers out there can help get my point across):

file:FS2004-lakes.jpg is a screenshot of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. MSFS2004 is copyrighted software, so the image is tagged with {{Non-free game screenshot}}. The copyrighted content in the image includes the scenery and the aircraft.

Now please direct your attention to File:Fsx screenshot 1.jpg. This screenshot was taken in a different version of the software, Microsoft Flight Simulator X. However, the aircraft model visible in the screenshot is available for download from the internet as freeware software. Thus, the image contains both copyrighted work, sold by Microsoft, and work created by an individual for free distribution online.

If I open up my flight simulator software, load a freeware airplane model, and take a picture of it, what is the copyright status of that image? Is it an artwork that I have created, and as such do I possess the copyright to it? Should the image have a free software screenshot tag or a non-free one? Is its use in articles limited by Wikipedia's rules regarding fair use of copyrighted works?

Your help is much appreciated. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My gut says: the image is generated by the software, and thus while the models could be free, the screenshot is covered by MS's software as part of the way it renders it. Think of it like press photos: anyone can take a free picture of a free-to-picture subject (say, a living person), but if the AP or other media press take that photo, it becomes locked by them as a non-free photo. (But in our case, we know that's likely replacable). If, for example, the freely-distributed model was the important thing to show, and that model could be show in a different, free-software modeling program, that would likely be ok too as a free image.
Short answer: regardless of what's in the screenshot, it is generated by a program of MS and thus under their copyright terms. --MASEM (t) 01:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Old photo that was deleted

I uploaded File:BulletProof Messenger Press Photo.JPG a while back because I'd been told by someone that they were the copyright owner and gave their permission to release it under a CC license. Fun subsequently ensued with the actual photographer asserting his copyright and the photo being speedy deleted after he complained.

I've been told that since then the person I was talking to has paid the photographer for the rights (including being able to put that one photo on wikipedia) and can now license it under a CC license. I've forwarded the relevant email to permissions@wikimedia.org (should I have used permissions-en@wikimedia.org?) a while back. Hopefully it still comes up under ticket 2009011610010217, can someone please let me know if the invoice and email chain shows enough permission from the copyright holder to be able to upload the photo again? Burgundysizzle (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the e-mail you sent on 4/16/2009. An agent replied to you at 04/24/2009 01:09. Please check your e-mail to see if you have that reply. And make sure you scroll down to the bottom to read the full message (as the OTRS software, be default, bottom posts). I can summarize, the PDF invoice does not give sufficient permission, because the company still claims ownership of copyright, and only specifies the term "wiki". Permission for use on just Wikipeda is not enough, as the way we are licensed, we allow 3rd party reuse and modification and commercial use. We need the copyright holder to release the image under the terms of a free license explicitly. Sorry if this is bad news. Hope it helps. I can forward the message to you again if you don't have the reply anymore. You can check on OTRS issues in the future at commons:com:ON. -Andrew c [talk] 20:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

File:VirginClass57Thunderbirds.jpg

Is this image justified to use on Wikipedia? This configuration of British Rail Class 390 hooking up with a British Rail Class 57 is quite rare nowadays with the arrivival of the Virgin Supervoyagers. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 10:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • No - the 57/390 combination was quite common - hundreds of photos must have been taken of the combination and I'd bet there's at least a few on Flickr etc. that have Creative Commons tags, and the combination still occurs today. Also, to be honest it doesn't need a non-free image for the reader to work out what a 57 coupled to a 390 looks like. Black Kite 11:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • By the way, this image is licensed and is probably a better usage in the 390 article, because it shows the coupling system which is probably more educational than just showing a 57 dragging one along. Black Kite 11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If you find an picture with a 390/57 combo upload it. Also if you want you can upload the above fickr picture and somehow incoperate it into the article. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Note, however, that the above has an incompatible license (CC-BY-NC-SA), although the author may be willing to relicense under CC-BY-SA. I'll gladly make a request if you'd like to make use of it. decltype (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to make use of both pictures. If somehow you request them so that I can use in in the article British Rail Class 390. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 08:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
At the moment you cannot use either of these images. You can only use a freely licenced image for this article because any non-free image, such as File:VirginClass57Thunderbirds.jpg, will fail the non-free content criteria. This is because it is replaceable with a freely licenced image. Unfortunately the donkey work is up to you because the burden of proof lies with you, the uploader, to comply with policy. We try to help where we can but are here for advise, so if you want the image so badly then you should ask the flickr image owner to change the licence, as already mentioned above. ww2censor (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Before I make the request: How is the train on the flickr image different from File:390029 'City of Stoke-on-Trent' at Birmingham New Street.JPG? They look the same to me (Of course, I know virtually nothing about this stuff). Regards, decltype (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Those two engines look the same to me except for the missing front cover on the flickr image. If you don't know if there is a difference perhaps you should not add the image until you are sure or until you get an expert to confirm it is correct for the use you want, but it looks like you have found a freely licenced image on the commons and don't need to worry about copyright issues after all. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually I want a picture similiar to the picture in the header. The second picture show the connection between Pendelino locomotives. (I'm not good with train terms). --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 04:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Several pictures to upload

Question #1. I have an original first edition book, now out of print of my great grandfather, Mulford B Foster's book "Brazil, Orchids of the Tropics". I have taken a picture of the front page to use on his Wikipedia article for the book infobox. Can I use this? There is no front cover picture as it is just plain blue hardcover binding and the spine is quite faded and barely visible.

Question #2. I have a large portfolio of Mulford's original oil paintings and drawings that I have received. After Mulford died this portfolio was given to his son, Bert who gave it to my mother before his death, who has given it to me. Do I have the right to photograph and upload pictures of the paintings?

Question #3. There was a memorial plaque presented to "Mulford" at the time of his death from the Bromeliad Society of South Florida. I am in possession of the actual plaque. Do I have the right to photograph and use the picture for Wikipedia?

Question #4. Racine Foster left in her will the rights to an extensive collection of photographs taken of Mulford and herself to Michael Spencer who eventually donated the extensive collection of records and pictures to the University of Central Florida. Does this count for copyright purposes in using any of these pictures on Wikipedia? I have Michael Spencer's permission to use the pictures and will get formal permission if this is considered an appropriate source as he is not the photographer.

Question #5 (and the last! at least for now). I have pictures of Mulford from family albums as well as from old advertising brochures and newspaper clippings dating from 1910-1912 era. At what point does the copyright expire for these pictures, assuming there ever was one? It seems that a picture almost 100 years old is surely not going to have anyone alive with a copyright nor a way to contact a photographer. Please advise. I see many old photos in Wikipedia articles dating back that much time, I find it hard to imagine they have found copyright holders??

Thanks ahead of time for any answers. I'd appreciate an answer on my talk page.. I get lost in Wikipedia and am forever trying to find my way back to pagesDianeRR (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer Question #5: Any works published before 1923 are out of copyright and in the public domain in the U.S. As for the unpublished photos, if the photographer died before 1939, they are in the public domain in the U.S. If the photographer is unknown, and the photo was taken before 1889, they are in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
To answer Question #2: It depends on whether the works are published or unpublished. Let's first talk about unpublished works. From the U.S. Copyright Office:
Works in existence but not published or copyrighted on January 1, 1978: Works that had been created before the current law came into effect but had neither been published nor registered for copyright before January 1, 1978, automatically are given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for new works: the life [of the author]-plus-70 [years] … will apply to them as well. However, all works in this category are guaranteed at least 25 years of statutory protection. The law specifies that in no case will copyright in a work of this sort expire before December 31, 2002, and if the work is published before that date the term will extend another 45 years, through the end of 2047.
Formerly under common law copyright, the copyright of an unpublished work automatically transferred with the ownership of the work itself. But since 1978, the author automatically retains the copyright in an unpublished work even after ownership of the work is transferred to another. Unless Mulford transferred the copyrights to his son, the son transferred the copyrights to your mother, and your mother transferred the copyrights to you, you do not own their copyrights.
Now let's talk about published works. Any work published before 1923 is in the public domain in the U.S. Any work first published in the U.S. in 1923–1963 whose copyright was not renewed for a second term is in the public domain in the U.S. Any work published 1964-1977 automatically had its copyright renewed. Any work first published in the U.S. in 1923-1977 without a copyright notice instantly entered the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Out of interest, as you are a descendant of M B Foster, it is possible that you inherited his estate. I don't know how US copyright works (assuming that he was a US citizen; you didn't state). If you are now the copyright holder for any works still in copyright, it might be possible for you to reassign them in the public domain.
For photographs, is copyright owned by the commissioner or the photographer? CS Miller (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Under U.S. copyright law, the copyright by default belongs to the photographer, not the photographer's client, unless the photographer explicitly assigns the copyright to the client. — Walloon (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I descend from Mulford, I did not inherit his estate as his great granddaughter. His estate went to his wife who left much of the historically significant items to an arhivist, Michael Spencer who subsequently donated the material to UCF. That university is claiming they have copyright rights to what they were given (although of interest they were given slides and pictures of the original paintings and drawings, many of which I have in my possession). Now, the pieces in question would have gone to his son before 1978 since I know for a fact that his wife was trying to accumulate all of Mulford's paintings so would never have given them away herself. It had to have been Mulford giving them to Bert before his death in 1978. If the copyright law changed in 1978, under my interpretation of the common copyright law then the copyright would have transferred with the ownership?? Bert did pass them on to my mother, his niece. And yes, we are all US citizens.

Now, from the above explanation it would appear that Mulford's book in question, which was published in 1945 and printed again in 1946 but now out of print would be considered in the public domain. I know the publisher is no longer in business. I would then be able to take a picture of the front page without fringement of copyright and for that matter could use the pictures within the book as well?

Many of the unpublished photos were taken by my great uncle who was also a photographer but he died after 1939 so I guess that means I can't use them. I will be able to use the ones from the published brochures so that will be helpful. Thanks for trying to clear up a very confusing topic! DianeRR (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Performance copyright duration

I have a CD of Edvard Grieg's Peer Gynt Suites, performed by the Berliner Philharmoniker. It is marked as ℗ 1972 in West Germany. The Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations article doesn't indicate how long the performances copyright protection will last (Grieg's copyright has expired). Nor does the Copyrights article explain how long a company's copyright lasts. Can any one tell when it will enter the public domain? CS Miller (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, reading the packaging more carefully, it is marked as ℗ 1972 Polydor International GmbH, Hamburg. CS Miller (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The copyright will last for as long as provided for by the relevant law in each country where the CD was released. – ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks you for your speedy response. In particular, do you know what the law is for the UK (where the CD was bought), and the US (I'm thinking of uploading it to Commons if it has expired). CS Miller (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you know when the recording was made? Any sound recording fixed (i.e., recorded) on or after 15 February 1972 is under federal copyright in the U.S., and will be under copyright for 95 years from publication. Sound recordings fixed before that date are under state common law or state statutory copyrights, which typically have no duration. The state copyrights will not be preempted by federal copyright law until 2067, when all pre-1972 sound recordings will enter the public domain. — Walloon (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It says in the copyright section
Recordings: Berlin, Jesus-Christus-Kirche, 9/1971; Berlin, Philharmonie, 2/1981 (op. 40)
The CD has Grieg's Peer Gynt Suite (ops. 46, 55 ), Aus Holbergs Zeit (op. 40), Sigurd Joraslfar (no opus number).
Does that mean that the Peer Gynt and Siguard Joraslfar are PD-expired in the US? What about Germany and the UK? CS Miller (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Re-read Walloon's comments a bit more carefully. Does Florida (WP's home) have specific laws for pre-1972 fixations? CS Miller (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
2009 Florida Statutes, Unauthorized copying of phonograph records, disk, wire, tape, film, or other article on which sounds are recorded. However, all subparagraphs require the copying to be made "with the intent to sell, or cause to be sold, or use or cause to be used for profit", or "for commercial advantage or private financial gain". The not-for-profit Wikipedia Foundation may be exempt. — Walloon (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
However, Wikipedia doesn't like non-commercial licences; the WikiMedia Foundation has sold DVDs of Wikipedia in the past. On the In the Hall of the Mountain King (4th movement of Peer Gynt), there is a CC-BY-SA home-made on piano recording of it; I doubt I could replace it with my commercial copy. The Morning Mood article (1st movement) has a link to a full (low-quality) preview of a commercial recording. Here I'd be on stronger legal grounds, but I need definite advice before doing so. CS Miller (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Need clarification on image

So a short-lived state in Southern Africa(Griqualand East (1862~1879), on which I have written an article) printed its own money in 1867 and burnt/destroyed most of those banknotes shortly after that 'cause they realized the idea was total junk and wouldn't work. Only a handful of those notes remain, and the copyright has definitely expired (1867/68, US+100, SAfr.+70).

And then there's this guy who takes a picture of one of those rare pieces, posts it on the web, and now claims he has the copyright. Hm?

  • Is that a legal claim?(e.g. If I Photoshop it, can I use it?)

thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Looks to me as a slavish reproduction with no originality. I fail to see how it would be legal. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Clearly a case of copyfraud though he may not even realise it. ww2censor (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Most people are clueless when it comes to copyright -- and of course it doesn't help that leading institutions like museums, archival services, libraries and such make the same copyrfraud claims. No wonder people are confused... but they're still confused and can be ignored when they make false claims. DreamGuy (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Prints?

What is the copyright status on prints? For example, I have a piece of art I want to upload. The original was painted by an artist who died in 1936, making it eligible for {{PD-art}}. However there was also a print published at a later date, and rather than a the slightly fuzzy watercolour that the original is, the print is a much sharper sepia version so ideally I'd like to upload both. So would the print also be PD, I assume so but wanted to make sure? 2 lines of K303 13:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that a print of a public domain image cannot attract any new copyright because it does not have the required originality, and is therefore also in the public domain. decltype (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
But in this case the print was explicitly not a direct copy though, that makes things a bit less straight forward because one would have to determine if the changes are significant enough to attract a seperate copyright or not. --Sherool (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows U.S. copyright law. Was the original ever published? If so, where and when? — Walloon (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Original is now uploaded at File:Birth of the Irish Republic.jpg. The print can be soon on page 17 here. This question might be better answered at Commons actually. 2 lines of K303 12:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

<---re to Sherool: Yes, this is far more complicated than I originally thought. Quoting/paraphrazing from Image ethics in the digital age (2003) by Gross et al it is very complicated to "determine whether a reproduction of a visual work" has "sufficient originality" to be copyrightable. In 1951, in Alfred Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. mezzotint reproductions of oil paintings (PD) were deemed copyrightable, because of a "distinguishable variation" from the original:

The copyist's bad eyesight or defective musculature or a shock caused by clap of thunder may yield sufficiently distinguishable variations

However, later cases have asserted that "there must be substantial difference or more than a trivial variation". From L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder:

... A considerably higher degree of skill is required, true artistic skill, to make the reproduction copyrightable ... To extend copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and monopolizing public domain work

Our own article on derivative works contains additional cases of relevance, such as Lee v. A.R.T. Co. I realize that I am not qualified to give a definite answer to whether the print is in the public domain or not. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That said, having examined the pictures in question, I would say that the print is a derivative work and protected by copyright. decltype (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed! That sepia print has clearly been redrawn, most obviously in the positioning of the nurse on the right. The faces have much greater detail, as well. Powers T 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the print is different enough to warrant it's own copyright protection. But given that it is dated to 1916, would that copyright not be expired by now?-Andrew c [talk] 15:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Some background on the print in this PDF (page 4). It was made by a Thomas Kiersey in 1916, and he did claim copyright at the time. No idea on how long that person lived. It would be public domain in the U.S. (published before 1923), so hosting on en-wiki is OK ({{PD-US-1923-abroad}}) but unsure about Ireland, which would be necessary to host on Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Its copyright status in Ireland can be assessed according to {{commons:Template:PD-Ireland}}. decltype (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, which (if copyrightable, which seems to be the case) depends on when Kiersey died -- which I was not able to find in a brief search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, according to a book in this search result, Thomas W. Kiersey died on October 11, 1938, aged about 49. So yes, that should be fine on Commons too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1976 Red Zinger Bicycle Classic Poster

