Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/April

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Use of UK Ordnance Survey new API

Today (1st April) the UK government agency the Ordnance Survey (OS) has released a new API & totally changed the licencing agreements which should allow the use of the best UK mapping data free for non-commercial purposes. It would be great to be able to use this to illustrate UK place & geography articles. The new OS OpenSpace® Developer Agreement includes a requirement that "You must ensure that a copy of the EULA is made accessible to End Users through a hypertext link at the bottom of each page of Your Web application". Is there any way that wp articles which include OS maps developed under this systym could be made to display this agreement?— Rod talk 11:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You say "non-commercial"? Then wikipedia cannot accept those images anyway, unless we are using them under out non-free content guidelines. Non-commercial stipulations go against the way we license our content, and our mission to be the "free" encyclopedia. The Commons has a cartoon that sort of explains it File:BD-propagande-2 (en).jpg. -Andrew c [talk] 00:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The licensing is here [1]. It specifically says:

You are free to:

  • copy, distribute and transmit the Data;
  • adapt the Data;
  • exploit the data commercially whether by sub-licensing it, combining it with other data, or by including it in your own product or application

You must:

  • acknowledge the copyright and the source of the Data by including any attribution statement specified by the Data Provider. If no specific statement is provided please use the following:
Contains [insert name of Data Provider] data © Crown copyright and database right
  • include the same acknowledgement requirement in any sub-licences of the Data that you grant, and a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same;
  • ensure that you do not use the Data in a way that suggests the Data Provider endorses you or your use of the Data;
  • ensure that you do not misrepresent the Data or its source.
So commercial use is allowable as I understand it and thus use on Wikipedia. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

These are two different products. We can use Ordnance Survey data to create our own maps, but we can't use they handy JavaScript feature. In any case, we don't allow any external JavaScript applets to operate on the site, for security reasons. Physchim62 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Free image constructed of nonfree templates?

I've noticed that this image: [2], while released under free licences, consists of possibly nonfree template elements (I recognize these graphics as those used in MS Visio.) How would the licence of the templates affect the image and is it possible to release it under a free licence at all? --Arny (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The use of icons copyrighted by the copyright holders of Visio would cause this image to be non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And, because the image is hosted on the commons, will have to be nominated for deletion there. ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Is the image needed and useful? Might want to ask the graphics lab to create an SVG of the same concept, but with original graphics, so that we have usable content to replace this image before it's deleted (if it is needed). -Andrew c [talk] 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

how do I restore deleted image file?

file:Hans August 2008.jpg was deleted and a release sent to "permissions" by the photographer. How do I restore the image file to the article "Hans Baruch"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbaruch (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait for the OTRS agent to get to your ticket, and they will undelete it (or have it undeleted) if/when the permission is verified and passed. There is currently about a 2 week backlog, so please be patient.-Andrew c [talk] 23:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo copyright/rationale question

I uploaded two pictures yesterday. One is my property and another is from a website. There are messages on each of the pictures' pages because of copyright issues.

For the one that is my property File:Wmlogo.jpg it says there's an issue regarding some kind of 'fair use' policy...

For the one taken from a website File:WMFC Stadium.jpg it says there's an issue regarding copyrights...

I have no idea how to fix these problems because the explanations are very unclear. I am not sure what I am supposed to do other than say, "this is my picture" or put a link to the website that has the original picture. In addition, I don't understand the use of 'tags' or where I am supposed to put them. Can anyone help me with this?

Thank you. 14:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC) stynyr

Anyone!? 12:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)~ stynyr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.201.180.136 (talk)
I tagged these images while reviewing recent uploads: File:WMFC Stadium.jpg was tagged as having no copyright status or source. You admit this comes from a website but have not provided the actual source URL so we cannot check the copyright status and there is no copyright tag attached to the image. Both of these are required for uploaded images. If you provide the source website page where the image is displayed we can check its copyright status which may, or may not, show this to be an image we can keep. Regarding File:Wmlogo.jpg, which is the logo/crest of the [[West Mifflin FC|West Mifflin Football Club and no doubt the copyright is owned by them, not by you. Even if you designed the crest for them it is probably not your properly, especially if it was work for hire but that depend on your contract with the club. However, because the logo is being used in the infobox of the organisation article, it will be possible to keep it if a completed fair-use rationale is completed, which is what the deletion notice says but please provide a source link. Hope that helps. Please sign your posts by adding four tildes like this ~~~~, so we can link to you more easily. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does in one case. For the logo, I am the manager of West Mifflin Football Club. We are an amateur, Sunday league team. There is no ownership. I am as high up as you can go. I made the picture. That should be enough, no?

Now, for the stadium picture. Where am I supposed to post the website we got the picture from? There's no way to 'edit' the picture as it is uploaded. Should I just upload it again and paste the website in the comments (**I actually am doing that now**). As far as these tags go. I have read and re-read the articles on them and it continues to make little sense to me. Are those necessary or will the website suffice?

Thank you for your help.

Stynyr (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For content published outside Wikipedia, you need to e-mail the e-mail response team (formerly called OTRS) so that we can give you an a permission ticket confirmation. See WP:CONSENT. As for editing images already uploaded, you do not have to re-upload if you are just trying to change the information on the page. There is an edit tab at the top of every page (except protected pages). Finally, you cannot upload images you just found on the web, due to copyright violations (except the few instances of "fair use" content spelled out under our strict WP:NFC guidelines.) It seems like you are using the image of a stadium to illustrate what it looks like. If that is the case, anyone could go there and snap a similar photo, and then upload it here under a free license. Therefore, we have no reason to resort to using non-free content per WP:NFCC #1. All free images must have a licensing tag stating what free license is being used. All non-free images must have a copyright tag and a fair use rationale statement (or template). It may help to look at some other images and see how they are being tagged and such to get a better idea. I will admit it is a bit complicated and bureaucratic. I'd be glad to assist you further if you need it. -Andrew c [talk] 02:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Speakeasy Article

I have read the material you offer on Wikipedia and looked at other uploaded photos on the page to see how they are copyrighted and I am still a little confused.

I am trying to use the following photo in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simon%27sNNClubST.jpg. However, I am not totally confident in where I should start to make this image appropriate for Wikipedia image use guidelines. I emailed the creator of the website the photo was on and I am not confident it is his photo, but a photo given to him to use on this website. I emailed the creator of the website yesterday asking permission, but then I saw in some of the guidelines that I do need to ask permission if it is in public domain.

Can someone break it down for me what steps I should follow on which Wikipedia image use page to make this image acceptable?

Thanks Alley (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The only way you can make this an acceptable image is if you can find out who took the photo, and who owns the copyright and when it was taken. Then, if they agree to release it under a free licence, we may be able to keep it. Right now the website it comes from reserves copyright to it but the indications are that they may not be the photographer nor own the original image copyright. The easiest solution is to go there and take a photo yourself or ask someone else to do so for you. ww2censor (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"May or may not be PD, so we'll treat it as nonfree" template?

While deleting unused nonfree images a few days ago, I encountered an image that was tagged with a template that essentially said "This may or may not be PD, so we're going to treat it as nonfree" (it was unused, so I deleted it) but also carried a notice saying that the template had been deprecated. Why is such a template not supposed to be employed anymore? Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is redundancy: Wikipedia treats all images as non-free by default unless there is verifiable evidence for its free use. All images without such evidence require non-free license tags and non-free use rationales, so there's no particular need for a template than says, "This may or may not be PD, so we'll treat it as non-free". -- Hux (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nameplate on History of Cornell University

The article History of Cornell University, which I recently reviewed for GAN, uses the file File:Culogo web 60red.png, which is a nameplate for the school. Based on my limited experience with copyright here, I don't expect the logo can be used on this article, despite the Fair Use Rationale. However, I hoped a more experienced user could give a comment or rationale better than I could. Thanks guys!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a convention that university logos can be used in the infobox of the main article for the university, with a valid, accompanying non-free use rationale. However, we're talking about a different article here; the image would require a second non-free rationale to justify its use on the "History of..." page. Looking at the image, there is a second rationale, but it's almost a word-for-word copy of the previous one—the uploader simply changed "Cornell University" to "History of Cornell University". However, the "Purpose of Use" section still refers to the image's use in an infobox at the top of the article, whereas there is no infobox on the "History of..." page. So, as it stands that's not a valid non-free use rationale and, as you suspected, the logo should be removed from the article. -- Hux (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What is multimedia?