I have a photo of an original 1976 Red Zinger Bicycle Classic Poster that I'd like to contribute. The original poster does not have any attribution or copyright mark. As I read the instructions, this predates the 1977 US copyright law freeing art work of requiring copyright mark, thus making this a public domain work. Is that correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pureart (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct (although it's the 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978). — Walloon (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Whatif.jpg

I know I said that I would send this to WP:AN in my last edit summaries but I changed my mind after remembering this page. The above file was created using MS Paint, but it is based on the single cover for "What If" by Coldplay. Would this still be a copyright violation? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 19:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, is a derivative work of that copyrighted design. —teb728 t c 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Well, I see that it is not an exact copy: If it is sufficiently different to be new work of fan art, it has no encyclopedic value. —teb728 t c 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
To elaborate:(and (edit conflict)) The description clearly states that it is based on File:XYCoverBig.jpg, in other words, a derivative work. The new author only holds copyright to the "diff" between their work and the original, while the original author still holds copyright to the preexisting material. The new author may therefore not release the entire work under GFDL 1.2 as long as the original work is protected by copyright. decltype (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
As I see now it is an almost exact copy of the cover of the single. —teb728 t c 20:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Would that single cover be eligible to upload to Wikipedia (under a license indicating that it was copyrighted)? And if so, then under what format? .jpg? .png? .svg? --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 21:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Not this single cover. In a very rare case that a single is notable enough to its have own article, the cover could be used for identification of that article. In that case the image would be tagged {{non-free album cover}}, and a non-free use rationale would be required, explaining why the use meets Wikipedia’s non-free use policy. ({{Album cover fur}} could be used for the rational.) The format wouldn't matter. —teb728 t c 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ethical question

There's a certain article I look at and link to regularly, and for some reason it's plagued by bizarre and frequently changing images, some of dubious origin and copyright status. Because I actively direct readers to this article, I feel (rightly or not?) a little responsible for ensuring some minimal level of quality. Currently it has an illustration sourced as "Internet", with no artist named, and permission given as "Artist." Are these things eventually caught by administrators, or do I have an ethical duty to report it? (This is the "tattletale" dilemma from elementary school.) I provide content and copyediting, but I'm an avowed doofus about image editing and technical aspects of Wikipedia. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean the images used in Battle of Carrhae, uploaded by User:Caius Magnus? Those are indeed quite dodgy. I've tagged them all for deletion on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I figured those were so obvious they'd be spotted. But yes, they occasioned the question. Are such things supposed to be pointed out somewhere by those of us who aren't administrators? Or are there regular patrols on the lookout for them? Apparently so, if you knew at once what I was talking about. My question is as much about etiquette as anything. I want to do the right thing without being a zealot. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Our policy is to assume good faith; in other words, a user who tags images for deletion is assumed to have the interests of the encyclopedia and the readers in mind, and any error they may commit in good faith will be forgiven. Administrators do not sit around combing over images for copyright violations - more often, this type of image is stumbled across while either conducting normal editing or while reviewing a problem user's contributions. In short, don't hesitate to tag problematic images; see Wikipedia:CSD#Files for some tags you can use for speedy deletion of files. Dcoetzee 04:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Serial offender

User:Coolguyhunksmart appears to be uploading copyrighted images to Commons and adding them to wikipedia. User has been warned in the past (December 2008) but has started again. Not got time to tag and revert all the changes at the moment do we have a quicker method of reverting his/her additions and possibly blocking them from doing any more. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, he's uploading them to the Commons and then adding them to wikipedia articles? If so, I would suggest he should be dealt with, probably blocked, on the Commons Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they're all non-free, as far as I can tell. He's been warned and blocked before, and many of his images deleted. I've alerted the Commons administrators to this user. Dcoetzee 03:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio or what?

Why should uploading copyrighted images here in any way be considered copyright violation? I mean shouldn't it be considered copyvio if one were to copy someone's work and use it for profit? Since most images in this encyclopedia are just for illustrating things, copyright law shouldn't much of a concern. In some forums online, users can upload any image they want, especially if its just illustrate the subject of the topic. In schools, teachers would allow students cut out pictures from magazines and paste them onto white paper which is a common school activity of showing something. 122.3.106.172 (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Using a work not-for-profit does not by itself stop that use being a copyright violation (though it may make it easier to claim Fair use). Even if it did, Wikipedia's goal is to be free-content, freely usable by anyone for any purpose, whether that purpose involves making a profit or not. Algebraist 00:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
In some forums online, users can upload any image they want: You need to learn that just because something happens online that it isn't necessarily legal. Just because the copyright owners tend not to go around spending the time and money to get all those violations removed it doesn't mean that it is accepted, legal or moral. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites in the planet. Because of this, we could tell that several millions of people check on it everyday. But the reason why copyright holders don't complain about their works uploaded here because we don't "cash" on them. As a matter of fact, no works here get cashed on regardless of their licenses. 122.3.106.172 (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not true. The reason copyright holders don't complain is because we have very limited usage of non-freely-licensed work. And Wikipedia can be "cashed on" -- that's half the point. You can print out articles and sell them if you want; it's perfectly legal. Powers T 13:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

copyright of images, cd covers

I have uploaded all the covers for albums and singles by the indie rock band The Veils. All images are scans of the actual cover-arts of the cds I own, except for two of them, taken from the website 7digital.com

I wonder if those images will be delated. I think record covers are useful, or better essential, in pages that describes the discography of a music band, so how can those images be safely uploaded? How all the record covers we can see on Wikipedia have been uploaded?

Can anyone tell me?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Best Awful (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have done it correctly, except that you need to add a specific fair use rationale for every article you use the image in. Regards, decltype (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, this is not exactly a media issue, But: Your articles on the singles might get deleted or merged into the album articles; it is a very rare single that is considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 04:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

creative commons

Hi, I would like to add a graph to an article. The graph is from Nature, and they have a computerised way of giving permission. I have got permission to use it on a website, but there is no option to ask if it can be made GNU.

Can we add a copyright warning to Wikipedia graphs?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 August 2009

A {{cc-by}} or {{cc-by-sa}} license on an image is OK by itself. There is no need for a GFDL license on an image. Be sure, however, that their license does not include a non-commercial or no derivative restriction. Neither of those restrictions is acceptable to Wikipedia. Oh, and your section title mentions "Creative Commons" but not your question: If they are giving permission for use only on Wikipedia, that also is unacceptable to us. —teb728 t c 04:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Image of Table of Contents

I would like to upload images of the table of contents of two editions of a book. The revised edition of the book eliminated a significant section of the book and my edits that document the differences had been deleted or marked up to indicate my documentation of the difference between editions was meant to be humorous.

Linking to the image would provide clarification of the differences between the two edition. I believe that tables of contents are generally covered under fair use guidelines, but I do not see that as an option when I try to upload the images. Markllo (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The images that you describe might be fair use, but Wikipedia’s policy on non-free images is significantly more restrictive than fair use law. WP:NFCC#1 says that non-free content is not used if the subject could be adequately conveyed by text. It seems to me that the use you describe could be replaced just a textual discussion of the removal of that section. Ideally the discussion would be referenced to a secondary source that discusses the removal. (Encyclopedias cite references; they don’t reproduce them.) —teb728 t c 02:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are these not PD?

According to {{Template:PD-textlogo/en}}, images that consist of nothing but simple geometric shapes or text can't be copyrighted. File:GM, logo.png and File:GoldenCorral_logo.jpg are. Can any one explain why? They seem simple enough. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 01:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

They are Trademarks and subject to other restrictions. Megapixie (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't actually address his point though. Copyrights and trademarks are separate (albeit related) things; something can be trademarked while still being in the public domain as far as copyright goes. See the original Xerox logo, for example. As far as these two logos go it seems borderline: perhaps the colored background and the line under the "GM" make it sufficiently more than just text to gain copyright protection. Ditto the background color and visual arrangement of the two words in the Golden Corral logo. In my layperson's opinion, though, I'd say they're both more likely to qualify as public domain than not. -- Hux (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Horiata

Hello, a long time ago I asked about the song (Horiata's) copyright, and you told me to speak with the copyright office. I am now in Greece and have visited the office, who said they need to know EXACTLY what you, (as in Wikipedia), want. Back in WWII in Greece, they didn't really have copyrights. But the office will give me permission to use the song if they know what you want. Also, regarding the pictures, nobody owns the copyright to those. I know exactly where they are, right in the house I am currently in! But each time I put one on, it gets deleted. These are family pictures, taken by members of my family. (i.e. grandmother, great grandmother, ect.) Thank you very much, --Iliada 05:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the song, see WP:COPYREQ for guidance on how to request permission from the copyright owner to use their work on Wikipedia. That page has information on what kind of release Wikipedia requires. Regarding your family photographs, typically the photographer is the copyright holder and, depending on the country in which they were taken, they retain that copyright for a certain amount of time, possibly until their death, possibly later than that. But it really depends on where and when they were taken. As a general rule of thumb, if the copyright status is unknown then we tend to assume that if the photo is more than 150 years old it's probably in the public domain.-- Hux (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple non-free use problems

User:Wikiwatcher1 appears to be uploading multiple copyright violations with incorrect fair use rationales:

  • File:Salk Institute opens.jpg "The photo is considered historically significant because it shows an early photo of the Salk Institute upon completion" - That would hardly stand-up, there is nothing in the article that denotes the historical significance of the early days of the Salk Institute's completion, as opposed to its current state of completion.
  • File:Berlin-Jolson27.JPG - There is no fair-use rationale at all, its copyrighted and not low-res (799kb). It's owned by ASCAP - the very people who protect copyrights of artists.
  • File:Mayerportrait.jpg - Here's the rationale: "The particular photo is considered historically significant because it shows a good portrait of an historically important person" - Obviously, "it's a good portrait" is not FU reasoning.
  • File:At Piano.jpg - "historically significant because it is a rare candid image" - again, not a valid reason, and how do they know candid shots of Irving Berlin are rare - there are plenty on Google Images, and the type of photography (candid vs. glamor?) is insignificant.
  • File:Schulberg-portrait.jpg - again, copyrighted, there is free media available, and no Fair Use rationale.

I came across this user's copyvios on Budd Schulberg, who recently died, and checked out their other contributions. When I asked them nicely to stop these sorts of uploads, they responded on my Talk page by threatening to take me to ANI and charged me with "wikihounding".--WatchingWhales (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this, but the {{db-filecopyvio}} tags that you used were not appropriate for these images, for all were used under a claim of fair use. These tags have been replaced with {{subst:rfu}} and/or {{subst:frn}}. —teb728 t c 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Over the last week, 75% of the edits by WatchingWhales have been to erroneously tag images that I've uploaded. None of the rationale's used were proper as none of them warranted Speedy Deletion under any criteria, much less then one shown; The images were from a number of unrelated articles; The section heading WatchingWhales chose to use here implies they had no intent to present a "copyright question." IMO, this user's definition of "nicely" may be closer to the definition of "hostile."
My understanding of Wikihounding per the guidelines is possible "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ultimately, there are still problems with the images--and, I imagine, others you have uploaded--but I used the wrong tags. Can someone who is better versed in the issues surrounding these images explain to Wikiwatcher1 why they are problematic? They seem to be focusing on trying to discern motives, when I have no idea who the editor is, but only noticed problematic image uploads (and a history of such uploads). If there are no problems with these uploads, I would welcome a third party to explain to me what I am missing. To illustrate, here on Budd Schulberg Wikiwatcher removed a free image with a copyrighted image with no fair use rationale, regardless. This caused me to look at the other contributions. Is this not a speedy candidate? --WatchingWhales (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
A) The Budd Schulberg image was uploaded as a PD image; B)An image of a notable author taken during the time they wrote their most significant works is preferred over an image 50 years later, when they are retired; C) The image nonetheless included a detailed rationale. Hence, there has been no meaningful reason why the image was removed. I'm writing this per your request: "explain to me what I am missing." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If you click here you will see the file in exactly the state you left it in. Where do you say this "was uploaded as a PD image"? Where do you indicate its source, indicating it is PD, in other words, how are you proving it is PD? Because you make no mention of PD, nor its source, anywhere. --WatchingWhales (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
If you click on that link yourself, you'll see it gives answers to your questions:
"Article = Budd Schulberg |Description = Portrait photo, circa 1954 |'''Source = Dartmouth College "Budd Schulberg Papers" '''|Portion = full |Low_resolution = yes |Purpose = for infobox |Replaceability = No |'''other_information = {{PD-Pre1964}}''' *The particular photo is considered historically significant because it is of a famous screenwriter who is no longer alive *The image is used for identification and critical commentary of the article subject *It is a low resolution copy of the original *It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell their property in any way *Copies cannot be made to manufacture illegal copies *The image is displayed on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is. *No free or public domain images have been located for this item." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Source = Dartmouth College "Budd Schulberg Papers" - do you really think that is all you need to do to give a source to upload a photo public domain? That isn't how things work. You have to identify where you got the image from, since you didn't make it yourself. You need to cite that source, and there has to be some proof that the image is public domain. We don't just take your word for it. You didn't even license it that way properly - it's a mishmash that is left over from the original version history, even if there were mistakes that you corrected later on that version history would remain. That's not sufficient notice of source and license. --WatchingWhales (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Although Wikiwatcher1 may think a non-free image is better, Wikipedia’s policy on replaceable images prefers a free image.
All these image are eligible for speedy deletion.—teb728 t c 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I can't respond en masse, and I already showed on the Schulbert image why it's not a candidate for a Speedy Deletion. So here's another one: re the Berlin-Jolson image, the rationale includes:
"Purpose = To go along with text descriptions of Berlin and Jolson working together on a film. In both the Irving Berlin and Al Jolson articles, there are historical descriptions noting how Al Jolson performed a number of Berlin's songs, including the important boost to Berlin's career that followed Berlin's song being sung by Jolson in the first talking picture. In the Berlin article, there are at least five different references to Al Jolson as a leading early singer of Berlin songs and helping them move up the charts; in the Jolson article, there is a notable citation in the Legacy section stating that Jolson was the first to perform a Berlin song song in a talking picture. Hence, the importance of each of these two person's to each others career is repeated in the article, with sources, and including an early image of them together adds to the understanding of those sources; Replaceability = No; other_information = {{PD-Pre1964}}
So not only does it have a "detailed" rationale, and "specifically" names articles, and attempts to explain how it might "increase a reader's understanding, it was also uploaded as a PD file. While any of this can be disputed or expanded per request (which is what I did), under the circumstances, it appears that ignoring all that and simply marking it for a Speedy Deletion anyway is a bit unusual. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where you got that from; NONE of that appears on the page. Oh, I see it is in the edit summary of the upload. That doesn't count; you have to put it on the page. —teb728 t c 04:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC) And the Schulberg image is still a candidate for speedy deletion because it has no image copyright tag. Maybe you intended to provide one, but you haven't done so yet. —teb728 t c 04:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
For Berlin-Jolson, click "Edit" at the top of the image page. It was added after you first requested a better rationale. The Schulberg had the PD tag per above (somwhere) And I'll be happy to lower the resolution of the Berlin-Jolson file but it seemps pointless to improve it if it's going to be Speedily Deleted anyway, and it was marked PD anyway. P.S. Would you mind changing this discussion's title to an appropriate name instead of the unnecessarily personalized heading? The discussion is supposed to be about questions, copyrights, etc. - not individual users. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Stuff you put in parameters that are not defined for the template doesn't count. If you want to provide a non-free use rationale, use a {{Non-free use rationale}} template (or some other use rationale template). P.S. How is that for a section title? —teb728 t c 04:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Title's fine, thanks. As for fixing all these it will take some time as I thought I already had correct templates and copyright tags, including the PDs, (which no one saw anyway.) But despite all that they are ready to be Speedily Deleted, so can you clarify one file's problem at a time and allow a reasonable time to ammend it? But I'm still not sure why editing the Summary doesn't put it on the page - how is it done? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
What seems to have gone wrong on Berlin-Jolson is that your Summary uses the {{Information}} template with the Article, Description, Source, Date, Author, Portion, Low_resolution, Purpose, Replaceability, and other_information parameters. But only the Description, Source, Date, Author, Permission, and other_versions parameters are defined for this template. So whatever you put in the Article, Portion, Low_resolution, Purpose, Replaceability, and other_information parameters is unused; so nobody sees them. I recommend using the {{Non-free use rationale}} template. I suspect the Schulberg has the same problem. —teb728 t c 05:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I see the problems. I'll try to revise the pages to make sure they fit the templates better. Thanks for catching those errors. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It's tangential, but I would just like to note that I took a look at the exchange on the talk pages of these two users and I'm not seeing any evidence of hounding on the part of WatchingWhales. As the text that Wikiwatcher1 quoted says, wikihounding involves "disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason" (emphasis mine). Here, there is an overriding reason: there were and in some cases still are significant copyright issues with all the images that WatchingWhales tagged and it was reasonable for the user to flag them as problematic under those circumstances. That Wikiwatcher1 inadvertently entered additional information in a way that caused it not to show up on the page is not the fault of WatchingWhales - it's the uploader's responsibility to ensure that uploaded images are correctly tagged and licensed. Lastly, I see no hostility whatsoever on the part of WatchingWhales. Meanwhile Wikiwatcher1's comments on that user's talk page are somewhere between caustic and outright threatening. I urge everyone to calm down and I specifically urge Wikiwatcher1 to recognize that when a user reasonably tags one's images for deletion they are engaging in a process designed to help both Wikipedia and the user: such tags provide an opportunity for users to pay closer attention to what they're doing and to correct problems as they arise. That's a good thing, not an example of hounding. :) -- Hux (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple magazine covers in an article about that magazine