Isn't it just text or is it a movie?

~Rosalind du Coudray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosalind du Coudray (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question, try asking at the Reference Desk. -- Hux (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Tickets

Hello. I would like to ask, if scans of tickets (rail tickets, sport events, concerts etc.) are copyrighted or not? I can imagine scan of, let's say, 1930 football game ticket is not covered by any copyright and can be uploaded as PD. But how about tickets from quite recent events? Does copyright apply here? Thanks in advance. - Darwinek (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the ticket and in fact a ticket from 1930 might still be under copyright. The first thing to look at is the ticket's design: is it simply a bunch of text and basic, typographic features? If so then it's probably PD by default due to lack of originality. But if there's some kind of creative design on the ticket then copyright may come into play. Once you've established that, you need to know when and where it was created; for US works, this link is handy for establishing whether something is still under copyright or not. Do you have a link to the ticket in question? If we could see it we could give you better advice. -- Hux (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I was just cleaning up some documents in my closet and found several interesting tickets about 10 years old. Usually there are logos and artworks on the tickets, so I think they are not PD. By the way, I do not live in the U.S. :) - Darwinek (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Disputed "Public domain" pic

The picture File:Heroesjourney.jpg is listed as being in the public domain "because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship." This is completely untrue. The information is derived from the research of Mythologist Joseph Campbell. I have a book by him that has a similar diagram explaining the hero's journey that makes up the "monomyth" as first described by Campbell. What is worse is that the editor who uploaded the pic got it from the 4chan online forum, which is by no means a reliable source for information since most people post anonymously (not to mention the fact that it is notoriously famous for flame wars). That is just like finding a random pic online and then claiming it to be in the public domain because no one knows where it came from. The pic needs to be taken down. I do not have a wikicommons account, so hopefully someone on here can do it in my stead. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have a Wikipedia account, you have a Commons account. Your log-in should work there (or if it doesn't, all you have to do is "unify" your accounts). Wikipedia:Unified login. -Andrew c [talk] 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This is only true if you have a unified account. If Ghostexorcist only ever logs into en.wiki and has never unified their account, they don't have a commons account. They can create one though, but creating a unified account is better. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, any Wikipedia account created after mid-2008 automatically reserves that name on all other WMF public wikis and you can use the login details there. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll remember that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

TV in vison Continuity Announcers

Here is my problem:

The following ARE ALL CLIPS OF YOU TUBE, REPEAT You TUBE, there are not of TV show or Programmes BUT invison Continuity Announcers, If you not from the UK, you I dare say you want have seen this before but it was a BIG thing on tv here!

Thus I have no idea where on earth where I can place this for licensing, I put in new details are still it get FLAG, WHAT do you actually want? these to pic are of invison Continuity Announcers introducing the next programme on tv. i dare say there been 100's of clips of this!

this WHY has this been flag up its an IDENT! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Granda_Night_time.PNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia Image in new icon

I've created an icon for use on my userpage here. I've filled the outline of the image with part of the Wikipedia logo's puzzle pieces and characters. Is this permissible? The outline is a kokopelli figure and the 'fill' is puzzle pieces with characters from the globe.

Thus, it is my design but using the work of someone else. Thanks for your helpWikipelli Talk 14:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikipelli. The short answer, unfortunately, is that you can't do that! Check the licensing information from the Wikipedia logo page. As you can see, the Wikimedia Foundation reserves all of its copyright and trade mark rights over this image and from the information on the license I don't see any exemption for derivative works (which is what your image would be classed as under the law). -- Hux (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. Thanks!.. Wikipelli Talk 19:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
To expand on Hux's answer: I think it's likely sufficient to be transformative use of the logo, which would allow fair as artwork, for example, however WP:NFCC #9 says you can only rely on fair use in article space, so it's a no for your userpage. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lost images

Rosengod Education Institute

I saved images and text for an article on Rosengod Education Institute, but cannot locate it now. How do I retrieve it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neannar (talk • contribs) 12:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

According to your history and logs, you made one edit, being this one and there is no such article as Rosengod Education Institute, nor has there ever been one, so it looks like you never contributed anything here. Did you perhaps edit with a different account? ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

picture help for :File:James A. Murphy III.jpg

Dear Wiki Image Help Desk, I have tried many times to upload this image File:James A. Murphy III.jpg to accompany the James A. Murphy III topic, but keep having copyright trouble. The image is owned by the subject of the picture. Can you provide specific instructions about how to fill out the upload form so I will be successful?

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaminballstonspa (talk • contribs) 01:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently, it is tagged as "non-free media", meaning it isn't licensed under a free license such as the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license or "public domain" or otherwise free. Since Wikipedia is the "free" encyclopedia, we clearly favor free content, but do allow some non-free content, under our strict guidelines WP:NFC. Short of it is, we almost never allow non-free content for the purpose of showing what living people look like, because as public figures, it is plausible for someone to create free content to replace the non-free content. For example, I could go to a public event where the District Attorney is present and take his picture, then upload it myself and release it under the terms of a free license. Therefore, as it stands, we cannot accept this photo. If the copyright owner wants to release the image, they need to e-mail us a consent form WP:CONSENT given that they agree to license the content under the terms of a free license. more info at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online as well. Good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 17:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Using copyrighted article on my website

If an article is copyrighted, am I allowed to use it on my website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.104.214 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:REUSE. -Andrew c [talk] 17:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct Upload

I received a notification that the following files need a copyright tag on the image description page, that includes the license and source. However I am not exactly sure what that means/ how to add a copy right tag. Some other photos I uploaded in the same way did not seem to have a problem. The photos were originally released on a public website operated by a prefectural government in Japan. I have received permission from the department that operates the website to re-use the photos on wikipedia. Although I typed that information into the image description page, it didnt seem to be enough information for some of the photos. Please advise me on what the problem is with some photos and not others (all of these photos can be found on the Oita Prefecture wiki page). 2 File copyright problem with File:Kuju Highlands.jpg 3 File copyright problem with File:AsianPacificUniversityEntrance.jpg 4 File copyright problem with File:Bamboo_Crafts.jpg 5 File copyright problem with File:Beppu_Bay_At_Night.jpg 6 File copyright problem with File:Beppu_Steam.jpg 7 File copyright problem with File:Beppu_Steam_Ariel.jpg 8 File copyright problem with File:Blood_Pond_Hell.jpg

Please respond on the my talk section of user page Walkie talkie123

06:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)06:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)~Walkie Talkie123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkietalkie123 (talk • contribs)

Did you see the FAQ at the top of the page? Review that and ask specific questions if you still have concerns. Thanks. (A quick aside, have you seen WP:PERMISSION? You need to forward any correspondences to our OTRS team via e-mail, and the permission can't be just for Wikipedia, it has to name a specific free license).-Andrew c [talk] 17:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Three images

There are three images used on the Goodison Park article that are suspect.

These are:

Please could someone help me apply the most appropriate license-types ? TheBigJagielka (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Images from books

Are images copyed from books subject to a copyright? Can they be used in articles?--HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, images copied from books are subject to copyright: the artist's and/or the publisher's depending upon the terms of their agreement. They may be used in articles in exactly the same situations as any other picture as listed at the top of the page: you can use those that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding An Image

Hi,

I have been having trouble adding pictures on articles. I don't really know if I am clicking the wrong button at the top of the editing page, or if I am typing the wrong words in. I also don't know how to find a copyright tag on a picture from the internet. Thanks. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeys 9711 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly you cannot use a fair use image on your user page. This means no TV screen shots or DVD covers on a user page. The first step is to upload the image witht he upload file, and give it a source and copyright license. Then on your page put [[Image:name of image.jpg|thumb|left|description]]. Read more at WP:Image. You nearly got the gallery right, you just have to use images that actually exist. For random pictures of the internet, you can look on the page that uses it, usually at the bottom, or on the main page for the web site, there may be a copyright notice or conditions of use. If there is nothing it does not make it free to use, it just means that no rights are granted. Very few web sites grant free licenses suitable for Wikipedia. And even for flickr you may find that the license was false and that the uploader had no right to grant it. If there is any doubt, it can't be transferred to Wikipedia as free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate Copyright Tag

I created a page for a living person. The personal assistant of this lving person (and recording artist) has provided a promotoional photo to use on the Wiki page which has a copyright of a photographer. The artist herself, who commissioned the photo, has released the image for use as long as the copyright atttribution is provided. It is also readily found on the internet.

So my question is, what tags do I need apply to the photo so that it does not get deleted?

Because this is a living person, if this image is rejected, what would constitute a "free" image? Ron McIntyre (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For previously published images (even promotional images), you'd need to either have the owner put up a licensing notice on the official webpage, or have them send in WP:CONSENT. See also Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online. We need a declaration of consent on file from the copyright holder, sent via e-mail, in order to use previously published material that isn't clearly licensed freely elsewhere. Make sense? A "free" image is any image that has been licensed in a manner compatible with Wikipedia (or whose copyright has expired and are in the public domain). Examples of those licenses are WP:ICTIC. If you take a photograph of this individual, you are free to release the image under a free license. You can also request that other photographers/copyright holders release their images under the terms of a free license. Hope this helps and gives you some ideas. -Andrew c [talk] 17:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, I guess so. Even thoguh it was the artist herself that provided me with the photo and who was the one who commissioned the photo, becasue the copyright resides with the photographer, I need his permission. I have gotten in contact with him to provide same. Is an email he sends to me acceptable if I forward it or does he have to actually send it directly himself? Thanks ever so much! Ron McIntyre (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Forwarded e-mails are fine, if you keep the headers in tact. If you commission work from a photographer, sometimes you transfer or purchase the copyright. But if you aren't sure who owns the copyright at this point, it's best to check with the photographer. Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 14:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again. I have received the permission of the photographer and have forwarded same to permissions-en. Iron_Mac (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, just curious. I sent in the photogragher's "permission" on the weekend and updated the tags on the page. I also added a {{hangon}} tag to the page. Someone almost immediately got rid of the "delete" tag and replaced it with another one about adding another tag (and possibly moving to Commons.) Now that I understand what "Commons" means for images, I'd like to use the image on another language Wiki. However, the tag of which I speak has been there for a while. Should I continue to wait or can I load to Commons as well? (For the image of which I speak, please check my Talk page, I reference it there.) Thanks again! Iron_Mac (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

File:The 39 Clues Set.jpg

This image (File:The 39 Clues Set.jpg) has been tagged for a disputed fair use rationale and I'm hoping to get a broader consensus as to whether fair use can be applied in this case or not. As it stands the license is incorrect (or at least stretched as it mentions books only and the picture includes book covers as well as card packaging) and the fair use rationale is very short. I know that book covers are explicitly allowed under the fair use policy here (and similarly, album covers and the like), but is a group of book covers and other product packaging allowed in the context of an article on the entire series which includes both the books and the other products? Any takers? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The tagging seems over-zealous to me. You basically want to show a picture of a product, to show how that product is identified for marketing and selling. That is exactly the basis on which we allow book covers, album covers, DVD covers, etc etc, and which we hold to be justified under U.S. law and en-wiki policy, for the purpose of better informing our readers. Being that the article covers multiple items, WP:NFLISTS recommends a single picture showing the multiple items, preferably one created by the publisher rather than our own derivative work. That, so far as I can see, is exactly what this is.
On the other hand, I have to say, I don't particularly like this photograph. Apart from one book cover and one pack of cards cover, it actually shows very little of value; and the way it presents them makes the page look like an advert, rather than just an unadorned presentation of information. If the purpose of the photo is to show the look of the series marketing as a whole, I think you could do better. Jheald (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll agree that the picture at least seems like an advert (since as you surmised it was created by the publisher), and maybe it should be replaced by the series logo or something else, but for now I was just wondering about whether this image was usable. Thanks for your input! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Siphonodendron

I thought I had completed a very short new page on Siphonodendron. Then there was a notice about copyright with which I then complied - or so I hoped. But the Siphonodendron page does not appear in the public domain. Have I perhaps confused matters by mixing up "Siphonodendron" with "Bonniedougall/Siphonodendron" which seemed to be the page title when asking about copyright? Bonniedougall (talk) 08:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You added a copyright tag to the page User:Bonniedougall/Siphonodendron that you created in your user space and into which you have placed the image File:Siphonodendron400.jpg but you actually need to place that copyright tag into the image file itself, as well as filling in the information missing from the template I added to the image. There is no page Siphonodendron nor, according to the logs, has there ever been one by that name. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions over using photographs taken of college buildings by the college's staff photographer

several weeks ago by some miracle I successfully uploaded a photograph for the Le Moyne College website (i work at Le Moyne and am assisting the communications department with some web materials), but recently i tried to update two other photos with newer images and couldnt remember exactly how I did it because it was so stunningly complicated and scary, now someone has deleted them both, which is really annoying, because they were exactly the same situation: we have literally 100s of standard file photos taken by the Le Moyne College staff photographer Chuck Wainwright, who gives his permission for all such photos as part of his contract, i.e., these photos belong to and are taken for the use of the College. I have no idea what to do, frankly.

sigh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell.166 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to have the college verify their permission. Get them to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT, otherwise there is no proof that permission was given. We take copyright status very seriously which was the reason the previous images were deleted. However, they can be restored if a free licence is given, so have the college, or the photographer, refer to the specific image names in their email. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The other option would be to have a "free photo gallery" on the Le Moyne Website, which says that the photos on that page are released under license ([[CC-BY-SA-3.0}} or CC-BY-3.0 are the usual ones). Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Image of deforestation in Borneo

  Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I modified an map image found on the Web. I want to know whether this is now my own image. The easiest way seemed to be to upload it with a detailed summary. Could you have a look: File:Borneo deforestation map.jpg ? Thanks. --Annielogue (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have appropriately formatted/tagged it. You do indeed now hold the copyright, but they must be attributed. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 17:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Annielogue (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-PD images which don't link to their image description page