I am writing an article about a magazine that has been published for over 125 years (Ladies Home Journal). It will be a relatively long article, and what I would like to do is use one cover image in each section of the article about the magazine's history, to show what the magazine looked like at that time. So, there would end up being probably 4 or more non-free images in the article. Is this acceptable? If not, what are the guidelines for how far I can go in the inclusion of multiple covers in a single article. I understand there can't be a gallery or anything like that; these pictures would be used in a section about the magazine itself during the particular era the cover was published in. ike9898 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While there is no hard and fast rule about how many non-free images an article may have, the use of each image must satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The relevant criteria in this case are 3a and 8 in particular. For every image, does its presence significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? Also, since the magazine is so old, have you investigated the possibility that some of the older covers are in the public domain? decltype (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
For each non-free cover you will need a non-free use rationale, explaining (among other things) why use of the cover is needed for reader understanding. Do not be confused by the fact that a non-free image is accepted in the infobox to "identify" the subject. Although "identification" may seem like a weak rationale, all non-free images other than the one in the infobox require a strong rationale. I frankly doubt that you could make that case for any cover of this magazine. —teb728 t c 06:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It IS relatively common to see articles about magazines with non-free cover images not inside infoboxes. I've only found a few with more than one non-free cover. Thanks for the help; I'll read up on non-free use rationale. ike9898 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Paraguay mapa en blanco..GIF

Hi! Well, I just want to say that I created this image and how can I prove it. I made it exclusively for wikipedia. I don't know why they want to delete it. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn’t indicate in your image what it is or where it came from. I created a blank {{Information}} template for you to fill in. Most importantly you need to provide a license tag giving Wikipedia (and everyone else) the right to use it. —teb728 t c 04:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What to do to not get my file (photo) deleted?

File:Australian Business Cards Back and Front.jpg.jpg

I dont know how to place copyright on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fez5stars (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

  • What is it you intend on doing with the image? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Fez5stars: Are you the creator of the image? If so then you already own the copyright over it and to use it on Wikipedia you must give up most of your rights to it and license it under the GDFL or CC, or release it to the public domain. If you are not the creator then you need to get the creator to release it by following the instructions at WP:COPYREQ. However, irrespective of licensing, as it stands the image is not being used on any articles so it is likely to get deleted on that basis anyway. Are you planning to use it on an article? On the face of it, I can't see any encyclopedic justification for this particular image being on Wikipedia. -- Hux (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it fair to consider this logo a {{PD-textlogo}} just like the Google logo? Thanks —SpaceFlight89 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say no; the graphical elements on the right are indeed simple but very close to being non-trivial. I would rather err on the side of caution. Powers T 17:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it's more than just text in a particular font. There's a stylized, graphical element to it as well and as such it likely meets the originality requirement. -- Hux (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clara Elsene Peck

Hello. I'm finishing up a good article review on Clara Elsene Peck and I would like a second opinion on two images being used in the article, File:CEPJSW2.jpg and File:CEPAWS50.jpg. I think the FUR are sound and I believe the images are important to the article due to their rarity, but I'm wondering if we need to tighten the rationale up a bit. The image size of CEPJSW2.jpg seems a bit much, and I'm concerned that the resolution isn't low enough. As for CEPAWS50.jpg, it's a watercolor painting from a gallery, and I'm concerned that without actual published commentary about it, we can't use it, although I think the article would benefit from its use as it is the only watercolor painting of Peck's we are able to get. Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

McCall.JPG Copyright???

I don't want to reserve any copyrights for this picture.

How do I specify that in the description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrspencer2003 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Are you the photographer / copyright holder for this image? Please note that if you merely copied it off of a website or it is a publicity photo from this organization, that is NOT acceptable. If you, personally, are the photographer or copyright holder, you may add the {{PD-self}} tag to the image description page, along with a short explanation of the circumstances of the photograph. If this is an organizationally-owned photograph or, in any event, if it is displayed on any website without a clear statement of copyright release, we must have documentation of the license and of your authority to grant the license. Please see Wikipedia:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries, which has a standard statement that you can use and an email address that you can contact. --B (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The ad in question. I've added fair-use rationale, and, according to the official site, that's all well and good. Just want to make sure that everything's ok, though. Reply here or at my talk page; whichever one is easiest. Cheers, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 02:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonfree images are only for articles... --NE2 03:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. While its use on various project pages may or may not be deemed to be fair use, it does not meet the stricter requirements set forth by our non-free content criteria. It's a very nice piece of work, but the Vancouver logo unfortunately has to go. Regards, decltype (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing nobody read the site page I mentioned above? :P Essentially, things that are considered "unlikely to infringe" are allowed to exist, as long as they follow the criteria set by that organization. This is a bit different from the average copyright issue, due to the fact that the image is free-use in this setting. What stricter requirements are those, by the way? Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 03:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I was in particular thinking of NFCC#9 which restricts non-free images to articles. I did read the page, and noticed that they prohibit commercial use. It would seem that that would raise the same issue as the CC-NC family of licenses. Works licensed under those can only be used here under a claim of fair use, and would therefore have to meet NFCC. decltype (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought the easiest way to find out would be to email them and ask for permission, so we'll see if that clears everything up. Even then, I'm not sure how to license it because of the above concerns. I can't license it as releasing all copyright, so I'm stuck... Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 12:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's essentially correct. While you're right that this would probably qualify as fair use in a court of law, our non-free content criteria are stricter than that. Unless the Vancouver Olympic committee releases the logo under a free license that allows commercial usage (highly unlikely), it can't be used in your graphic. That's the policy, I'm afraid, regardless of what might or might not be "fair use" by law. Powers T 12:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, policy has failed me. Logically, this would make sense, but policies and logic seem to be mortal enemies... :C I'll remove it from use, I guess. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Derivative work copyright questions

Re: File:MurphreeStatue.jpg

I'm a new editor with the WikiProject University of Florida. One of your zealous copyright enforcement volunteers has just slapped the above photo file with a violation deletion template (7 days) for a perceived copyright violation of a derivative work. The original photographer unconditionally released his rights; now, supposedly, there is an objection based on the underlying copyright in the statue portrayed in the photograph. The statue is property of the University of Florida, an agency of the state of Florida, and has been continuously and publicly displayed on the campus since 1946. The original sculptor is almost certainly dead; the university's ownership records are almost certainly lost, if they ever existed (the statue was apparently commissioned and paid for by a student organization 60+ years ago). The photo is being used to illustrate articles regarding the subject, Albert A. Murphree, a deceased former president of the university. I would call the university general counsel's office for assistance (where I have friends), but the lack of available documentation is going to be an impediment. Could one of you Wiki copyright experts help me? I am an attorney, but not an intellectual property specialist. It seems to me that there should be one or more exceptions or rationales available for the use of images of government-owned property . . . taken to its extreme, we would not be able to post images of the U.S. Capitol without permission of the U.S. government because of the retained copyright in its architecture. Does anyone else see the absurdity of this? Please help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Please see this law from the U.S. Copyright Office. The image description page created by the uploader simply says "taken and fine", with no indication of release by the original copyright holder of the work (the sculptor). We need to be able to prove release of the rights from the sculptor to the University of Florida. Purchasing of the object does not automatically transfer rights to derivative works. Since we, so far, can not prove it has been released we must assume it is copyrighted, and must abide by U.S. copyright law with regards to derivative works. Further, we have a free license image of Albert A. Murphree available at File:Aamurphree.jpg making the need for this image questionable. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Hammersoft, I'm new here. Are you a lawyer? If not, are there IP attorneys who volunteer to answer these sorts of questions for Wikipedia? I would like a somewhat more expert opinion than that of a layman on this subject.
    • The original photo copyright was properly released, apparently several years ago; the artwork copyright was clearly not. The statute is property of the State of Florida. Given the age of the statue, and its student-finance origins, and the lack of copyright sophistication in 1946, this issue is probably not resolvable by obtaining a release from an artist who was probably dead before either of us were born. Frankly, the university (and by implication, the artist) has allowed the image to appear in numerous publications over the last 60 years. It is my understanding, as a non-IP specialist lawyer, that the failure to defend copyright, trade name and trademark infringements eventually causes the rights to be lost. Given the circumstances, I suggest a similar rationale is likely available here.

Again, I ask, who is available to discuss this matter who has actual IP legal expertise? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  • There is only one lawyer employed by the Wikimedia Foundation. He is not involved in day to day discussions about the legality of a particular image. The University permitting the publication of the image does not release rights, whether they hold the rights or not. If the statue were first put into the public eye before 1923, then we'd be in the clear. But, that's not the case. So, we're not. Since we're not, we need proof that the sculptor released rights to the university, since the purchase of a sculpture does not guarantee transfer of derivative rights. Regardless of this legality debate, what's the point of this image? We have an alternative that we know is free in the form of File:Aamurphree.jpg. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Murphree statue is one of the two or three most iconic images of the University of Florida campus. Tens of thousands of alumni who will recognize the statute will not recognize the photo. That's not a rationale for use, just a statement of fact. Since Wikipedia does not have IP legal specialists available, and is permitting laymen to enforce copyright policy, I will consult with IP colleagues who do this for a living. I will get back to you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Please understand that whether or not something is legal under copyright law is but one of many criteria that an image must pass before inclusion here. As is, the only other case made for inclusion is the assertion that it is iconic. Ok, reference that in secondary sources and create a section in the article that discusses the iconic nature of the statue, it's history, etc. As is, it's just decoration. That's insufficient for use here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I have just gotten $600 worth of free IP legal advice from one of my law school classmates who practices IP law with a well-known intellectual property boutique firm, Woodcock Washburn. He is a registered member of the U.S Patent Bar, and is a full-time IP specialist whose largest client is Microsoft. As provided by my classmate, here's the relevant quotation from an official U.S. Copyright Office publication (15A, Rev. 1/2004):

"Works Already Under Statutory Protection Before 1978
"For works that had already secured statutory copyright protection before January 1, 1978, the 1976 law retains the old system for computing the duration of protection, but with some changes.
"Duration Under the Previous Law
"Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright lasted for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. The copyright was eligible for renewal during the last (28th) year of the first term. If renewed, the copyright was extended for a second term of 28 years. If not renewed, the copyright expired at the end of the first 28-year term. The term of copyright for works published with a year date in the notice that is earlier than the actual date of publication is computed from the year date in the copyright notice."

U.S. Copyright Office Publication 15A

For our purposes involving a publicly displayed work of art, "publication" means the date of first public display, or 1946.

Bottom line, under the worst case scenario, that the artist actually registered his copyright in 1946, or retained a "circle c" copyright by placing the "circle c" icon on the statute itself, the artist's copyright, if any, expired in 2002, 56 years after its first registration or display. The original copyright would have been in effect for 28 years, from 1946 to 1974; if renewed in the 28th year, the artist's copyright could have been extended for another 28 years, through the anniversary date in 2002. (The 1976 copyright law amendments do not apply because the 28-year anniversary deadline for renewal of the artist's copyright, if any, was 1974.) Remember, this assumes that the artwork was either actually registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or a circle "c" icon was place on the work itself in 1946. In any event, any residual copyright, if any, of the artist in this 1946 work of art has long since expired (either in 1946, 1974 or 2002). No further ownership documentation or copyright registration research is required.

I will post this explanation on the Murphree Statute image page.

This case is Exhibit "A" of why non-lawyers (and more pointedly, non-IP lawyers) are not qualified to make the determinations in which you are now engaged. Frankly, sir, in addition to giving bad legal advice, you are probably engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by presuming to represent Wikimedia in these matters. Wikipedia really needs to get the assistance of qualified IP-specialist attorneys who know what they are doing.

Hammersoft, you appear to be engaged in emotional retaliation. I made no threat of legal action ; I simply pointed out to you that you are dangerously close to engaging in the unlicensed practice of law, as is my professional obligation as a licensed attorney. Please get an administrator involved in this matter immediately. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  • As noted, I posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding the policy issue [5] and at WP:AN/I regarding the legal threat issue [6]. I do not have to accept being intimidated out of a discussion. People here routinely comment on the legal status of images all the time. If you think me commenting on the legal status of a statue constitutes the giving of illegal legal advice, I find it unlikely you are a lawyer. Further, you will have to include several thousand Wikipedia editors who do the same as I have, day in and day out. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, please get an administrator involved in this matter ASAP. I really have no interest in trading WikiPolicy threats with you.

As for my credentials, you may verify my state bar license on the following website:

[Supplied credentials redacted -- SarekOfVulcan]

  • I am not interested in verifying your credentials. Nor am I interested in further debating a point of legality with a person accusing me of breaking the law. I didn't give you legal advice. I commented on the legal status of an image. There's a massive difference, and you know it. You want to throw around legal threats with abandon, you can do it against someone else. Your actions utterly disgust me. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, tossing credentials around doesn't help anyone. We're all equal here.

Let me give you some practical advice, not legal. If, in fact, this statue is now in the public domain (as appears to be the case to this layman, given the pre-1978 law regarding works published without a copyright notice), then I suggest you upload the image instead to Commons:Wikimedia Commons, our free image repository. This has two big benefits, one ideological and the other practical. Ideologically, it allows the further dissemination of this "iconic" (in your words) image, and allows all Wikimedia projects to use the image as appropriate. But practically, the folks over at Commons tend to have more experience with image copyright issues. I think there may even be a few lawyers over there. They even have a template, Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice, that clearly explains that if this statue was erected without a copyright notice, it is now in the public domain.

Finally, I will point this out: if, as you were to suggest, that non-lawyers ought not to be making decisions on copyright, then that would have the opposite effect from what you want. In that case, we would end up deleting all of our images entirely, as we could never be 100% sure a file was free for us to use. We laymen have to make these judgement calls based on Wikipedia's policies, which are in turn based on solid legal footing via the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thanks for your contributions, at any rate!

-- Powers T 21:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LtPowers, thank you for your role in handling this. I have been following the discussion regarding whether the 1946 Murphree statue is in the public domain, and I note that you were able to determine that it is very likely PD based on its long public display of 63 years and the artist's failure to sign the artwork or register a copyright. It is somewhat ironic that there is already an approved WikiCommons photo of the same statute.

For the record, the inclusion of my legal credentials above was done for the benefit of the other protagonist in this dust-up, who rather strongly implied that I was misrepresenting my professional status (see above). I also note that I came to this page seeking help in resolving this issue from Wiki copyright experts, and was basically stymied by the same editor who had flagged the photo for deletion in the first instance. I am not sure that the "good faith" default position of Wiki copyright enforcers should be to simply delete all images that are not properly documented. A more helpful, mentor-oriented approach by such copyright enforcers would probably be well received and helpful to Wikipedia editors generally. Most Wikipedia editors simply do not have the knowledge base to advocate the case for photos that were poorly documented without help, and the photos wind up being deleted by the copyright enforcers by default when there may exist a perfectly valid "public domain" or "fair use" basis for their inclusion.