To the best of my understanding, the attribution requirement of several licenses (such as GFDL, GPL, CC-BY-SA) is handled using the file description page. This should mean that any image using such a license (such as File:LinkFA-star.png, licensed GPL) should need to link to the image description page, or else it's a copyright violation. However, some templates are used to place such images at the top corner of the page, while linking to some other page (for example, {{Featured article}} places a File:LinkFA-star.png which links to Wikipedia:Featured articles). Am I mis-understanding something, or is there a copyright violation on every featured article? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That wouldn't surprise me, to be quite honest! Physchim62 (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
For some reason this strikes me as a topic which will be quietly ignored regardless of how seriously most copyright and licensing concerns are taken around here... VernoWhitney (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Since this is only an issue for a tiny handful of navigational illustrations, one solution would be to ask the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab to create PD equivalents. On the other hand, it's always possible to find the title of the image page from the wikitext and then search for that, so that might be enough anyway, legally. Rd232 talk 20:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really, the image is added using a template, so you have to look at the wikitext to find out which template it is, look at the wikitext of that template and only then go to the description page of the image. What's more, this particular template can be placed anywhere in the article's wikicode, so you don't know where exactly in the article wikicode should you look. Even if it would be legal, I don't think it's the right thing to do: if the author required attribution, we should actually give it to him. Svick (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe attribution could be appropriately provided while linking to another page if we renamed the image to LinkFA-star by ClockworkSoul.png. –xenotalk 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course, this might work too =) –xenotalk 01:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I wasn't the creator of the original star, however. The source of all of the featured star variations is this file, originally uploaded by User:Avsa. – ClockworkSoul 02:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. Looks like Avsa is inactive so PD-begging might not be the swiftest route to compliance. –xenotalk 12:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Clever solution, and one which would get us out of an unnecessary fight! Physchim62 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Your first approach may work, your second one has a small hiccup. There are more image/templates than just that one out there though that this applies to, such as the Service Ribbons I have on my userpage which link to WP:SERVICE. Those are obviously easy fixes, but I do imagine there's a decent amount of other templates similar to the one that uses LinkFA-star which would have to be tracked down. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that people linking non-PD images elsewhere is an largely an educational issue that simply isn't given enough attention. –xenotalk 01:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hrmm, so that should solve attribution, but don't we still need to disclose what license it's being used under? Those file names could get messy... On second (third?) thought though, that would still require the user to jump through at least some of the hoops Svick mentioned earlier in order to see the file name. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we still need the license name. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) would it be acceptable to have the attribution and licence through ALT text and/or a tooltip? Physchim62 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw this on WP:CENT. I don't really think there is any controversy here. Yes, it's technically a violation. Is it big enough to worry about? I wouldn't. But if we can replace them with PD equivalent then that's fine. Gigs (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The fact that we may be violating our own license on every featured article (articles linked from the main page) does seem like something we should worry about, and address. That being said, the FA star does link to Wikipedia:Featured articles where the star is prominently displayed above the fold, and links to the image description page from there. So it's probably not a huge deal - maybe even compliant. –xenotalk 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that's the real question (ignoring Physchim62's idea of alt-text for now, maybe we don't need to change that many things) - how many links can people be made to click through to see the attribution and license and it still be compliant? Clearly one link is acceptable, or else every single non-PD image is a problem. {{Administrator topicon}} has a similar situation as the FA Star where it links to WP:ADMIN where the image is prominently displayed, so that's two links. But just to pick on some admins who work in the copyright area: both Moonriddengirl and Toon05 display File:Updated DYK query.svg as floating icons which link to the articles, which requires Article->Talk->Image Description, 3 links. Then there's the service ribbons I have on my page which are set up so they actually require editing the template to see what image is used, so that's 3 links+copy/paste/enter to see the license/attribution. Where do we draw the line? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well the admin mop thing is non-free so it's mere existence is a bit of a inconsistency as far as our stated policies go to begin with, but it's apparently an unwritten rule that non-free images owned by the MediaWiki foundation (and "approved" derivatives thereof) are ok anyway. As for the DYK question mark it is arguably not copyrightable at all (or at least easily replaceable by a "pd-text" licensed version). The general problem remains though, there are a unknown number of templates/userboxes that link images that require attribution to other pages than the image description, and in many cases there is simply no link back to the image page though any level of clicks at all. A start may be up add a caution at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax explaining that the link parameter should be used sparingly since overriding the link to the image description may violate the image license. --Sherool (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  Done. Tweak as desired. –xenotalk 17:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Validity of old "presumed" GFDL licenses

Here's a question for someone who's been around for a while. Once upon a time, apparently, there was a notice on the image upload page that said that by uploading an image the uploader was agreeing to license it under the GFDL. Later it was realized that this was not such a good idea, so that notice was removed and explicit image copyright tags were required. So somebody made {{GFDL-presumed}}, which was an image tag that could be stuck on all the images that had been uploaded without a tag, saying that it was presumed the image had been licensed under the GFDL. After a few years, this template was finally deleted (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed) because it wasn't needed any more—all of the licenses had been sorted out and Category:Presumed GFDL images was empty.

Here's my question, since I wasn't a part of that process: Were those "presumed GFDL" licenses valid? In other words, assuming that the uploader really was the creator of the image, was the notice on the upload page sufficient grounds to claim that the image had been licensed under the GFDL? After all, we still "presume" the GFDL (and now CC-BY-SA 3.0 too) in the same way on all submitted text, and we consider those licenses valid.

In particular, I'm wondering about File:View from National Cycle Network route 47 between Nelson and Hengoed in South Wales.JPG. It was uploaded on 19 March 2004 by User:Granw, who identifies himself as the creator in the image description ("Copyright Granville White This photo was taken by myself…"). I'm pretty sure this was in the time period when GFDL was being presumed for uploaded images. Now, Mr. White did not put a copyright tag on the image, probably because such things hadn't been invented yet, but later a GFDL tag was added by User:Dbenbenn ([3]). Just yesterday User:Fastily tagged the image as missing evidence of permission ([4]). I reverted that ([5]) because it is clear that the uploader was the photographer, but I missed what Fastily apparently saw, that the image copyright tag had not been added by the uploader. So what should be done about the licensing situation here? —Bkell (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unles Fastily has evidence that the uploader is not actually the photographer, the GFDL license should stand: it's as valid as the tag on any other image uploaded during the "GFDL presumed" period. --Carnildo (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Bkell, sure, why not? It's presumed that textual contributions are GFDL/CC-Sa, and that's never been a problem Gigs (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

image file

Can I upload this image http://uwnews.org/photos.asp?articleID=44838&spid=44840 in this wiki article: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Jonathan_A.C._Brown" ?

A.Ashariya (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid no, unless you could get the copyright owner of that photograph to explicitly release it under a free license such as cc-by-sa. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Image

No matter how much I read over the many many many pages of stuff that is on Wikipedia I simply do not have the patience to decipher how to put a license on a photo.

The photo is File:Flapper.jpg

And I have permission from the author who is a Flickr member.

What do I do to get a tag put on the photo for use? Plain instructions would be best. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malissa875 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Flickr source [6] for this image shows a clear "All right reserved" notice and because there is no evidence of who took the photo or when it was published, if it ever was, we cannot determine the copyright status. The image looks like a photo from the 1920's but that does not necessarily mean it is in the public domain. Adding copyright tags is explained in the link to copyright tags that was left on your talk page. You choose the appropriate tag and edit the image file. Very simple, so long as you know what copyright is appropriate to the image. Please sign your posts by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
If in fact you do have permission from the photographer, you should forward it to "permissions" as explained at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


Historic Map Image

I would like to upload an image that is located at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~genmaps/genfiles/COU_files/ENG/LON/genmag_lon-malbro_1768.html which would be relevant to the article on the A4 in the UK, as an illustration of the text in the History section. The copyright policy of the site in question makes it complicated to understand if this image s free for distribution or not. Therefore I would ask for a little help, please, before I do anything further. Rimmer1993 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

British copyright generally expires 70 years after the death of the author, if known, per Commons:COM:L#United Kingdom so a 1778 image is in the public domain and the claim made by ancestry.com can be considered copyfraud. Google has scanned many Gentleman's Magazine issues because they are public domain but I was unable to find this particular image in any I looked at, but you might have better luck if you are interested. The New York Public Library also have many issues and some are electronic versions. ww2censor (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nexon question

where and how do I contact someone at the nexon of america about my account problems besides the ticketing a [GM] thing cuz that is no good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.248.159 (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is for questions related to media copyright on Wikipedia only. Try: http://www.nexon.net ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer this question for the millionth time, please

I made a picture from another picture that is in the public domain. Is it right for me to say that the resultant picture is "entirely my own work - I created it, own all the rights to it, and have not used anyone else's work in making it" despite the fact that someone originally created the original now in the public domain? If not, what do I say when choosing licensing options?

If it matters, the original picture was a blank map and my derivative picture is that map with some places marked. Blue Rasberry 05:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, certainly it is courtesy to say what you based it off, but if the image is PD you can say it is your own work. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 05:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually NativeForeigner is inaccurate. A derivative image "must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality" otherwise the new image inherits the copyright of the source work. So if you are just adding some placenames to a public domain map, it cannot be considered as giving you a new copyright. We require a source for each uploaded image so we can check the copyright status, so the original image source must be given and would not just be a courtesy. ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You are right, it was badly phrased. Marking new sites on a map, which I presumed to be historic in some context (bad assumption) can generally be seen as creativity (from what I've seen), and in regards to copyright law outside of wikipedia you do not need to give a source. However, in the context of wikipedia you need to in order to verify copyright concerns. Sorry for the badly phrased answer, and thanks for the new answer ww2censor. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 16:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG

We ave had a hard time finding a free image for the Peter James Bethune article. The guy is now in jailin Japan so there will likely not be a new one made available anytime soon. File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG was released by the Earthrace Foundation (his boat) with a mention on the webpage "The following images may be used by media, individuals, schools and other organisations free-of-charge." Someone mentioned that it does not detail if commercial or dirrivitive works are acceptable though. So I was considering a FUR for it but noticed that the website says it is high resolution. Any assistance on that bit of the FUR and if it is needed would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria with a completed fair-use rationale, it might be kept but one of the criteria is the image must be of low resolution. Generally fair use images are 300px on the maximum dimension and reducing it is easily done offline, then the image uploaded over the existing one. I'll do it right now for you. ww2censor (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I feel that it adds significantly but if anyone wants to disagree it won;t hurt my feelings.Cptnono (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of material for family History book self published

Dear Sir /Madam

I acknowledge a previous response about copyright and use of material from Wikipedia. However having read further your copyright information I wanted to confirm that I have infact referenced the material correctly, which i have NOT gained permission to use at this stage. Referencing samples, as follows for this work:

Sample: According to Kinealy the Great Famine was a period of mass starvation, disease, and emigration in Ireland between 1845 and 1852 during which the islands population dropped by 20-25 percent .

Endnotes are:

- Kinealy (1995), xvi-ii Great Famine (Ireland)#Emigration

- Christine Kinealy, The Great Calamity, Gill & Macmillan (1994) Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Emigration.

I do apologise for any inconvenience and appreciate your response Regards

Noella —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.151.65 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think you have. If you want to quote or paraphrase Christine Kinealy, you need to reference her books, not a Wikipedia article that quotes/paraphrases her. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I know photo's maker but have been unable to contact him for copyright information

The original photograph, which I own and which I uploaded as 1st Peace Pilgrimage, 1962.jpg, has the maker's name stamped on the back: Richard A. Brown, 253 Forrest Ave., Fairfax, California. It was taken in 1962.

I have been unable to locate the maker. What can I do if attributing this photo to him is not enough?

Thank you.

Jessica Reynolds Renshaw Jessica Reynolds Renshaw (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much you can do. If you could email him he could send an email to WP:OTRS giving permission to the image. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
See here. Was the image ever published (were copies sold, or was the image printed in a book or newspaper)? If so, do you know when. If it was published when it was taken, it is probably PD now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Want to use my photo and release it into public domain.

My photo of my father, Dr. Earle L. Reynolds.jpg, was deleted. I want to upload this photo again for use in the Wikipedia article, Earle L. Reynolds, and release the photo into the public domain.

Jessica Reynolds Renshaw Jessica Reynolds Renshaw (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you took the photograph yourself, you should be able to upload it to Commons and license it CC-BY-SA 3.0, which permits all usage.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Old Trafford model.jpg

I took this photo of a model of Old Trafford by artist Peter Oldfield-Edwards on 30 March 2010. However, I'm not sure what licence to apply to the image. Is copyright retained by the creator of the artistic work being photographed, or does it belong to me as the photographer? – PeeJay 13:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, interesting. You're in the UK, yes, as is the model? Jenkins is a brilliant resource for UK copyright, as it's got all the amendments in. s17(3) covers making copies of artistic works, and states In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work. So copyright belongs with the model maker, and you cannot license it. The exception is if it falls under s62(2)b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place of in premises open to the public. in which case copyright is not infringed by taking a photo, or by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright So if the model is on permanent display somewhere, and you took a photo, you can license the photo as public domain. If you took the picture while the model was in the artists back-shop, he has to license the image. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Then I assume that, since the model was on display in the Manchester United F.C. museum at Old Trafford (which I had to pay £2.75 to enter!), I can license the image as public domain. Thank you, Elen. – PeeJay 22:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the licence to {{PD-because}} and paraphrased the reason you gave. I hope I have worded it correctly, but I would appreciate someone examining what I have written to make sure everything is ship-shape. – PeeJay 22:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Open to the public includes open to the public for a fee, and I believe the museum display is as permanent as anything is these days, so you should have no problem. The text makes sense to me, so hopefully it should to anyone else. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
We normaly use Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama for such things but yes the UK is pretty liberal in this area.©Geni 00:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
It's more liberal than most here (possibly one of the only areas where it is!!!) I wasn't sure that just putting Freedom of Panorama on would be enough, given that the photo wouldn't be covered by Freedom of Panorama in most countries (including the US).Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy rights of your articles & photos published about the town Kodaikanal, India.

Madam/Sir, I own a holiday resort in the town of Kodaikanal,India. I have registered and want to host a website called www.kodaikanalhotel.com I have a question about the copy rights from your your website wikipedia; I would like to possibly take some informations or articles or photos which is been published about Kodaikanal in your wikipedia website and add it on to my website www.kodaikanalhotel.com. Is there any legal issues preventing me from your side in doing so?!!! Please advice me on this matter. 

Thank you

Raj A. sukumar. please view my resort website: www.lillysvalley.com. My E-mail address is: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj a. sukumar (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is created under a license that puts it in the public domain - anyone is free to use it for any purpose. So you can use content from Wikipedia on your website, but correctly should credit Wikipedia as the source. If the Wikipedia text contains quotes from another source, you should ensure that you can use the quotes on your site - most countries have a fair use policy, but it will be up to you to check. Images on Commons or on Wikipedia that are licenced under a free use license (CC-BY-SA 3.0) can be used by anyone for any use, including commercial use, but you should credit the creator of the photo on your site. Some images on Wikipedia are not free to use - you will see this when you go to the page for the image. In this case, you may not take the image from Wikipedia, but should go back to the creator of the image and ask for permission. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do I find the answers to my questions from yesterday?

This is the gol-darnd hardest website for getting around that I've ever used in my life! Write questions here, you say, and then they disappear into cyberspace. Every part of this website was designed by a committee of geniuses who don't know how to communicate with normal people in real English.

I've had to teach myself how to use every part of it and the first human feedback I finally received was blasting me for a tiny inconvenience I caused out of ignorance. The feedback was titled DAAAMN JESSICA, DAAAAAMN, which is also the first thing I've read on here which wasn't in code, even though I wish it were. (Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia, Manath). I've had to guess and experiment my way along the uploading of images and assigning tags, only to have photos deleted because no one had time to answer a question--at least not helpfully. (Believe me, your provided explanations are so hard to figure out and make sense of, they are little short of garbage.) Okay, I finally found this place to ask questions and asked a perfectly reasonable one, "What can I do other than attribute a photo to its maker if I can't locate the maker (nearly 50 years after he took the photo)?" The answer was, "Email him." HELLO! NOT HELPFUL!

Oh, well, I had found out that if one writes something here, when I click on "SAVE" the answers to my other questions will appear. I didn't know how else to get to them so I wrote this letter, which I know I will regret after I "save" it. Hint to others lost in this labyrinth: "Save" in the Wikipedia context means "Send" but NOT, as one might assume, "Posted on Wikipedia." "Immediately becomes visible to everyone" is code for "immediately becomes visible to one or more editors, NOT to the general public." "Move" is what means post on Wikipedia. Go figure. Just think "Alice in Wonderland" and you'll be halfway to understanding how this thing works--because, surprisingly, it does work. It's just like Masonic rituals or scoring tennis, it's unnecessarily complex to let in only the elite.