In any event, it appears that this matter will now have a happy ending for the photo of President Murphree's statue. Your point regarding Wikipedia's need for non-lawyers to perform most of the determinations of image copyright status is well-taken. I understand that this is a volunteer project, and few, if any, qualified IP attorneys have stepped forward to offer their free assistance. Given these limitations, I think it is important that editors and administrators who are responsible for administering the Wiki copyright policies maintain an open mind as to public domain and "fair use" rationales which they may not have encountered before but have a perfectly valid legal basis in statute or case law. As a former corporate general counsel who has periodically needed to hire outside IP counsel, I can say from experience that there are multiple statutory and case law exceptions to virtually every general rule of copyright and trade name enforcement.

I have several questions regarding the possible upload of the photo to WikiCommons, but I will move that discussion to your talk page, so as not to further clutter this discussion page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue is however one the wikimedia copyright community in general is aware of. Probably mostly due to The Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago.©Geni 09:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Status of the sculpture

since the above discussion spun out of control

Let's please not fight, there is clearly no legal threat going on either side. I'm an administrator, and I'm not a lawyer either, but many of the users active here and on Commons are familiar with and routinely apply to the best of their ability the IP law relevant to our media, and just as importantly our non-free media policies which go over and above legal requirements. In this case, state governments can hold copyrights, and often do, and even the US federal government can hold copyright over works created by contractors, if those rights are transferred to them (for example the US Mint holds copyright to certain commemorative coin designs). In many nations there are freedom of panorama laws which allow reproduction of public sculpture; in the US these laws only apply to buildings. Based on the evidence supplied here, this sculpture is probably under copyright unless the copyright holder has explicitly released it - which requires first tracking down the copyright holder and second getting a release statement from them. I've rarely seen this carried out successfully for any kind of sculpture. Dcoetzee 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It is claimed that the statue is property of the University of Florida (and therefore the State of Florida). I could be entirely wrong, but is my belief that the purchase of something does not automatically grant you all derivative rights to that something. The sculptor (now dead apparently) may or may not have transferred his rights to the State of Florida. I have yet to see any verification of this. As to whether it's PD based on age, centralized discussion on that is over at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Copyright_expired_for_1953_and_earlier_publicly_displayed_works_of_art.3F. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I've expressed my take on the matter in the VP thread you started. Deor (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm uncertain about whether it's PD due to age. This would require more careful analysis. Dcoetzee 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This page indicates that Gutzon Borglum was the sculptor, although I can find little other evidence of that. The Smithsonian's database indicates that the sculptor is unknown. Powers T 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I found other evidence of it at [7] (Interesting resource, by the way). Page 14, second column from the right, under "Gleanings from the Press", paragraph 4. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, we have an article that claims it wasn't Borglum. Paul_Manship#Public_Sculpture, last line. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Flphoto - State Archives of Florida Photographic Collection

I have loaded a number of images over time from the Florida Photographic Collection[8] of the State Archives of Florida. When I started loading historic images from the archives a template license existed called Template:Flphoto. Life was good as the archive images were wonderful. In 2007 Template:Flphoto was deleted in this discussion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_6#Template:Flphoto. Editors are now nominating these images for deletion, en masse: [9]. It does not appear to me that appropriate care was taken in the review of the latitude allowed under state law[10] with regard to images owned by the Archive, as state law says says title to images passes to the Archive when it accepts a donation. Further, the law then says the images shall be made available for distribution, with the only limitation being attribution to the Archive. What gives? Why deny the quality of the images to the public? This seems a terrible waste of quality. --Sirberus (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

When I nominated those images for deletion, it was based on the TFD and these images lacking licensing information (as a result of the TFD). Obviously, it looks like the TFD was based on inaccurate information. In fact, commons:Category:Images_from_the_Florida_Photographic_Collection has a statement from the State Archives of Florida affirming that we can use the images. I would strongly suggest uploading these (and any other images from this collection) to Commons and placing them in this category so that the statement from Commons is available. --B (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Good solution. I find that workable. --Sirberus (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

grmike here a couple of my photos are tagged for deletion, copyright issues don't know what to do

File:Scoresdelight.jpg,File:Mrgreek.jpg,File:Martello2.jpg the martello photo I took with my camera in a public park. that is the interior of a martello British Fort in Canada that is considered public property. I don't know how to add copyright information. Am I suppose to contact the government and ask them about it ? or maybe the queen of england and ask for her permission. Scoresdelight, there's a huge hole on wikipedia when it comes to images pertaining to Canadian restaurant franchises. I wrote an article and found some useful images. i created this image by added 2 company logos together (to enforce the idea that both companies belong to the same parent company. it is a photo noone has the copyright for, and the logos which make it up carry promotional priviledges. the mrgreek photo was taken from the cover of a promotional brochure pertaining to the company perhaps franchisee information. the photo also appears on photobucket where the restaurant chain File:Mr.Greek has yet to file a copyright complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For the images you have taken yourself you simply need to indicate what kind of license you wish to release them under by adding a so called "copyright tag" template, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses for the available options. Most commonly used option is a GFDL/CC-BY-SA-3.0 dual licese (allow people to choose one or ther other when re-using the image), then go to the image page in question, click "edit this page" and add the nessesary template code. For the image that just show the logo the tag {{Non-free logo}} should be used (I've fixed it for you). For the photo from the brochure you'll need to obtain the permission of the company that released it to use the image under a free license, or else it will be deleted, just because it was in a borchure doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. In all cases you also need to provide the source of the image (as in where did it come from, taken yourself, scanned from a borchure, taken from a website or whatever). --Sherool (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Record album covers

In an article about a recent music artist or group, with a section within the article discussing a particular album, is it acceptable to include a fair use image of the album or CD cover (with correct rationale, of course)? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If by "a correct rationale" you mean one that explains that there is sourced discussion of the cover which readers could not understand without actually seeing the cover, then yes. An example would be if there were discussion in Scorpions (band) of the controversy over File:Virgin Killer.jpg. But that discussion is in the album article, not the band article. Frankly I cannot imagine why such discussion would ever be in the performer's article rather than the album article; so in reality no. —teb728 t c 05:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Rephrased question: Assuming there is no article about the album, simply a separate section about the album (i.e. their 1st, being a hit, selling a million, date it came out, etc.) but nothing about the album cover itself. Would an image of the album be OK in that case? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
No. The non-existence of article Y has no bearing on the use of image A in article X. Either A is required in X, or it is not. It is generally considered that the original album cover is acceptable in an article on the album, but use elsewhere has to be justified through (usually) specific, sourced discussion of the cover itself, which, obviously, is usually not required. You'd do well to find an article about an artist that contains album covers, and, if you did, I would hope they would be justified. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Converting png -> jpeg but keeping Copyright info

I'd be happy to help out with some of the very large png files by converting them to smaller jpegs. My understanding is that the jpeg is then used, and the png file will be deleted since it's an orphan. However, the original png file will have its copyright status set by the original uploader, who would give permission for its use. As the uploader of the replacement jpeg, I can't give that permission. If the png is deleted, no reference to that original permission would remain. Could someone please explain the correct steps to take to ensure that there is no copyright infringement? Thanks. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To what specifically are you referring? I see the need for reducing some file sizes, but why use jpegs? If we stick with pngs, we can use the same filename, and just remove the older, larger version from the file history. Powers T 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
If an image is available in PNG format (especially a drawing with lines and discreet area boundaries), it is much superior to a JPEG, as PNG uses lossless compression algorithms (see Portable Network Graphics). Therefore it should not be converted to JPEG format.
For this reason, even if a JPEG version is produced and uploaded to WP, the PNG image must be retained. The copyright information is not affected by the conversion, as it is a mechanical (actually algorithmic) process. So the original author information and copyright status applies. No problem with this, just add this info on the image description page. Sv1xv (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well - I was looking at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_that_should_be_in_JPEG_format and was going to do some of those. I understand that png is lossless and does compress, but many images (photographs, for example) work perfectly well carefully compressed as jpeg and are much smaller. Most photography professionals work with jpeg compression. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
On Commons, the current practice is to retain both the PNG and JPEG and link them to each other. The JPEG is used in articles (resulting in JPEG thumbnails) while the PNG is used for edits. As for keeping copyright info, I usually just put the same data on both pages (and copy EXIF info with exiftool where applicable). Neither image will be deleted, because they are not exact duplicates of one another. Dcoetzee 12:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Which template to use?

There has been a dispute which template has to be used for these images: File:Patch_Funeral1.JPG and File:Patch_funeral2.JPG Does anyone have a solution? Paulus Gun (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can prove the images have a free license, we have to assume they are copyright of the photographer who took them and maybe they also uploaded them to the forum. Without their permission we cannot use them. ww2censor (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Just browse through the thread. He did say it can be used. Paulus Gun (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
See WP:COPYREQ for how to get permission and how to transmit it to Wikipedia. What you put on the image is the specific license (like {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}) the photographer has granted. —teb728 t c 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've never really done something like this before, so could anyone suggest what the best pick would be? Paulus Gun (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

YouTube

What's the current policy on posting links to YouTube, in cases where there are no apparent copyvios in the linked videos? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Different people have different ideas of "no apparent copyvios" means. Unless there's a very good reason to believe the uploader is the copyright owner, then it should be assumed to be a copyvio and prohibited for that reason. In many cases where the video is not a copyright violation there'd be other reasons to not link to it, but that's more a case for the WP:EL talk page. DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Watermarks

File:Aryan race girl.jpg has a copyright watermark on it. The uploader says it is out of copyright, but even if it is, is the watermark acceptable? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No. But it looks like the uploader removed the watermark (pretty lousy job of it, but the attempt was made). Clearly the website that it was taken from does not have the copyright just for scanning images from a book, but I'm not sure that the claims that it is public domain are accurate either. It's claiming 70 years from publication of an anonymous work (and since it was 1939, would that expire in 2009 or 2010, technically?), but I'm not sure it can count as anonymous. The author of the book in question (Dein Ja zum Leibe) is listed on the site as Hermann Wilfe. Not having a copy of the book I don't know if he would be the photographer or where exactly it enters the picture. I also don't know if Nazi Germany has any sort of peculiar copyright exceptions.
And something about the nature of the photo suggests that it's probably not going to have much of an encyclopedic purpose anyway. It's on Commons so would need to be taken care of over there. DreamGuy (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I see another editor has removed it from the articles. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Lupercal grotto.jpg

This is copied from National Geographic with the rationale

  1. It depicts a non-accessible, historic location, the Lupercal grotto
  2. It depicts an important, non-reproducible aspect of a historic location, the Palatine Hill
  3. The image is no larger, and of no higher quality, than required for its use in articles.
  4. It was released by an organization of the Government of Italy for educational purposes.
  5. Its use on Wikipedia will not cause loss of revenue to the copyright holder, if any
  6. It is used to describe the specific location pictured and to discuss the method by which the picture was taken.

The template says "." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).".

Its used in Lupercal and Palatine Hill but the subject of the commentary is the event, not the image. So, does it meet our FU criteria? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguments 1 and 3 are debatably accurate but never justify fair use on their own. The rest are just nonsense or not conclusions that can be reached in good faith. The articles do not discuss the photos, so that part is just a lie. If the Italian Culture Ministry really did release it, it should be taken from them with provable licensing. Otherwise this needs to be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about toy picture being non-free or free

The question has come up often as to whether a picture of a toy that I take can by free or non-free. The arguement I heard a long while back for them being non-free is that a toy is a sculpture owned by the creator, and a picture of it is deritive work. Is this still the current understanding? This just seems odd to me because I've seen pleanty of pictures of cars and planes that are in the public domain, but surely a car is as much a sculpture as a toy car. For instance this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Crown_Victoria_LX.jpg Mathewignash (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This is complex, but has to do with Threshold of originality and the difference between artworks and utilitarian objects. There is a (quite gruelling) explanation about cars here, and one about toys here. Black Kite 00:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
They talk about how toys are copywritten art, but cars are protected by patents. However, there are patents on TRANSFORMERS toys. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD279804&id=DDo9AAAAEBAJ&dq=toy+robot+reconfigurable So how is this different? In fact the article you linked me to says as something patented is public knowledge, then therefore wouldn't a patented toy object be free to show a picture of on Wikipedia? Seems like the arguement that these toys are ONLY non-utilitarian art is flimsy, if they are actually patented inventions.Mathewignash (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing copyrights (i.e. on the appearance of something) with patents. If the appearance of an object is copyrighted (for example artworks, and toys fall into this category too as the second link I gave you points out) then taking a photo of that object is a derivative work ("By taking a picture of a copyrighted object as its main subject, the photographer creates a new, copyrighted work (the photograph), but the rights of the object's creator still affect the resulting photograph. Such a photograph could not be published without the consent of both copyright holders: the photographer and the creator"). More utilitarian objects such as cars do not fall into this category. Sadly, the argument isn't "flimsy", the fact that toys fall under artistic works is actually US Law - US Copyright Law 1976 to be precise. Black Kite 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I still don't understand how so many pictures of toys can claim to be free on Wikipedia, yet people go after Transformers pics? Are pages like Lego technically wrong for having all those pictures and claiming they are all free? Surely they are at least as much art as a toy robot. Mathewignash (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a good example. The Lego brick design is patented, but not copyrighted - the brick itself doesn't pass the threshold of originality (which is why there are Lego clone products which are similar but not quite the same). However, if there are any pictures of toys which are copyrighted and which are being used as free images, examples would be useful. Black Kite 01:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Just sticking to the pictures on Lego for a minute though, surely the SCULPTURES made from them are copywritten, even if they bricks are not. How can a picture of a lego dragon made by Disney at their park be public if a sculpture is copywritten? Just to double up the mess, a lego scuplture of YODA claims to be free? It's not only a sculpture, but a sculpture of a copywritten character? [[11]] Mathewignash (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Then my guess is that LEGO becomes the medium for the scultpure and we treat it just as though it were made of any other material. I don't actually know whether or not the subject of the sculpture adds any copyright concern. Protonk (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it may be more complex than that. The derivative work there is actually the sculpture itself (because it's of a copyrighted work - i.e. Yoda). The photo is actually a derivative work based on a derivative work. Now this is less clear, but I think that such a photo may still retain some copyright (and thus be non-free), but I'm going to check that now. Black Kite 01:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Your guess is as good as mine. But for sure the fact that it was made w/ legos is immaterial. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Black Kite 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
...and the "free" pictures of Barbie dolls? Mathewignash (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea whether or not those materials made before 77 were explicitly copyrighted. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but my best guess is that the ones made after 77 are non-free and pictures of them are (as a result) non-free as well. Protonk (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be my guess too. In fact, I think they might even be non-free on the pre-77 stuff. Another one for me to check, but in the meantime I've tagged the non-free images as {{Non-free 3D art}} and tagged the article too. Here's hoping this isn't the start of another GI Joe task...! Black Kite 01:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
BTW - Would the pictures taken from the PATENTS themselves be considered free? They are not great representations of the characters, being black and white stick figures, but they do exist. Mathewignash (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Images from US patents are normally public domain, but there may be copyrighted elements used, but these need to be clearly ID'd in the patent. See the language in {{PD-US-patent}} for helpful links. --MASEM (t) 02:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

happyface_wallpaper.png

Hello. An image I uploaded, File:happyface_wallpaper.png, was nominated for deletion. Honestly, I'm not sure where Wikipedia's policy would stand on that image. The original images was taken by a NASA satellite, the happy face was added by an anonymous user at 4chan.org, and finally, I made some small edits before uploading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The8thbit (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, sorry, forgot to sign. 8bit (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I have trouble believing the original image was taken by a satellite of any variety. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I feel confident in saying that no satellite ever launched is capable of taking a photo of that resolution, with that kinds of color detail, at that low of an angle! Absent verifiable information about the source of both image elements - the landscape and the smiley face - we have to treat it as non-free. In any case, it's not being used in an article anyway and Wikipedia is not a free image host for user pages. -- Hux (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian ballots

According to {{PD-IDGov}}, publications of the Indonesian govt are PD. So, by that logic, would the various photos at Indonesian ballot papers (see for example [12]) be PD? The election commission is a government agency, and the photos in question have been submitted by the candidates and parties to be published in the ballots (which is a govt publication, thus PD by default). --Soman (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an Indonesian lawyer, but I doubt that submitting the photo constitutes forfeiting the copyright in the image, and many candidates wouldn't even have the right to do so. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

album cover art for songs not released as singles?