Hopefully anonymous but believe me, I represent a frustrated multitude out there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Reynolds Renshaw (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean #Want to use my photo and release it into public domain. and #I know photo's maker but have been unable to contact him for copyright information post which are less then one screen up this page. You can always find your posts by looking at your contributions, by clicking the "my contributions" which is at the top right of every page once you are logged in.
In reply to your first question it was already answered but you misinterpreted the reply. In fact the reply was that If you could email him you should do so (that is helpful), otherwise there is little you can to to verify the copyright or get permission to use it. That is a rather simple, but perhaps a bit frustrating if you are not familiar with the maze that copyright entails. ww2censor (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang Jessica, daaang. Don't go on a rant or anything.   MANATH The Mage Singer   (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of a UK picture from 1947?

Hi, I would like to know the copyright status of a picture from the end of WWII.

I hope it can be used using:
--Stor stark7 Speak 12:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

However, someone pointed out the following:

If I've interpreted the National Archives collection catalogue correctly[7], and I'm not an expert, that image wasn't released until 1974. Publication in the form of the heros and Villains exercise would be more recent than that.

I'm not sure that is a correct interpretation, e.g. looking at the glossary (top menu) explaining the terms. It could simply mean that that year they desided that the item should be retained, i.e. they would keep storing it past 30 years instead of destroying it.

Anyone with experience with the UK national archives that could assist with the copyright status of the image, please? --Stor stark7 Speak 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You should read the full citation. AIR 48 are US Bombing survey reports. The image was created by or for the US military, and is therefore PD. The other dates show that the report was covered by the UK Official Secrets Act and sealed for 30 years, being released to the public in 1974, but I can't see how the UK government can ever have held a copyright in it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How to Upload Logo for Curling Championship

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and I want to upload an image for the following page: 2010 World Mixed Doubles Curling Championship. The image is located at this website, and the main site is located here. How would I upload this image to the curling championship page without breaking any rules? Thanks in advance. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidance is at WP:LOGO. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Interpol image

Image is located at [8]. Wanted to see what copyright protection would apply. Please leave a talkback on my userpage. Thanks! avs5221 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For context: [9] avs5221 (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason to suggest this is a freely licenced image. Besides which you you should likely wait until an acceptable article has been written based on this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ronald2010/Silviu Ionescu deletion discussion. Fair-use cannot be claimed because the subject is alive and apparently living in Roumania. ww2censor (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

image policy

Hello,

I want to upload some images to Wiki, to help understand the work of different artists. I OWN the rights of these images. Can I put them on wiki ?

I have the same problem with content, I would like to add information to some articles on artists, I OWN the material, but it's been deleted... What can I do to give the public the possibility to enjoy all my content, the result of MY researches... ?

Mariecisa

I think I see what the problem is. You are Sphinx Art (or whatever??) In which case, you have a number of alternatives
  • You can follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT
  • You can indicate on the Sphinx website if an image is licensed under a public domain license
  • In the case of Albrecht Adam's paintings, as he died in 1862, you can't own the rights to them, so digital images of his paintings will be public domain. I've altered the licensing information on File:Albrecht soldiers resting.jpg accordingly - if you alter any others that fall into this category, you should stop having problems with the images.

As for articles, as long as you have some reliable sources, there should be no problem with articles. If you are using your own website as a source, you need to state on the article talkpage that it is your website - as long as you're not advertising your art gallery, just writing articles about artists, you shouldn't fall foul of the conflict of interest rules, but you may be challenged as to sources. If you want to use the same text in Wikipedia as is on your website, you need to follow the steps at WP:CONSENT to indicate that you are releasing the content to Wikipedia on a free license. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

W.E. Retana

Can someone please kindly let me know the copyright status for this photo of Wenceslao "Wenchesco" Retana? Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Which photo - there are a dozen on the page? Also, why don't you try asking the webmaster - I note at the bottom of the page that he invites communication, and may be interested in contributing to a Wikipedia article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Last photo at the bottom of the article. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Ask the webmaster?? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

soccer images-royalty free or editorial

Do I have the permission to reuse soccer images from wikipedia to use as illustrations inside my soccer textbook I am in the process of writing? If not is there a way you can assist me to get soccer images without violating any copyright?

If you click on an image, it will take you through to a page that tells you how that image is licenced. If the license indicates that the image is free, and can be reused for any purpose, then you can use it. If not, not. If you cannot get the image that you want on a free license, I suggest you contact the copyright holder and enquire about licensing the content for your book. If no suitable images are to be found on Wikipedia, a commercial image gallery might have what you want. A fee is usually payable in such cases. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Electoral college 2012 map

I have changed Gage's old map for the 2012 elections. It added up to 539 electors - the 1 too much is probably in Minnesota. I told Gage two months ago but he hasn't changed it. In my changes I have also moved one elector from Arizona to Texas, per 2009 Polidata projection. Problem is, what license applies, what format applies (Gage had svg, I have png), and what else do I have to care of before I can upload the picture and put it to the 2012 presidential election page? Ambi Valent (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not upload a .png. SVGs are made to be user editable, and for this sort of graphic, is far preferable for exactly this reason. If all you are doing is changing numbers, someone could do that with a text editor with a fairly basic understanding of computer coding. Or download the free program Inkscape to edit SVGs visually. Or ask someone at WP:GL to assist you. With that out of the way, since the image is tagged as being "public domain", there are no licensing requirements regarding "attributions" or "sharealike" so that aspect is flexible. That said, I'd recommend using the "It is a derivative work of a file from Commons" option on the upload form at the Commons, just so you are citing sources and giving credit to the author, and sticking with Public Domain.-Andrew c [talk] 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kline Fogleman image

The image File:KFm-Family-descriptions3.jpg is listed as having "Permission granted Richard Kline 14 April 2010", however there is no evidence of this. I'm concerned that either no such permission has been granted, as there is no evidence, or the original author is using Wikipedia as a self-promotion tool. Either way the copyright status of this image is in doubt to my mind.

The image was created by a Richard Kline as is evidenced from here where it seems to have been taken from. However we have no evidence that it has been released freely, the blog post here indicates otherwise.

I have other concerns surrounding this image and the articles it's being used on, but they are out of scope of this noticeboard. Canterbury Tail talk 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The image is attributed to a different person than the uploader with evidence of permission, so it should be tagged as having no evidence of permission. I will do that now and the deletion notice gives links to what need to be done to verify the permission. ww2censor (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm never sure what to do with images and copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian Navy Ship Emblems

I was wondering if I could upload some images from the Indian Navy website. Specifically, emblems for ships/their classes. For example This image for the Sukanya Class. There is information regarding the US government media. However I am not sure if the same copyright can be used to upload images from other governments. Please also let me know which copyright status to use (The closest I think is "image from a website") - However, as it is a government organisation, I think it is acceptable to use. Thanks in advance. LogicDictates (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicDictates (talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The official website of the Indian Navy is possibly the worst official government website I have ever seen. It does not include any copyright notice or disclaimer, so I can't tell what approach the Indian legislature has taken to copyright in this case. On the premise that it's the same as the UK (a not unreasonable assumption as it could be a fairly old piece of legislation) photographs taken by members of the Navy would not be in the public domain unless specifically licensed as such. I note also the existence of the unofficial Indian Navy website] which claims to have the copyright of everything on its pages. While I can't see this being strictly true, it is another barrier to claiming that the images are in the public domain. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Most Indian government websites are pathetic, to put it mildly. From your response, it looks like I cannot use the images. Its a shame. According to Chapter 5, Section 28, I have to wait 60 years! Its a stupid law as far as I'm concerned. Also mentioned here. I'm sure Bharat-Rakshak has not gotten permission either (for any government images they might have). So I cant put those images up here, eh? Correct me if I'm wrong. LogicDictates (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If an image can only be obtained from the Indian Navy and there is no possibility of a free version, then you could upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) under a non-free content rationale if you meet all the criteria. The ship logos would appear to fall into this category, as even if you took a photo of them, they would still be copyright to the Indian Navy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Indian copyright act 1957 (as amended) s17(d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein; (sourced from your link, thanks). There should perhaps be a note on guidelines either here or at Commons that most Commonwealth or ex Commonwealth countries are likely to have copyright legislation that resembles either current or past UK, and include a component that resembles Crown Copyright. I would presume that the US stance (that otherwise copyright work produced by a Government employee for their employer is PD) is at heart a philosophical one - "of the American people, by the American people, for the American people." Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there's only really Palau which has completely public domain government works on the U.S. model. Commonwealth countries (apart from New Zealand) tend to have very restrictive government copyrights on the Crown Copyright model, other countries release some government works to the public domain, but usually not the sort of works we would want to include on WP. The relevant note discussing this is at Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works. Physchim62 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for advising me. Much appreciated! I have made my first upload here (See the Badge on the right column). Thanks again. LogicDictates (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to state that the author/creator is the Indian Government, citing the section of the Copyright Act of India that I quoted above, and you need to add a fair use rationale, as requested in the template now attached to the image. The FUR is that it is not possible to obtain a free version of the image, and the image substantially enhances the article. Actually referring to the image in the article would help - do you know why the Indian Navy uses that particular emblem, or indeed why it uses emblems at all. If you don't add this information, the image may still be deleted.

I just noticed something on File:GSLV2.jpg. The rationale used here is "The Right to Information Act allows all Indian civilians access to works published by the Indian government and can be used under the fair use criteria." Is this true? If so the Army and Navy and other images from government websites can be used "freely". Could someone please verify? Thanks. LogicDictates (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you give the correct link for the file, so it can be looked at thanks. I believe the uploader is mistaken, and you also are mistaken, but in a different manner. "Fair use" and "free" are not the same. I have already explained that you can use the image on en:wiki under a fair use rationale, as it is impossible to obtain a version of the image that is not copyright. The file uploader, using his own logic, should have added a FUR to the image.
I think however the uploader is mistaken as to the intent of the Right to Information Act. A copy in English is available here (a copy in Hindi is also available). The Act, like the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives citizens the right to request information from the Indian authorities (how much is spent maintaining roads in Kolkota) - information being defined as "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"(s2(f), and 2(j)(iv) covers obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;. It is clear that the Act applies only to information. Information is not copyrightable and nothing in the Right to Information Act suggests anywhere that it supercedes the Copyright act I quoted in previous posts. The act in fact makes no reference to "copyright", "fair use" or indeed anything to do with publishing the information obtained under a RTI request (the UK Act specifies that information so obtained can be published by the recipient or indeed anyone).
So no, I don't think it makes any difference here. Upload the images to en:wikipedia with a proper non free content rationale, and you should have no trouble. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I meant free as in educational use (so it would fall under fair usage policy), which is why I used the quotes. I too seemed baffled by the FUR the user has utilised. You can see several images (s)he has uploaded in the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle article. If you further go through images the user has uploaded, a majority of them use the sentence I quoted above. The user is "Johnxxx9". I have used what I believe to be a proper rationale for images that I have uploaded - clearly stating that the "Image can only be obtained from the <Indian organisation> and there is no possibility of a free version". --LogicDictates (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the FUR and license on on File:GSLV2.jpg. I don't think there's a problem with him using it - I would anticipate that one would have to be authorised personnel to stand where the photographer was standing, making a free version unlikely, and it was published in a newsletter, so was fairly clearly intended as a promotional image. Also I have dropped him a note referring to this discussion. I couldn't see many other images he had uploaded - they mostly seemed to be emblems for the Indian metro system. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File:The Motherland Calls.jpg

Can I get a third opinion on the copyright status of File:The Motherland Calls.jpg, see its recent page history and User talk:Russavia#File:The Motherland Calls.jpg.
Thanks, Amalthea 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Article 21 of the Russian Federation. Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights covers Free Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable, if it is used for commercial purposes.
The sculpture is in Volgograd (?) therefore copyright is not infringed by taking a photograph, or by its use in the Wikipedia article. The author needs to upload it with the right license though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
But does not Russian law only apply to Commons? It has been my understanding of numerous discussions around the place, that on enwp, only US law applies to such things. Therefore, it is possible for the uploader to release the photo into the public domain in the US, but in Russia it is not possible to do so? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 12:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see where your coming from. Your understanding is slightly wonky. All images on Commons must be licensed under a free license - the image must be in the public domain all over the world, or you must hold the copyright and be willing to license it for free reuse all over the world. The English Wikipedia will accept images that are not free either in the US or elsewhere in the world, under a rationale of fair use. This is a more strict requirement that the US legal definition of Fair Use. However, if the image is copyright in its own country, it should not (except in rare circumstances) be uploaded as free to en:wiki. See note to Amalthea below about my opinion on the actual status of the image.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd sure say that "the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the reproduction" in File:The Motherland Calls.jpg, so it requires the consent of the author of the sculpture. Amalthea 12:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd disagree. I don't believe the photographer violated the Russian code, as the photo was not taken for commercial purposes. This prevents the image being a technical copyvio. However, the photographer cannot grant a free license to the photo, because of the restriction in the Russian code regarding commercial reuse. The correct thing (my opinion) would be to tag the photograph {{Non-free 3D art}} and explain in the FUR that while use of the image on Wikipedia does not contravene the Russian code (we not being a commercial venture), the image is not released and may not be reused as that has the potential to contravene the Russian legislation.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't precise enough: release into PD (or any free license enwiki accepts) by the author of the photograph would require consent of the author of the sculpture. Fair use is certainly possible here, that's what it used to be marked as.
Base of the question is, I believe, whether the Russian law's view on copyright status of the statue and derivative works has any impact on the copyright status of the derivative work in the US. Amalthea 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries - don't think I was particularly precise either. The photographer has to have been in Volgograd to take the picture, therefore it was taken under Russian law. In Russian law, she was only allowed to take a picture for non-commercial use. Therefore, that's the only title she has, therefore that's the only title she can release. In US law, the image wouldn't be PD anyway, as US Freedom of Panorama doesn't cover fine arts, only architecture, so it's not reasonable to suppose that the picture could be uploaded PD on that basis either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the fair use claim and rationale to the file page. Amalthea 09:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony J Lumsden and associated images

The above is a new article of an architect, which appears to be written by the son of the subject. The article writer has uploaded numerous images with the rationale that the owner has released them.

There's a few things I am unsure about. Firstly, even if there is a close family relation between the uploader and the copyright owner, do we still need OTRS permission? (It seems a bit heavy handed to me, but I guess would be by the letter of the law). The other query is that the images are of buildings the architect has designed, but how do we confirm that he himself took the images? (I believe that the photographer, if not the architect, would still hold the copyright).