Is it considered an appropriate fair use of an image of an album cover to use it in the infobox of an individual song from that album that was not released as a single and therefore does not have it's own cover art?--Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, as the album cover is not an appropriate representation of the single. However, be aware that many singles do have their own separate cover image that can be used there. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Smaller Resolution tag added to non-free image

The tag got put onto the logo for the Minnesota IMPLAN Group page, stopping the image from showing. This makes sense to me so far; I went in and uploaded a new and significantly smaller image, using the "M" Arcs from McDonalds as a basis to make sure I got it right this time (has happened once before). Now the logo shows up on the image page, but does not appear on the Minnesota IMPLAN Group page that is calling it. I waited a day or so just to make sure it wasn't a timing thing. Then I tried deleting the tag since it was no longer really relevant and perhaps stopping the image from showing? Whether or not it does stop the image from showing, deleting it has not solved my issue.

Is there some other aspect of the Smaller Resolution tag than just making the image tiny that I am missing?

Please help, and apologies for any stupid mistakes - I try to read up on everything, but it always seems like I miss something obvious.

Thanks for your time and concern, Trebor Noslo (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  • It appears to be displaying on the article just fine here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


  • Clarification: It shows fine in Firefox, not in IE or Chrome. Thank you for your response Trebor Noslo (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I did a purge on the image, and now it shows for me in IE. Does it show for you too? —teb728 t c 00:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • yes, that looks like it did it. Thank you so much! For future reference, is purging something that I should know how to do? Trebor Noslo (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It couldn't hurt to know about it. Several ways to purge are described at WP:Purge. —teb728 t c 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to all that helped! As far as I am concerned this section can now be removed... don't know how to do it, though >.< 173.8.99.225 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Just leave it, and after a week it will be archived automatically. —teb728 t c 23:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sheet music cover

I want to upload the sheet music cover image of a 1923 musical composition to illustrate the composition in question. I have two questions: firstly, Wikipedia:Public domain states that the image is in public domain if its copyright was not renewed (since it was published between 1923 and 1963). How do I know whether it was renewed or not? Is there a database somewhere with the information, or would I have to contact the copyright holder?

Also, in case the image is not in public domain, which license tag should I use? It's not quite a book or magazine cover, or an album cover. The closest I could find was {{Non-free sheet music}}, but it's explicitly stated in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that that tag does not apply for sheet music covers. I do have a non-free use rationale for the image. Jafeluv (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I did a little search, and this search finds no entries on the name of the author or publisher, nor on the title of the composition. Is this sufficient evidence that the copyright has not been renewed? Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No. That database is for book renewals only. To quote, "Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database compiles all US Class A (book) renewal registrations for works published between 1923 and 1963." I do not know of any online source containing U.S. copyright renewal records for music compositions. You would have to find a hard copy of the U.S. Copyright Catalog editions for 1950 and 1951. Try a Federal depository library. FYI, music, movies, and maps are the three categories of works most likely to have their copyrights renewed. — Walloon (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Actually, I asked a similar question in May, and the response I got said that tagging this image as {{PD-US-not renewed}} was appropriate, seemingly based on the search I linked to above. Maybe I should double-check that image somewhere as well? Jafeluv (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
{{Non-free product cover}} might be the best tag if you can't confirm that it's public domain. Also, if there's no copyright notice, {{PD-Pre1978}} might apply(check the precise language before applying that template). --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for your reply. Jafeluv (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

regarding image:slash1.jpg

I recieved permission from the photographer to use this photo. How do I cite this reference so that the pic doesn't get taken down. Moxiemom (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)moxiemom

See WP:COPYREQ for what kind of permission Wikipedia requires and how to have the photographer give it to Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 23:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Number of non-free pictures on a single page covering multiple characters

I was wondering if anyone could site me a reason why a page concerning several non-free characters should be limited to one non-free picture, if those characters are completely different. For example we have Inferno (Transformers), where there are several characters named Inferno over the 25 years of Transformers, and they are completely unrelated (a heroic fire truck from a 1985 TV show, a evil ant from Beast Wars, a Missile Launcher sidekick villian from the Armada cartooon and a computer debugger ambulance from the 2007 Transformers movie), yet I seem to be limited to ONE picture. All four look completely different. No one free image is available for any of the characters. Ideas? I mean do I have to get toys of all four of them and stand them next to each other to make it a single non-free image? That seems like a cop-out for just posting one picture of each of the four. Mathewignash (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To address your list of criteria - 1. The four Infernos never appeared in the same media, so a "cast shot" is impossible. 2. The four images are all discuessed in detail in the article. 3. Non-applicable (racial photo won't work). 4. Non-applicable (no repeating image). 5. I don't use a photo of the voice actor. 6. "Barring the above, images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible. Consider restricting such uses to major characters and elements or those that cannot be described easily in text, as agreed to by editor consensus." This is exactly what the four images tried to do. "as sparingly as possible" does not mean you can represent one character with a picture of someone else. I don't see any alternative to one image of each character which still being descriptive. I could see removing extraious photos of the SAME character, or removing them if they looked identical, but are not and they do not. Mathewignash (talk) 02:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
As to the list of requirement you posted on my talk page... "Removing all the ones that fail any criteria of WP:NFCC, notably WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8." #1 is not a concern, we have established there is NO non-free replacement. Neither is #8 a concern as an article ABOUT a character would certainly seem to have a picture of them be relivant. As for #3a, minimal usage only seems to apply if one picture could cover for another. I agree with this. If I had one picture of the Beast Wars Inferno TOY in "robot" mode, and another of the Beast Wars Inferno toy in ant mode, then I could replace them with a single picture. Additionally I could even see that I don't need a picture of THE SAME character as a toy, from a comic book, and in a TV series. However, you have done nothing to prove that one character's picture can adequitely replace another because they are different characters with the same NAME. What does a picture of a heroic robot fire truck from a 1984 TV series tell us about a evil ant pyromaniac from a 1992 TV series exactly? Mathewignash (talk) 02:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You're missing a number of funamental points.
  • On NFC, the first part is the most important, which you've missed out - "On articles ... that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section." This is an the heart of your major misunderstanding; that you believe that different characters all need an image. They don't, and indeed shouldn't - NFC and NFCC are quite clear on that.
  • WP:NFCC#1 is a concern, because you've missed the point that there is a non-free replacement - text. "A toy was produced that was a red fire truck", for example.
  • WP:NFCC#3a is important - most articles where multiple non-free images were used to display, for example, a cast of characters, those images have been removed - and these articles are of the same type (indeed you've proved that in your last sentence above).
  • Despite what you say, NFCC#8 is VERY relevant to these articles. The reader doesn't need to see a picture of a toy to understand that such a toy existed; and unless the appearance of that toy is of such vital importance that their understanding of the entire article was compromised, then no non-free image is justified. An analogy might be an article about an actor; we don't need an image of them in every role they played to understand the article about them, although a very limited number may be acceptable if they meet all the criteria and were necessary to increase the reader's understanding. Black Kite 03:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not just a TOY, a CHARACTER. Inferno isn't a toy fire truck, he's a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. It's in the first line of the page. He's appeared in TV shows, comic books, toys, online content, been highlighted by Hasbro as a representatice of an entire series. To ever suggest that Inferno could be represented with a line of text saying "A toy was produced that was a red fire truck" is completely rediculous and you should try harder to make LEGITIMATE suggestions. You seem to also be missing something. This is not a simple cast list. These characters never appeared together, so your position of "list of characters in a fictional work" is pointless. The example you give would be like a cast list of characters, like List of Harry Potter characters. That has nothing to do with four characters named Inferno who share a page. It might be a better argement that a completely seperate character who is important enough to justify his own picture would also justify his own page? Mathewignash (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate it if you would not use phrasing like "completely ridiculous" when it is you who does not understand the concepts here, and also is failing to read my comments properly. I did not say that the article could be replaced by that line of text, I suggested that as an example, an image of a toy that was a red fire truck could be replaced by it, which is exactly what WP:NFCC#1 says.
  • I said that these articles are lists of fictional characters. Which is exactly what they are. What does it matter that they never appeared together?
  • A character notable enough to justify a page of their own may justify a non-free image, however I suspect in most cases the individual characters would not be individually notable (and the toys certainly wouldn't be). Black Kite 10:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an arguement here, so I'll try to keep it civil. I do apprecate actually helpful suggestions though. The guideline "such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic." The minimal key visual aspects? I realize that wording is open to interpetation, but it sounds like exactly what I suggest... one picture of each of four completely different characters - each with his own references, history, and description seperate from the other. I can actually see your point for the Jazz (Transformers) page, it was excessive. I also removed many pictures myself from articles you noted as having excessive non-free pictures. I still disagree on Inferno though - this one was not excessive. Mathewignash (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia isn't a guide, directory or a complete exposition of all possible details. See WP:NOTDIR. For a person to understand the general topic of a particular list of characters, they do not need to know what each and every character in the set of characters looks like. If we were to be a guide, then yes having a picture of every character would make sense. But, we're not. Instead, we limit ourselves to key visual aspects. Every character is not key, nor is the appearance of every character. Think of the trumpet analogy. To understand what a trumpet sounds like, you do not need to hear every note it can possibly sound. To understand what a list of fictional characters generally look like, you don't need to display every single character. It's unnecessary. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource, not a primary or secondary one. If we were either a primary or a secondary source, then being a guide would make sense. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of data generated by code?

Hi. If I use the freely-available code CMBFAST to generate some data, then plot a graph of that data myself, what's the copyright status of it? Can I release it into the PD, or does the data itself acquire any copyright status when the code produces it? The code and its documentation don't say anything about it, but IANAL so I'd appreciate some comment. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I can't speak to what's generated just yet. But, the code you reference might be freely available as in gratis, but not as in libre. There's no release of copyrights on the page you reference, or any indication at all that it is available under a free license. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I should have been clearer about that. If it were libre then so, I suppose, would be its output - if not then I'd guess not but am far from sure. Perhaps I should just email the authors and ask. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers TFD

Could some experts weigh-in on Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers before it closes in negative 11 days? I would hate to relist it again. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Seems to me that since the Wikimedia lawyer basicaly told us there are no strong legal problems in either direction no particular expertise should be required to comment. All things beeing equal I think the best cause of action is to do what result in the least complexity. If we are not actualy legaly compelled to propegate the "with disclaimers" stuff when migrating the license to CC-BY-SA-3.0 we should not do it. The problem with the GDFL is that part of the license terms is that you are not allowed to remove disclaimers once added (re-users have to copy the Wikipedia disclaimer on top of the license text when re-using the those images anywhere), as a result we had to fork the GDFL template and add {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} to all images uploaded in the period while the default GDFL template included the words "subject to disclaimers". If we are not actualy legaly required to propegate that mess when re-licensing material (and I assume Goodwin would have told us if we where) we should not do it. See Wikipedia:GFDL standardization for background on the situation. --Sherool (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How to determine coyright images???

Well its the policy of Wikipedia that copyrighted images will be deleted,but how to determine that a particular image is copyrighted or not???Perhaps i am uploading images from google images search and its totally clear that images that are listed there are free from any copyright issues and useable freely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estrynix (talk • contribs) 07:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The way to determine that a particular image is free to use is to look for a statement that it is licensed under a free license like Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0. Without that kind of license statement you should assume that content you find on the Internet is not free to use. —teb728 t c 08:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Or it may say that it's entirely uncopyrighted or in the public domain, which we can also use. But yes, it generally has to explicitly say it's free before we can use it. If you have any specific images in mind and you're not sure about their copyright status, you can always link to them to get a second opinion. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Etyork.jpg

It would be great to have some input at User talk:Carnildo#Deleted photo Etyork.jpg about Florida PD law... I'm by no means an expert in that regard, and it would be great if someone with a little more knowledge of state copyright laws could take a look. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I think it's more appropriate to have this discussion here, rather than a user's talk page where we could end up hammering him with new message alerts. Given that...
  • I'm confused. Why are we talking about Florida when the image is clearly, blatantly from "Auburn University Libraries Archives". Last time I checked, Auburn University hadn't picked up and moved into Florida. It's in Alabama. We need to be talking about Alabama law, not Florida law. As the image is marked now, there is zero evidence it has been released under GFDL. The only thing we have from Auburn University apparently (though no way to prove it as yet) is that it was released "For use in biography of E.T. York, former Alabama Cooperative Extension System director" It says nothing about what license it was released under. There's no proof, no way to verify. If in fact it was released under GFDL, then the Auburn University Archives can submit a letter to that effect to m:OTRS. We have to be able to prove the release under GFDL through some means. That means does not currently exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

File:He 177A and B Cockpits.jpg...might the employees of Heinkel's drafting department from seventy years ago STILL own the copyright on this drawing???

Dear Wikipedia copyright legal experts:

The PIPE Here...and I've got a good question for you!

In my desire to help Wikipedia document aviation history (I'm an amateur aviation historian in my spare time) I think I might have "hit a legal wall" on actually posting post-January 1, 1923 "first-publishing-date" images that would help to document certain German WW II aircraft projects, and one of the most intriguing designs, the Heinkel He 177, might be a "recent enough" example where using images, that originated with the now long defunct Heinkel aviation firm's engineering staff (speficaly their drafting department) MIGHT still be under copyright, according to modern German copyright law!

The page about German copyright law here at Wikipedia, that might affect how such documentation could be placed up on a Wikipedia page, that dealt with such a historic aircraft such as the He 177, seems to show from the possibly appropriate text at about German copyright law, that the ultimate copyright for such a drawing would STILL reside with the actual draftsperson(s) that worked for Heinkel in 1943 (when the drawings for the He 177 in question were created), and NOT with the firm itself, as there is supposedly no form of "corporate" copyright within Germany, that would be honored today in the 21st century.

I also recently telephoned the German Consulate-General in Boston, MA to ask about this question, and they confirmed that it IS quite likely that the draftspeople for the Heinkel firm, from that WW II timeframe, WOULD most likely retain all control of the copyrights on those drawings, as they were the original creators of them...since the trio of He 177-related factory drawings that I found to be very valuable on documenting that aircraft's history were scanned from the pages of my copy of the Crowood Press-published on the subject aircraft, and authored by Manfred Griehl and Joachim Dressel, the German Consulate suggested that I also might want to contact Crowood about that copyright issue.

Now...since I WOULD still like to see some sort of content appearaing at Wikipedia, concerning the developments of the He 177, along the lines of the information those three drawings contained (regarding the four-engined He 177B prototypes, with two of the three drawings directly related to the He 177B's intended eventual visual appearance, with the remaining one regarding the never-built Heinkel He 277's general appearance, might I be much better advised to simply use those drawings solely as a basis, for CAD drawings of the He 177B & 277's appearances, that I would author myself, that would be directly based on them, but be somewhat different in form, that I could donate the copyright for to Wikipedia?

I'm going to be removing that contentious, Heinkel-authored "He 177A and B Cockpits" JPEG drawing scan content that I originally uploaded for the reference purpose of showing the He 177B's intended production cockpit, and start planning on creating my own CAD-based version, that would be a bit different in how that info is shown, but be of the same general nose and side-view info...I might even throw in a carefully done top view as well, from other info I've got access to, that those drawings do NOT show. I'll also state where the information for my CAD drawing came from, which, even though that information WOULD still be under the German copyright laws that apparently still attribute the copyright (even in 2009!) to Heinkel's long-dissolved drafting staff from 1943, the He 177-related drawing{s} I would produce for Wikipedia on my CAD system here at home, WOULD be all my own work and content, and should easily be "donatable" to Wikipedia for educational purposes (and uploading to Wikipedia), without any possibility of copyright infringement under German copyright law.

So...IF I created my own CAD drawing, directly based on the information from a scan of a Heinkel drafters' created drawing they did in 1943, could THAT be uploaded to Wikipedia without any copyright-legality issues in any way?

Thanks in advance, and Yours Sincerely,

The PIPE (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

biography of mohamed ahmed

Mohamed Ahmed was born in lower Jubba Somalia in 1984. during the civil he moved to Afamdow where his family resides now. In 1998 his brother Abdirahman Barre Musse called him to study in the refugee camp where he was the a headmaster through abdirahman Barre he finished his studies upto College —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohafurre (talk • contribs) 10:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What media copyright question are you asking? —teb728 t c 20:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

WMATA maps?

File:WMATA Silver Line map.png seems a bit sketchy; can I have more opinions? --NE2 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent preformances of Public Domain music

Is the performance of music considered public domain if the music being performed is in the public domain? For example, I would like to upload the version of "On, Wisconsin!" found here but, I am unsure if that performance is considered copyrighted. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not. Any performance of music immediately attracts a new copyright, regardless of the original status of the sheet music. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

how do you make a article

how do you make a article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by *jasleen4evr* (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, first you write it on your user page. There you edit it (easiest with the help of an editor) and make it so it fits Wikipedia's standards. When you are done, you type in the tite of your article in search. It should say that the page doesn't exist, and will ask you if you would like to create it. Copy everything from your userpage and paste it onto the new page, and voila! --Iliada 01:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Your first article. —teb728 t c 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how do I copy CC 3.0 images to Commons?

I've just encountered a user who is uploading fine-quality images (and immediately putting them to good use) locally under CC 3.0; an example is File:Downtown St Clairsville Ohio.JPG. I'm sure that they'd be good to have at Commons; but what exactly do I have to reproduce on the Commons description page? Just a link to the original file with a statement of "taken by English Wikipedia editor Bwsmith84 and released under CC 3.0"? Or do I have to include data from the log as well? I'm an admin, so I'll not worry about tagging the local images for someone else to delete them. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I would reccoment just using the Commons helper tool (linked to from the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template). Just carefully follow the instructions and everything should be taken care of automaticaly (double check afterwards just in case though). --Sherool (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Horiata

Hello, I would like to put a sample of a song my great grandfather wrote on the article that I am writing. (User:Iliada) The problem is, even though my great grandfather wrote it in Greece during a time where they didn't have copyrights, Wikippedia is not allowing me to use the whole song. But I remember seeing something about putting a 30 second or less sample of music. Can I do this? Thanks, --Iliada 12:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep in mind that the written form of music can be clear of copyright and the performance of that music might not be. A professional orchestra that performs any of Mozart's work is clearly performing written music that is clearly in the public domain. However, their performance of the music can be and usually is copyrighted. So, generally speaking you can display the sheet music your great grandfather wrote, but if you want to have a sound sample you need to have copyright clearance for it, or use it under fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi,

I have uploaded the following book cover images -

All images are available on publishers website and I have given full details of this, yet every month you say it does not fulfill copyright. I do not fully understand references to copyright tagging, but when I look at other pages (childrens fiction), my information is the same as other sites - what am I missing?

Also the following images have been uploaded by me with permission of the author/owner, but are not in the public domain, how should these be classified?

Also I uploaded an image called The Book of Catastrophes.jpg - which has been removed and cannot find in the history??

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

--Lifesawhirl (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The images that haven't been deleted are all tagged appropriately, and have fair use rationales. They look good to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

How and where can I receive a license? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tserg (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Here Waits Thy Doom.png & File:Mixtape Messiah 7.jpg

Do these images meet the fair use criteria? #8 specifically? I've uploaded these images but when I read the policy carefully it says the article should contain text about the image itself, but then there are lots of album articles on Wikipedia with cover art but no commentary about the cover itself. Is this acceptable? If these two images don't meet the policy I will tag them for deletion (G7) myself. Thanks, —SpaceFlight89 18:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • If the release itself is notable, then a single non-free image of the cover is generally accepted as unexceptional even though WP:NFCC is unclear on this. Black Kite 19:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Unclear status of Pershmap.gif; General helpfulness

This image has been deleted twice, and I have uploaded it a third time, because I have still not properly received clarification.

  • The original map was created in the early 1920s
  • The original map was created by the federal government
  • This map is a reproduction of the original map, but the originality of it is ambiguous. Where do we draw the line of what is an original work and what is not?

I will ask the author for permission, but I would like to first have clarification here, and also, as a matter of principle, reach a consensus on a question that is completely reasonable.

Please discuss this and the question below on my talk page.

Helpfulness

I feel that the way that images are deleted compromises the ethics of collaboration and the goals of quality. Wikipedia is about collaboratively working towards its improvement. Can someone please discuss with me on my talk page the above image, as well as point out to me the policies/norms for how images are deleted? If the process is fair and helpful, the process is very unclear to users.

NittyG (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see the image is taken from [13]. Please explain why you feel it is a work of the federal government.
I have deleted the image as a copyright violation, given that it has already been deleted twice. On Wikipedia, the uploader is required to prove that an image is properly licensed or meets the non-free content criteria. Nothing to date suggests that the image is copyright-free, other than a vague notion that it might have been created by the federal government. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As regards the policies for images being deleted, you can see WP:DPR. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

copyright

I used a scan of the front cover of a book published in 1953 by the Government of Ireland and long since out of print, is this not allowable under 'fair use'?Eog1916 (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What image are you asking about? It might be acceptable for identification in the infobox of the article on the book. Otherwise, even if it might be fair use, it is unlikely to be acceptable under WP:NFC. —teb728 t c 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
You may be in luck; a work made by the Irish Government or an officer or employee of the State has a copyright duration of 50 years from publication, see s. 191 (4) Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. Such works can be tagged {{PD-IrelandGov}}. Now, without seeing the exact book and details of its publication, I can't say this applies to your specific case, but it might. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious — how is it that the current Wiktionary logo does not qualify under {{PD-textlogo}}? Nyttend (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe it does. Stifle (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission

Have uploaded picture of charity logo for Royal London Society for the Blind, and have permission to use this on wikipedia. Would like to add copyright tag to avoid it being removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonhill72 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

To start with, I have added the license tag {{Non-free logo}} which allows wikipedia to use a logo without permission, subject to certain conditions. Those condtions include that you must write a specific reason to use image in each article where you want to use it, and post the reason on the image page. Another condition is that you must provide the source of the image (usually, this is a URL, but could be the name and address of a person at the organization who gave you the image.
To register permission, the person who has authority to grant permission must email us at permissions-enwikimedia.org. A volunteer will return the email, make sure the conditions of permission are appropriate, and then leave official notice of the permission on the image page. However, it is important to know that persmission to use on Wikipedia is not good enough, since free material on Wikipedia can be reused by anyone else, subject to certain agreements. So either the permission must be broad enough to be compatible with those agreements, or we can use the image as a non-free image without permission, but in that case you must follow the rules in {{Non-free logo}} by supplying the source, copyright holder information, and fair use rationale. Thatcher 12:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody let me know whether or not I would be able to upload an image such as this [14] for the list of californication episodes. I did think at first that this wouldn't be allowed however having seen the image used for House MD [15] I believe the same restrictions apply? Being that you can use the image because the image is just "text in a simple typeface"? Thanks in advance. CohenMD (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • You can upload the image that is the logo and add {{PD-textlogo}} and {{trademark}} to it for licensing. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot CohenMD (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

File:ODJB Livery Stable Blues 1917.ogg

Could someone please take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Livery Stable Blues? The story is that I uploaded a 1917 music recording to Commons, under the impression that since it was recorded before 1923, it is now in public domain in the United States. Then, an editor expressed a concern that the 1923 cutoff doesn't apply to recordings, and the file was tagged with commons:Template:PD-US record. The tag, however lists the state of New York as an exception, and the recording was made in New York City. The question is, can the recording be considered public domain in the US or not? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • First, see commons:Template:PD-US-record which notes that recordings made before 1972 are not protected by Federal Copyright law but may be protected by State common law copyright, which may last until 2067. Second, see this court case which says "we [*19]conclude that New York provides common-law copyright protection to sound recordings not covered by the federal Copyright Act, regardless of the public domain status in the country of origin, if the alleged act of infringement occurred in New York." Other states have not adjudicated this issue. So, if uploading the file to wikipedia in infringement, then as long as Jafeluv does not live in NY, there is not problem. On the other hand, if downloading or listening to the file is infringement, than any wikipedia reader in NY is infringing on the copyright, meaning that the sound needs a fair use rationale, that it is ineligible for Featured Sound status, and that the PD-US-record template needs to be changed. Any thoughts? Thatcher 19:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It appears to me that uploading or downloading it is fine, as long as it is not done in NY. However, my conclusion is different; Wikipedia already hosts material which is PD in the USA but not elsewhere, so since the recording is PD in Florida and California, it is appropriate for us to host it. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That's what Commons seems to think too. Thatcher 13:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Uploading a Non-Free Audio Sample!

I want to upload a Non-Free Audio Sample! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Non-free_audio_samples&from=Powderfinger-SinceYou%27veBeenGone-19sec.ogg

I'm searching your site for hours but can't find anything!! In the above link there should be a new link telling users "click here to upload your audio file" instead of posting useless pages of guides! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotsolis (talk • contribs) 12:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • If you look on the left-hand side of any page, in the Toolbox section you'll see the link "Upload File", which takes you here. Black Kite 12:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I already know that. This link only allows me to upload images! Now what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotsolis (talk • contribs) 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    You can also upload audio files from that link (or Special:Upload), if you want. It's not well-publicized because most audio files that people would upload are not audio files that we especially want to host. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary Photographs

I am in the process of cleaning, editing and structuring some political pages - mainly biographical (such a Marie Ficarra). Using images from the Parliament's website (www.nsw.parliament.gov.au), what is the status of copyright? Taymaishu (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean www.parliament.nsw.gov.au, the copyright conditions can be found here. Specifically, "No part of this publication may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, in any material form or transmitted to any other person or stored electronically in any form, without the prior written permission of the Parliament and the State of NSW, except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968." I'm not a regular here, so I'll let someone else explain what the part about the Copyright Act 1968 means... Jafeluv (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Australian Government works with commonwealth, state, or territory-owned copyright become public domain 50 years after their creation. Permitted under the Copyright Act is e.g. private use. --Martin H. (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, Martin! Taymaishu (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Media Card

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Question_about_SD_card_moved_from_WP:MCQ. Black Kite 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image used in two articles, but with a rationale for only one of them

File:OKMag.jpg is currently used at OK! and Jade Goody, but it only has a Fair Use rationale for OK!. As it is being used appropriately in OK! in accordance with it's valid rationale it isn't a deletion candidate (not should it be), and FFD is the only location that the guidelines talk about for images that are missing (or have an invalid) a rationale. None of the pages that I've seen cover this scenario and so I don't know what the correct avenue to go down to notify people about this is so that either a valid rationale for its use in the Jade Goody article can be written or (if one isn't or cannot be written) it can be removed. I don't want to just unilaterally remove it from the article as it is possible a valid use rationale can be written, and I have had no involvement with that article at all. So, what is the correct way to handle this situation (a) this time and (b) should I encounter it again? Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen people tag these with {{Di-no fair use rationale}}, which, while it states that deletion will occur in 7 days, usually ends up with just the non-rationaled image removed if no rationale is provided in that time. I wonder if we need a specific template that warns of an image that, while having other rationales, may be removed from the page within 7 days without further changes. (I believe in the past, BetaCommandBot watched and stripped such extra uses, but that's not going to happen again, most likely)
More manually, you can drop a note on the page that the image is used on as well as the image uploader and warn them about the need of a rationale. If one isn't provided in 7 days, then you're free to remove the inappropriate use of the image. --MASEM (t) 18:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I've marked the image with that template, and marked the image caption on Jade Goody. I've also left a manual (and thus probably hardly ideal) notice on the talk page. I haven't notified the uploader as AFAICS they have had no involvement in the Jade Goody article.
I think at {{Di-no fair use rational for}} template and an associated one for the article talk page would be a good idea. Where would be a good place to start a discussion about this? Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • When I see a situation where a fair use image is used in a perfectly valid way on one article, but missing rationale for its use on a second article, I remove it from the second article for missing rationale, which is required by WP:NFCC #10c. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Generally, I agree. I think I'd just remove the offending image from the article. I know beta's bot used do this as part of it's clean up, and would also leave a talk page message Template:Missing rationale2 for the article's talk. There isn't really a specific procedure in place to deal with this sort of thing. We just a have a policy that says it's forbidden. Maybe we should establish a procedure?-Andrew c [talk] 02:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that the first step should be to simply remove the image from the article(s) it doesn't have a rationale for with an appropriate edit summary. Removing content that unquestionably violate the non-free content criteria (having no rationale would be an example of this) is explictly excempt from the 3 revert rule if it comes to that, but if you run into much opposition it's probably better to try resolving it on the talk page or Wikipedia:Non-free content review. --Sherool (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Gerd 72

User:Gerd 72 has uploaded images mainly Albanian military all of which have different meta data and camera types. WP:DUCK indicates most could be copy vios, some have been moved to Commons. Do we have a way of nominating all images uploaded by one user as possibly non-free? MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "one step" way, but you can just compile a list of the images and list them all under an appropriate header on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files, tagging each file with {{pui}}. Also include a note that some of the images are moved to Commons so the images can be listed for deletion there as well if that is the outcome. --Sherool (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Uploading someone else's work now owned by me

In the late 1930s my late father-in-law took some rather good photos in NY jazz clubs that I would like to put into Wiki Commons and perhaps upload to a couple of relevant pages. When my father-in-law died, he left his estate to my wife and her sister, who agreed a division between them. As the jazz fan in the family, the photos were given to me. I do not have any document saying 'I hereby bequeath … ' What copyright formalities should I undertake before uploading these pictures? Radavenport (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I would suggest you send an e-mail to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org (replace AT and DOT as appropriate to make it a valid e-mail addres) explaining the situation. Communication to the permissions que is confidential so if they think further proof is needed you could for example scan a pieve of paper where your wife sign off saying that as the legal heir of the copyright holder she agree to release the photos under a free license or something like that without having it become public information. They will just certify that a satisfactory permission have been recieved, and you can then upload the images to Commons citing the OTRS ticket number assigned to your communication (images uploaded to Commons can be used across all Wikipedia projects). --Sherool (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

TV station galleries

I'm not going anywhere near this, but if someone else here would be able to take a look and add to the discussion, that would be great. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, Mike Godwin has said that use of these images is legal, it's up to us to decide whether we think they're significant.
J.Milburn swears blind that he can't see why historical logos should be of any interest to anybody. On the other hand, the on-screen ident of a station is probably the most visible (and memorable) pieces of that entity's self-presentation, so people who are interested in the history of television are interested in how that has evolved and changed and developed, and see documenting that evolution and change as inherently encyclopedic: part of an area's shared historical mass culture. You can measure this interest even in the conventional print media: google "bbc ident" on google news for example, and back come 760 hits since 1993. I can also see a lot of value in tracing how some corporate's logos have evolved -- for instance at Quantas today J.Milburn also ripped out a section documenting how the logo had evolved in fifty years. (Compare with this old edit, showing how the winged kangaroo progressively evolved and became more stylised). Now I see that, and I think a significant piece of understanding about the flag carrier has been lost by his intervention.
It seemed the dust had settled on the issue a year ago after Mike's announcement, but if J.Milburn really does question that these images have an encyclopedic significance, then perhaps the only way forward is to have a big enough RfC to settle it. Part of the problem here (IMO) is he seems to be acting as self-appointed judge, jury and executioner, the onlie true assessor of significance or not, when this is something that really is for the community to decide. These questions should be being worked out through a community mechanism, not by single admins acting like Judge Dredd, trying to drive their will through on an article page with blood-curdling threats of blocking. J. Milburn's talk page is not where this discussion should be happening.
The appropriate venue would appear to be WP:NFCR, probably a separate sub-page; with broad publicity to try to get a wide circle of input. Pending the conclusion of any such discussion, stripping out of images should probably be frozen, so those who object to them can point to what they object to; and those who think they have value can point to what they value. That is my view as to how things should best be taken forward: an appropriate community mechanism to try to resolve this. Jheald (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Mike's announcement ended it, nor should it have ended. Mike is expressing the legal position (there are no legal issues), but that's not where NFC stops; Mike is not responsible at all for this policy. NFC is about maintaining the free content mission, and thus we need to meet the Foundation's resolution in maintaining a minimum amount of non-free content that is necessary to convey information to our readers.
So we're at the question: does the addition of a series of historical logos provide significant information to our readers to be considered part of minimal use or if there's a means to replace those with free content. No one is arguing against the current logo, but any previous logo is in question.
For television stations, based on the rough sampling, tracing the historical logos reflect usually two things: the era and art the logo was in (logos from the 70s, for example, will be bright, bold colors , while more recent logos will be more simple geometric), and the addition and change of station affiliation or channel number. Both of these can be explained in the text, the logos adding nothing to this discussion. That's not meaning we discount all historical logos : an anniversary logo, or one that was created by a noted designer, assumption this was appropriate information discussed in the article, would be fine to justify it. But just slapping up the logos in a gallery or otherwise with any additional comment (beyond the period of us) does nothing but add non-significant non-free content.
Also, consider the slippery slope here: if we allow unfettered use of historical logos, why not use a gallery of all the roles an actor (living or dead) participated in, or all the character design changes for animated/drawn characters, or...?
Let's put it this way: just adding a historical logo gallery is indiscriminate because there's no rationale why each image is included, save for those insisting being completionists to show a station's history. We should only discriminately include such images when there is clear need to enhance the article for all readers with them. --MASEM (t) 04:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest WP:NFCR would be the better venue for this conversation? Or should we go on and just do the show right here? Jheald (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
NFCR seems to be about specific images, not suited towards a general discussion. Here may be too inappropriate since copyright's not a (core) issue (we probably all agree that the images are copyright but there's no present copyright threats looming over their over-use.) NFC may be best. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think here is a better place for it since it has already started here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It's already started on my talk page, too... A little advice to everyone here. This conversation will no doubt attract a lot of idiocy. I advise you remove any comments that include the word "Godwin", as they will no doubt be bullshit, and I also advise you remove any comments that are along the lines of "these logos are important because they show the logo". Be ready for a lot of petitio principii, refusal to understand the point of NFCC#8, misrepresentation of the views of those wishing to remove these galleries and so on. It's fairly clear that these galleries should be removed; this may well be yet another case of "I like the NFCC, but it doesn't really apply to my project for some reason". (Oh, I'm sorry, is my cynicism showing? The length of the debate on my talk page doesn't even include the discussions on Hammersoft and Neutralhomer's talk page, and growing discussions elsewhere. This has been going on for ages with people refusing to get the point, and refusing to answer simple questions.) J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't your own comment here be removed by following your advice? Is this a corollary to the existing Godwin's Law, or a new one entirely? Powers T 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This has also been discussed, at length, at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42#How, when, and why for historical logo regarding historical company logos and, to a degree, station logos. Consensus there was no, a project can not decide policy, and no, logo galleries do not meet Wikipedia's fair-use requirements. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can projects decide fair use guidelines for articles within their scope?

Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations have been citing a discussion within their project regarding the use of logos in galleries as having generated consensus that the use of logo galleries is acceptable. For the sake of discussion, let's presume that consensus to include them exists on this project from that discussion. See an example citation. After seeing a quote from consensus policy at Wikipedia:Consensus_can_change#Exceptions "WikiProject[s] cannot decide that for the articles within its scope, some policy does not apply, unless they can convince the broader community that doing so is right", one of the project members said "This WikiProject oversees all the pages in question, so yes we can see our own consensus" [16].

Does a project have a right to decide what is and is not acceptable use of fair use images on articles within its scope or does it need to seek wider consensus for the type of usage it wants to use?

In RFC style (this is not a poll)...

A project should establish best practice guidelines to help editors interpret policies in the context of their particular sort of articles. These guidelines are in no way "finally decisive", but they should be given significant consideration, particularly if they have stood the test of time

  • This is my view, because in practice it is what happens. Projects develop guidelines to relate all sorts of policies to the particular challenges of the articles they work on -- for example, WP:RS: what are the sources considered reliable? WP:MOS: how is this best adapted to their challenges. Etc, etc. WP:NFC is really no different. The aim is to fulfill the policy. The question is, in terms of their articles, what does this mean for best practice?
Does this override policy? Does this override consensus finding at FfD, or in wider RfCs? No, of course it doesn't. But particularly in the case of WP:NFC one of the key questions is NFCC#8, the wiki-community assessment of what constitutes a "significant" increase in the understanding a reader gains from an article by the inclusion of some material, as balanced against the degree of the copyright taking it represents. This is a value judgment to be made by the community as a whole, but one where the input of those who know the subject best may be particularly relevant.
A wikiproject should try to have a good discussion and come up with such an assessment. WP:COMICS is an example where this was done a long time ago, and the results have worked very well. The assessment may need to be revised, to take account of the views of those outside the project; or in the light of outcomes at FfD or wider RfCs. But, to the extent it represents a serious discussion, it should not be dismissed out of hand. Jheald (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Project should help establish best practices, help put them into place, but always within the context of existing policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A project must seek wider consensus for types of fair use usage

  • --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This - a project can not dictate Wikipedia policy, nor override or change it to suit their own purposes. Projects exist to apply policy and guidelines to articles, not ignore them. They are a group of editors, not a cabal and not an authority with regards to how policy is interpreted. Projects can create manuals of styles for articles within their topics, but those must still conform to Wikipedia guidelines and existing policies. They must follow fair use policies...its that simple. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • We've been here before (anyone remember "All American Idol finalists are notable"?), and no doubt we will be here again. If a project decides that it is OK to violate Wikipedia policy in its own guidelines, then that guideline is invalid and should be ignored. Black Kite 14:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course. In the same way as WikiProjects may not establish lower notability bars for articles in their purview, they cannot do similarly for copyright concerns. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Local consensus never overrules sitewide consensus when it comes to concerns about laws and Wikipedia policies. There's no reason a TV project has any superior knowledge to the people who routinely deal with Fair Use concerns -- quite the contrary, in fact. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A project can decide consensus for types of fair use usage within its scope

General discussion

There are a number of problems with the scenario where projects can decide types of usage. First, we end up with a hodge podge of policy application that can leave editors bewildered as to what rules apply to a given article. Whenever an editor switches from one article to another on an unrelated subject, they'd have to research to find out what the standards are before editing. Second, articles that fall within multiple project scopes could have conflicting standards on what is acceptable. Third, who watches the watchers? There's no real oversight on the projects to decide more globally what acceptable applications of policy are. Allowing projects to decide what types of fair use usage is permitted creates an untenable situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Logos that are not in galleries

When the logos are not in galleries J Milburn still removes them saying that he is removing them per WP:NFCC#8 but WP:NFCC#8 says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and the logos do increase readers' understanding of the topic as they show the changes in the TV stations call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout the TV stations history and the logos are part of the TV stations history. Powergate92Talk 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with J Milburn. If the logos are not being discussed critically and with some depth in reliable, third-party sources, then adding the old logos is still nothing but decoration. One does not need to see the old logo to understand the station's history nor are the visual call signs (often just stylized letters anyway) necessary to significantly increase a readers' understanding of what the station is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
As i said at User talk:J Milburn#Random break 1, WP:NFCC#8 doe's not say you need reliable sources discussing the logos and it doe's not say the logos need to be discussed in the article text. And the logos do increase a readers' understanding of the TV stations history as they show the TV stations history in image. Powergate92Talk 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
So hypothetically, what would be a case where there is discussion of the significance of a logo (as to meet #8) that is without sources and does not violate any other policy (particularly WP:V and WP:NOR?) --MASEM (t)
That sounds like a category confusion. WP:NOR applies to text on article pages. WP:RS and WP:NOR do not apply to discussions about article pages, policy page discussions, talk page discussions, AfD page discussions etc. Hard evidence is useful of course; but the nature of these discussions is community input, to come to community consensus. It is in those discussions that whether or not the image contributes with the required significance is assessed. Jheald (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I am talking about the text on the article page that supports the need for the image to be theres. Rationales are another thing altogether but lets assume that that this aspect can be justified if the text-in-article part is. You can't just throw a non-free image up on an article without discussion of that image, and so that's my question, in the case of logos, what article text would be able to justify the use of a old station logo without sources and without incurring NOR or other policy problems?
Now, I did just happen to come across a perfect example of when an old station logo would be acceptible. Nick just changed their logo from the "splat" to a simple text line, and for good reason as cited: the splat when used on business cards looked like a mess. Thus, it's appropriate to use the splat logo on the Nick page in the discussion of the station history for at least this point, if not the iconic nature of the splat logo that I'm sure can be sourced. But the point here is that the reason to use the logo is to help readers understand an appropriate string of content for WP (something that is non-continuous or is sourced if it possibly is). That needs to be there for each and every non-free image, logo or not. That does not happen, as I've seen, with most local TV station logos, but I'm open to see if this can be done. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Most articles on Wikipedia do not have sources for the text in the articles about the images, the TV station logos are just like any other image on Wikipedia so why should the TV station articles have sources for the text in the articles about the logos? Powergate92Talk 05:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
No, but that's not the point I'm making; this specific problem is related to historical logos. There needs to be text in the article to describe the significance (per NFCC#8) to include the historical logo (as with all images), but for logos, I cannot see any way (but I'd be happy to be proven wrong) where the inclusion of the logo is accompanied by text that is used to justify its significance that isn't sourced nor avoids original research (specifically why the logo's important). Again, the point is that non-free images must aid in contributing to helping the general reader understand the topic better. The current logo, sure, but save for limited exceptions, no historical logo will help do that; where there are exceptions, that factor needs to be clear why in the text. --MASEM (t) 06:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the question of significance per WP:NFCC#8 is one for talk pages, policy discussions, fair-use rationales, IfD debates. What is needed in the article is some text accompanying the logos, describing their changes (verifiable from the logos themselves). But the question of the significance of that logo progression is one that can be discussed off the page.
As you will be aware, WP:NOR applies only to article text. WP:RSs are of course valuable in meta-discussions; but they are not mandated. It is enough that the community feels that showing the logo evolution significantly adds to the understanding conveyed by the article. Jheald (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In fact WP:NOR applies to all article content. Considerably more latitude in that respect is granted to image creators, solely because of the relative paucity of free images. The purpose of an image is to convey information that would be difficult to do in words, and the purpose of a caption is to expand or clarify the point being made in the image. It is surely clear that if we find ourselves writing article text merely to justify the inclusion of an image, then that image is not meeting its purpose. From that you can see that WP:V applies just as much to captions as it does to any other piece of article text. Nobody should be adding any text to an article that is not derived from a WP:RS, otherwise any editor is free to remove it. Just because "most articles on Wikipedia do not have sources for the text in the articles about the images", does not free them from the requirement for the source to be cited, if challenged. --RexxS (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. The caption is part of the article text, and so WP:RS and WP:NOR fully apply.
On the other hand, my point above is that the discussion of significance may well be off-page, not part of either the caption or the body text of the article. The degree of significance is something for the community to decide. Jheald (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If the significance of the image exists but is off the page it is used on (likely being in the rationale), then there's no significance implied to the reader, and NFCC#8 fails. Something needs to be said that ties that image to the text to make it a required element of the article, otherwise it is just fluff. How strong that statement is, that's a consensus determination of meeting #8, but it needs to be there in the article body. (Even the significance in the caption is not enough, because we're tying the image to the article text.) --MASEM (t) 13:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
With respect, I disagree (and so does the policy). In some cases understanding of the topic is improved, simply by seeing what the image is. This is clearly accepted for record covers and for current logos; the same case can often equally be made for historic logos. Jheald (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It's true that we have the "nonfree for identification" for infoboxes, but this is the case where, if the topic can support an article through notability and other guidelines, we are discussing the topic of the image, and thus the image is acceptable. But that's at most one image per topic; it does not break down for multiple identifying images for the same topic. That said, in fairness, using the same logic to allow a small number of historical logos to be used to describe the station's history. Take the example of a station that started off unaffiliated, then went to national affiliate XYZ and then to PQR. It's expected that if the change of affiliation affected the logo, it may be useful to include on in that section about the station's history to help identify to some extent that change. So in the above, I'd expect no more than three logos used on the page that would otherwise require no stronger need for that text beyond a legitimate section on the station's history: one for the current logo under PQR, the initial logo when unaffiliated, and a logo while under XYZ. Using all the historic logos, however, without further justification is right out because once you've identified a period of the station's history by one logo, no other logo will be adding to this. This of course doesn't prevent the use of other logos that may actually have significance, such as one specially designed for an anniversary, or on that may have been controversial. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • <-- So since logos add understanding, it's ok to have galleries like WDIV-TV#Station_logos and WFAA#Logos. Right. Ok, since these presentations average about 4 images per gallery, and there's ~2400 stations, we'll have about 10,000 fair use images from TV stations alone. That's about 3% of the projects total of non-free imagery <cough><choke><hack>. But hey, why stop there? Let's include every logo the station has ever used on the off chance that a reader of the article has seen the logo and identifies it with the station. That would improve understanding too. Let's say that's about 20 logos per station (probably extremely conservative guess). Gosh, that's only 50,000 images. Bombs away! Improve understanding! Splatter Wikipedia with fair use images everywhere in the name of improving understanding! Uhg. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

NFCC #8 and #3 are critically important

Let's face it; most of WP:NFCC is bureaucratic paperwork. Items 2,4,5,6,7,9, and 10 are all perfunctorily addressed and it is rare that there are any serious objections to the presence of an image on the project for failing these items (with the exception of 10, but that too is just paperwork...if it's there, people don't object).

Items 1, 3 and 8 are the critical components of the fair use policy. Without them, we would allow all non-free images so long as they are usable under fair use law, which for this encyclopedia is a very broad paintbrush.

With logos, album covers, book covers, and similar #1 is also perfunctory. You can't replace a logo with a free equivalent because then it's not the logo and doesn't belong on the article.

This leaves only items #3 and #8 as standing in the way of allowing as much non-free content as the maximum inclusionist would like to see. Not coincidentally, these items are the most hotly debated items in this and many other debates on this project about inclusion of fair use content.

Inclusionists prefer to claim that logos, covers, etc. add value by their mere presence on the article. A person going to a discography, for example, who is looking for a particular album they remember but only remember the artist would have a fast reference to see covers and go "Oh! That's the one, the one with the funky artwork!" It's useful. It just helped the reader remember which album it was they were looking for.

Non-inclusionists take the view that we're not a guide, we're an encyclopedia. There is a difference. If you want a guide, go look at allmusic.com and pump in your favorite artist to see their album covers. Further, we're a free content encyclopedia, and including fair use images every time it has a chance of being useful to someone infringes on our m:mission.

The bottom line; if items #3 and #8 are not defended we will be a guide (as opposed to an encyclopedia), and not be a free (as in libre) resource.

Claiming that adding TV station logos are useful for identification purposes and therefore adding every logo the station uses invalidates #3 and #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The TV station logos that show the changes in the TV stations call sign, branding and network affiliation throughout the TV stations history are significance and do meet #8 as if look at rationale on e. g. the Nicktoons TV logo you will see that it says "The image is used to identify the brand Nicktoons TV, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the brand, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the brand, and illustrate the nature of the brand in a way that words alone could not convey." and the logos also meet #3 as e. g. in the Nicktoons Network article 1 logo doe's not have "significant information" for the network name change from Nicktoons TV to Nicktoons and from Nicktoons to Nicktoons Network so you need the Nicktoons TV and the Nicktoons logos. Powergate92Talk 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The rationale you quote is generic, and used by the template. It's not a case specific rationale. I've long felt that such rationales are exceptionally weak at best, and blatantly fail our requirements as they do not specifically refer to the cases in which they are used. One battle at a time though. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The rationale doe's specifically refer to the case in which it is used as Nicktoons TV is a brand that was used by Nicktoons Network. Powergate92Talk 04:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Please read what I said and note how the template operates. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I read what you said and I don't see why I need note how the template operates. Powergate92Talk 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how that rationale doesn't accurately describe how the image is used. Yes the same rationale might be used on other images, but that's because those images are being used in the same way. --Noname2 (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Time to move ahead?

Acknowledging that some disagree with this, but that the community large majority agree with this...

Is there any majority opposition to beginning work on removing the galleries listed at User:Hammersoft/list#Using_logo_section_galleries? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I didn't see any consensus in the preceding discussion. As far as #3, minimal usage, I see that more as directed towards using multiple samples of a single work. For instance, it would be very difficult to justify the fair use of multiple clips from a single song or movie. The historic logos on the other hand are separate creative works.
As far as #8, significance in increasing reader's understanding of the topic, the logos often reflect changes in ownership and network affiliation, and as the articles mature the gallery can be broken up alonside a history section. And yes, a logo that was used for a long time in the 1970s and 1980s may be more recognizable than a bland logo that's only been in use for a couple years.
As far as a "guide" vs. encyclopedia, that's an age-old debate that isnt going to be settled here. The word "encyclopedia" means it encompasses all. Open up a paper encyclopedia and you'll find photo galleries of birds, coins, bottles of wine, flags, and so forth.
And as far as the free-as-in-beer debate, these images are not shareware we've been given a limited right to by the copyright holders. WP still allows fair-use content, and while there is a higher bar for commercial use of fair-use content, say if a company sold DVD-ROMs of WP commerically, I believe historic logos still fall within that bar. And quite frankly if they didn't, they would have been eliminated at the same time the publicity photos of actors were deprecated. It shouldn't be hard to find a for-profit print article that contains historic logos of Coca-Cola. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether it's legal or not is just the beginning of it being accepted here. As for guide vs. encyclopedia, that debate has been settled for years. We're an encyclopedia, not a guide. The points you raise in opposition to our WP:NFCC policy have been raised before, and the majority of people here disagree with you. I'm going to move ahead with the removals, as others have been doing them as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Whether it's legal means that the free-as-in-beer argument is out, and it simply becomes a case of a copyright argument being used to advance a deletionist position. We are an encyclopedia, and we're an encyclopedia with a healthy, case-by-case debate as to what to cover in the encyclopedia. And as I see it there were only two editors arguing that historic logo galleries serve no purpose here. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not advancing a deletionist position. Sorry you feel that way, but it's inaccurate. Your statement that we are an encyclopedia is only partially accurate. We are a free encyclopedia. That's why we have m:Mission, which states "develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". That's why we have Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy which states that non-free material use "must be minimal". That's why we have WP:NFCC, which has restrictions for minimal use and significance. We have never supported fair use images in galleries and likely never will because of the existence of these documents. If you want to have these galleries supported, I strongly suggest you start an RfC to change the wording of the policy to liberally permit logo usage. As is, between W and K call letter stations, we have approximately 2100 uses of these logos. That can not be construed as minimal, by any means. In the meantime, and once again in compliance with policy at WP:NFCC last bullet point, the case hasn't been made for inclusion and the logo galleries will (and are being) deprecated. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I for one haven't seen anywhere where a "community large majority" agreed to these actions nor do I see what part of the NFCC guideline or policy allows for any editor to delete on site non-free images simply because they sit together. Significance can be disputed and level of discussion but that is not one person's call or a small group of editors to make particularly if there is clear disagreement from another group of editors also wishing to improve the encyclopedia. I certainly understand the need to promote "free" image use in the project and one way to do this obviously is limiting "non-free" use. I don't disagree with that particular POV but I do disagree with the degree of strictness you feel is necessary here. Can the logo sections be improved? I think in many cases this is a clear possibility but this would be impossible to do without the images themselves. As a general rule we don't require that content be inserted in a manner that would immediately be considered featured article or good article material. I'm also a little incredulous when comments are made that attempt to minimize the influence that fair use plays in this debate, particularly on a discussion called Media copyright questions and a policy and guideline and Wikimedia licensing policy that by in large born out of copyright and fair use law. Tmore3 (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_galleries is rather clear. Also, see WP:NFCC, last bullet point. The case hasn't been made. Consensus hasn't been reached that this type of use of fair use is acceptable. Therefore, since the burden hasn't been met, per policy it needs to be deprecated. The Wikimedia licensing policy isn't born from U.S. fair use law. It is related to it, but not descendant from it. It is descended from our m:Mission. Please see Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. There is reference to law in one of the definitions, but the actual resolution text does not reference copyright or fair use laws. This discussion was advertised at WT:NFC, the Television wikiproject, and received some coverage at WP:AN/I. The result of all this is that a simple majority of the contributors to this thread agreed that the galleries needed to go. In a related thread, the consensus was for removal as well.
  • If we suspended every guideline and policy whenever someone disagrees with it, we'd have gridlock on the project. Nothing would be enforceable. I understand and recognize that there are those who disagree with this policy and guideline. Disagreement is good. It fosters discussion and progress. It becomes bad when, after discussion, we see no consensus to suspend a guideline and therefore do not apply the guideline. The guidelines are not trivial. They exist for a reason.
  • In this particular case, my User:Hammersoft/list has shown a huge number of non-free image uses in galleries. 111213 logos in a galleries, with all incidences of this use averaging about 4 logos per article. If this use were permissible, we'd be looking at approximately 10,000 logo uses just for American television stations alone. 10,000. Consider that number when reading the Foundation's stance on non-free content use at the above noted resolution; "Such (use) must be minimal". As WP:NOT (another policy) says, we are not "a complete exposition of all possible details". We do not have to include every single logo the company has ever used in order to have a complete encyclopedia article.
  • Combined with the other thread, we've discussed this for more than a month now, with never any sign of consensus that this usage is acceptable. I'm sorry that consensus did not exist in favor of your view. You are certainly welcome to attempt to generate a consensus, as consensus can change. But for now, the galleries must go. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see any genuine consensus demonstrated here or in any of the other discussions other than the same handful of editors who take a particular point of view in how the NFCC should be interpreted and the same can be said for the other side. The Exemption Doctrine, the NFCC and yes, even the free content portion of the Wikimedia's, have everything to do with copyright law. To declare otherwise is like claiming the creation of stop signs really had little to do with preventing accidents. I can appreciate the need to limit "non-free" image use however I grow skeptical when someone tries to say Mike Godwin's input on the placement of historic logos together doesn't factor into the debate and these image deletions have nothing to do with copyright. Of course his words do not and should not circumvent or "suspend" any policy or guideline however as with any guideline or policy the expectation is that they are approached with good faith and common sense. The attempted framing of this discussion or the attempt to declare consensus when one clearly does not exist doesn't really strike me as a practice of good faith nor an application of common sense at this point. Tmore3 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The driving motivation behind our non-free content policy isn't the law. It is the fact that we are a free encyclopedia. That is our goal. Our mission and our vision is not to produce a legal encyclopedia, wherein any content we use is legal within the confines of this project. If you believe that is the case, you are grossly mistaken. Mr. Godwin can comment on the legal status of an image. He is a trained, licensed lawyer and has worked extensively in related fields. I do not doubt Mr. Godwin's abilities in this regard. However, his comments are mostly irrelevant. If you think they are tightly relevant, you are again grossly mistaken. I am increasingly of the feeling that new editors need to go through a training session to convey critical knowledge of what it is we are asking them to do when they begin editing here. There's a reason we do not accept permission to use on Wikipedia materials. There's a reason we do not accept non-commercial use only materials. These things are deleted on sight, with no waiting period. We're quite strict about this. See WP:CSD#Files F3. It is because those materials are not free as in libre. You are focusing on free as in gratis, and your misunderstanding of the issue reflects that. See Gratis versus Libre. Wikipedia is libre. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually like to think I have a pretty decent grasp of the difference between gratis and libre, but based on your response, I don't know if I could say the same of your position. Of course we're talking about libre here, even though actually both definitions apply to the project, libre is the first intended definition. When we're talking about free and non-free images we're not talking about this one is $0 and this one is $100, we're talking about what is free of rights and ownership issues and what are not "free" of those legal restrictions. If you think fair use has little to do with this discussion, I'd be inclined to question the authority you claim to hold on the subject matter, much less accusing others of being ill-informed about it. Tmore3 (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You appear to be working from a preconception that if something is legal to use here, it's ok to use it here. This is a false conclusion. That is the basis of your misapprehension of the situation. You believe that Godwin's comments have relevance. They do, but minimally at best. Nevertheless, I appreciate your compliments that I am acting in bad faith and without common sense. It certainly enhances your position and makes you appear considerably more knowledgeable than people who do not use insults. I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I would be operating from a preconception that applying non-free media policy with a reasonable amount of good faith and common sense would not include claims that non-free image policy has little to do with copyright and fair use law much less comments made by Wikimedia's general counsel are irrelevant to the discussion. Please don't confuse or mis-characterize my position with anything else. I disagree with your claim that consensus has been reached in regards to this matter. If you take that as a personal attack maybe it's time to take a step back from the debate. Tmore3 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Since you can't seem to communicate with me without casting insults at me of lacking common sense and acting in bad faith, I'm terminating further conversation with you until you can gain a civil tongue. See also WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Images which are scanned from private photos

With reference to this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Howard_at_Farnborough_Console.jpg This is a scan (by myself) of a private photograph of the subject (Michael Howard) which he gave to me before his death. I have no information about who the photographer was and I don't think there are any reasonable steps I can take to identify them. What would be the copyright status of such an image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezwells (talk • contribs) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This is a tough one. But, on Wikipedia we have to be able to verify the copyright status of an image. In this case, we can't. We don't know who the photographer was, so we have no means of verifying its status. That the photo was given to you has no relevance here. I'm sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FCC Testing images

Sources this morning pointed me to hardware tests that are done by the US Federal Communications Commission to test units that have potential to interfere with public airwares. These test produce reports like these [17] which have lovely lovely images that would be great to use to replace (in this example) what I'm currently using as a non-free promo image of the same piece of hardware.

Would these reports by the FCC be governed by usual US Gov't licensing restrictions in that they are appropriate to use as free content? --MASEM (t) 15:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm having a hard time understanding why we need non-free imagery of the hardware in the first place. The stuff exists, therefore we could obtain free imagery of it. Regardless of that, this is a government website. In the vast majority of cases (this one included, from what I can see) the images are public domain. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In this case (the hardware for DJ Hero) the product is not yet released, thus a free image is realistically impossible. When the product is out, yes, that all changes, as now I or any editor that owns it can take a picture if they buy it, thus replacement is mandatory. I'm just trying to see if I can get rid of the non-free earlier if such products picture are published through the FCC and thus can be considered PD. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Ok, in that case there might be a concern regarding prior publishing. Even though the images are free by way of the federal government having made them, the maker might make a case against the images being PD because the hardware hasn't been released yet. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Then I will hold off; rather not replace something that is non-free with something that is possibly non-free, when we know we'll have the real deal of a true free image in about 1.5 months. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Carl J. and Ruth Shapiro (Source: Boston.com) and Arthur Nadel (Source: Federal Booking Mug Shot)

I am new to uploading and copyrighting. Please assist with File:Carl and Ruth Shapiro.jpg. The Source is: http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/08/05/shapiro_tax_filing_shows_a_steep_loss/ from: the Boston Globe. I don't know any more. The Globe may not own or license that photo.

There is an alternative photo which I don't know how to copy from pdf: The Dana Farber 2008 Spring newsletter [[18]] on p.1, and a photo of his daughter and son-in-law, Ellen and Robert Jaffe on pdf. p.6. which should be added to the same Carl J. Shapiro page, if you can figure out the info required for uploading.

I also need help with File:Arthur-nadel-294x368.jpg. The source is: http://news.puggal.com/arthur-nadel/ It is a federal booking mug shot to be uploaded on the Arthur Nadel page.

Thanx much for any assistance of these two photo/BLP's

Furtive admirer (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The first image, sourced from the Boston Globe (and the proposed ones from Dana Farber) are surely copyrighted. Therefore, we can only use them on Wikipedia if they comply with out non-free image policy (see WP:NFCC) and are tagged with a corresponding license tag and have a fair use rational (WP:FURG). Since it appears the purpose of these images are to illustrate what living individuals look like, I believe the images fail WP:NFCC #1. Since these are public figures, someone could plausibly take their photo, or take measures to contact someone who has taken their photos and request that they license them freely.
What sort of help do you need with the Arthur Nadel image? If it is a work of the US federal government, then it is in the public domain and you don't have to worry about the non-free image stuff I was talking about above. I'd be glad to help you further if you give specifics with your issue. Hope this helps! -Andrew c [talk] 21:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This daylife page attributes the mug shot to the “Pinellas County Sheriff's Office” which is not the Federal government. —teb728 t c 21:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Fortunately, according to {{PD-FLGov}}, it is still PD. I changed the image description page accordingly. —teb728 t c 21:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hobbs Army Airfield

The article currently needs an appropriate aerial shot, I am in contact with another editor who is also working on the same article with me, and he has apparently been given permission to publish the image online by the copyright holders. Presumably the image is original work by the US Army, but I'm fairly new to WP's policies on uploaded images and was wondering if a more "experienced" editor could give us the green light to go ahead with the upload, or if we need any further permission or information about the image in question, Thanks.

"a good aerial photo from about 1943 showing the many structures and planes in place. It was obtained from the USAF Historical Research Center. The City of Hobbs owns the rights to the publication, but have given me permission to publish it online." Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Permission to use is worthless to us. We accept images either as non-free, requiring their compliance with WP:NFCC or available under a free license. You should consult WP:COPYREQ and re-ask the copyright holder for actual release terms. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • So, presuming the photo was work by the US Army, wouldn't that mean it would be in the public domain? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The assertion is the City of Hobbs owns rights, not the Army. Not everything in the history centers of the various forces are property of the government. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I upload a photo down loaded fom an e-paper?

Can I upload a photo down loaded fom an e-paper?

If yes, what license category I should choose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chithiraiyan (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That image will most likely be non-free and hence unsuitable for use on Wikipedia due to copyright restrictions. Upload only if it meets the fair use criteria, and don't forget to add a fair use rationale to it. —SpaceFlight89 06:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Photos

How can I insert some photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraley (talk • contribs) 19:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer depends on the answers to the following questions: Are the photos already uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons? If not, are they photos you took yourself without including the work of someone else? If not, are they explicitly licensed under a free license – one that allows anyone to use them for anything? Were they published somewhere before 1923? —teb728 t c 22:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that you are working on Wm. Wesley Cook AM, MD; so let me guess you’re your photos were first published in the United States before 1923. In that case you can upload them to Commons at Commons:Special:Upload, choosing Licensing=“First published in the United States before 1923” See WP:IMAGES for how to display them. —teb728 t c 23:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Gripes

there are far too many editors who try to outhink themselves and thus lose very valuable photos. When someone give a very valid and justifiable copyright privilage for a photo that is owned by an organisation and it is over fifity years old and that is then removed by an overzealous editor who seems to think that I should go and find the original photographer from over fifty years ago or the file will be removed in seven days!!!! This is simply administrative vandalism, you people need to recognise reality. No one is going to sue you for that FFS.

I do not visit here every day and as such it may be some weeks before I log on. I have now found that some editor who is trying to justify a reason to hack peoples work to pieces as come across an image and said I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license. This is simply ridiculous the licence clearly stated the image was owned, and the copyright was owned by an organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boroughswimmer (talk • contribs) 10:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you gave a specific example we could offer more directed advice. In general, though, our metric is not "are we likely to get sued?" but "how free is our content?" There are a lot of things we prohibit even though we're not likely to get sued over them. Non-free images, with limited exceptions, are among them. That's because we're trying to create a free encyclopedia, not just a legal one. Powers T 13:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a question, or did you just want to vent? Actual admin abuse can be brought before WP:ANI. If you are talking about File:David Theile.jpg, it appears you said the source was "Maryborough Swimming Club", but then you licensed it with a "self" license. This is an apparent contradiction that could have easily been fixed through an e-mail from the organization to OTRS. See WP:PERMISSION. You can still send in that permission and we can undelete your image. For images that are previously published outside wikipedia, or credited to someone besides the uploader, we need to have a declaration statement of release on file (and we do that through the OTRS system). We do this to protect the copyright of others, and to make sure images are inline with our various image use policies. -Andrew c [talk] 15:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2009/August&oldid=1145853042"