I don't want to be over the top about this, but I have limited experience with images, and the author does appear to be contributing in good faith. Quantpole (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We still need an OTRS ticket because the article creator could be anyone, in all honesty - how would you tell just from his Wikipedia account. With the images, you will have to explain that the copyright holder has to release them - if the pictures were taken by a professional photographer for the architect, as work for hire, the architect will hold the copyright and can release. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
But note that "work for hire" means that either the photographer must have been employed (as in working for, and paid a salary by) the architect, or have executed a written copyright transfer. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I would expect the architect to know whether or not he owned the copyright on the photos - at least in this case we have the prospect of making enquiries of the horse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Leonor Rivera image

Could someone please kindly check the copyright of this circa 1880s image of Leonor Rivera. It's probably better to use an actual photograph in the article instead of the sketch, which is already in use in another article (Maria Clara). - AnakngAraw (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a follow-up on this. Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
We don't have a book that we look these things up in you know. Why don't you try asking the owner of the site what info he has on the origins of the photographs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Determining "anonymous" status for copyright purposes

I'm always bothered by the side of copyright where you have to or seemingly have to prove a negative. Under Japanese copyright law (at least per Commons:Licensing#Japan) if a photograph is anonymous or pseudonymous, the copyright lasts for 50 years after the publication or the death of the author, whichever is the earlier. I would like to upload to Commons http://park.geocities.jp/matukinrei/fhoto/km.JPG (I am placing the link in this format because for some reason it doesn't work on my browser when I access it as a link, but does if it is copied and pasted into my address bar). I had the caption translated and it gives no information on the author. I have no way to further track down the origin. Given that there's a brick wall for further information from my perspective, this is "anonymous". But, is my inability to find anything about the photograph's provenance enough? Or do I need to know the origin of the photo and be able to point to something actually confirming its anonymous status? If the latter, copyright is rendered something of a blackhole, that inhibits use of creative works, which I know is the opposite of what copyright law was first proposed to do. Anyway, anyone have any advice?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I looked at the image, and it seems like it could be classified as a Historically Significant image, and be used under a free-use rationale, while having the Japanease copyright owner continue to hold the copyright. See Wikipedia:Upload and click on Historically Significant fair use image...if you scoll down the page to the "Licensing" drop down menu and click on "Historically Significant fair use" it should tell you more... Hope this helps! --Donatrip (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Donatrip. Really looking for interpretation of the copyright issue though. I am well familiar with fair use policy here and have fashioned many a FUR. I am really looking to upload this to Commons, if permissible. There's already a fair use image in the article in question, actually using a historically significant FUR and I'm trying to go to FA, where having a variety of images in important, and loading an article with FUs will not pass muster.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Haha well I tried :) Anyway, it seems like you could go ahead and publish it to Commons and see what happens. The worse thing that could happen is it gets taken down...and since you did think that it was okay to put it on their (because the author couldn't be found) no one will accuse you of vandalism--just that you made a mistake...so you really have nothing to lose. Another scenario (unlikely) is that the author of the picture sees it on Commons and gives you permission. And you always got to think of the best---that it stays on Commons just fine! You never know until you try! Lol--Donatrip (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Seriously Donatrip, thank you very much for trying. I do plan to upload to the Commons, it's just that I'd rather be armed with a really good understanding of this issue and know whether this incarnation of anonymity is acceptable (←ooohhh alliteration). The thing is that I don't want to 'get away with it' because it's ambiguous; I want it to be a proper public domain upload. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Juice Plus

The marketing director of Juice Plus has emailed OTRS (the ticket is here for those who can look), saying that they release this image under CC-BY-SA 3.0. As this contains a logo, is this possible? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I should probably link to the image: File:Juice Plus Orchard and Garden Blend.jpg PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems fine to me; if they own the logo, they can release it. Best to put questions like this on Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard or otrswiki:Café though. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If Juice Plus hired a designer to create a logo for them, chances are that the designer licensed the logo to Juice Plus to do what they want with it, as part of the contract, so they can release it if they so wish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
And this is just a low resolution product shot. Doesn't mean I can use the logo full scale for whatever I want (not to get into trademark infringement issues...)-Andrew c [talk] 17:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

100% Records

I want to upload our company logo for 100% records, we own the image and therefore obviously have permission to use it. I want to know the correct way to upload it so that i don't get the whole page blocked. How do i do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrecords (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to http://www.100-percent.co.uk then the "l00%" logo I see on the homepage is not copyrightable because it is comprised of simple graphics and text and would have the copyright tag {{PD-textlogo}} but of course its trademark use, if registered, is still vested in the company. However before doing that it would be appropriate if there were an article for the company, assuming it is notable enough, before uploading any images (see WP:WTAF). Also look at the conflict of interest page as it appears you are not an uninterested party. ww2censor (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ww2censor, note the .co.uk in the web address. This image almost certainly IS copyright under UK legislation. Jackrecords, you should follow the steps at WP:IOWN. Be aware that as the owner you can only upload it and license it on a free license (although that does not infringe your trademark rights). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium

 – NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 05:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

New article Pain in babies appears to have been imported from Citizendium. Is this allowed? Anthony (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a media related question, but I'll direct you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting. -Andrew c [talk] 02:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wanting to start an actor page with picture

I want to start a page for a Hollywood actor for which none exists thus far. I also want to use a photo of him, but am unsure in determining how I should go about it. So far this site has proven extremely difficult where creating a new page is concerned.

The photo is an autographed photo he himself sent me. It is more or less a promotional-type photo, or "head shot", as it were, with his name at the bottom in the white border. What category do I put this photo under when uploading it, and what else would I need to do to make sure the photo doesn't get rejected? Lvillealumni (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't upload it, unless there is a piece of text on the back of the photo that says that the copyright holder has given you the copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, what photo would I be able to use for an actor without someone here getting bent out of shape? Can I crop his face from a screen cap from one of his movies? --Lvillealumni (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. Our content is licensed freely, and thus our images must be licensed freely (except in the rare cased that meet WP:NFC). For living people, we have to use free images if the purpose of the image is to simply identify what they look like. The reasoning behind this is it is always plausible that someone could take a picture of the individual and upload it here under a free license. You can also seek out free images, by contacting copyright holders of such images and asking if they'd consider relicensing their content freely (see WP:PERMISSION). So the short of it is, unless you have expressed, documented permission to upload a photo (and evidence it is licensed freely), or if you took the photo yourself, you can't upload it. Sorry if this is a bit restrictive, but we do take respecting the copyrights of others seriously, and our mission to be the free encyclopedia seriously. Hope this helps. -Andrew c [talk] 18:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Can I crop his face from a screen cap from one of his movies? --Lvillealumni (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because the copyright belongs to the movie maker. Unless you have expressed, documented permission to upload a photo (and evidence it is licensed freely), or if you took the photo yourself, you can't upload it. Pirating a screencap does not count as taking a photo. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I totally answered your question, and I tried to explain why. So the short of it is, unless you have expressed, documented permission to upload a photo (and evidence it is licensed freely), or if you took the photo yourself, you can't upload it. I guess it can be confusing if you think taking a screenshop of a copyrighted work, such as a movie, constitutes "taking the photo yourself". I'm not going to get into accusations of pirating or anything like that. Yeah, on most webpages, such a use would be fine, and it fact might even be legal, under claims of "fair use". But on Wikipedia, we are more strict due to our preference for "free content". And if it's not clear. A screenshop of something you don't own is not considered "free", unless there is evidence the work was released under a free license. -Andrew c [talk] 20:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pirating?!? Oh my god. Whatever. I should have known this would be more trouble than it's worth. Thank you for your time. (Bows and exits gracefully from the noble presence of the Gods of Wikipedia, and returns to his evil pirate ship filled with screencaps of actors that will be used to bring the downfall of society as we know it.) --Lvillealumni (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, screencapping and then publishing on the internet is pirating. Sorry if you don't like that, it happens to be covered by international law. As a serious project to be the world's largest free encyclopaedia, Wikipedia prefers content that is free wherever possible, and free-licensed pictures of living actors are available without needing to resort to screencaps. If you want to contribute to the project, one useful thing would be to trawl round the fan-forums for your actor, and see if anyone has some photos of him they would be prepared to upload on a free license.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Not to get too far off-topic, but technically it's copyright infringement. Argh! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Avast ye lubber! Copyright infringement just doesn't sound as good. Now where's me parrot? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing a photo

How can I edit this photo to ensure it is not deleted? I took it myself a couple of weeks ago. Captain Fearnought (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You took the photo yourself? Excellent. Are you willing to license it freely (such that third parties are allowed to reuse, modify, and possibly commercially use your photo, under some stipulation?) All you need to do is add a licensing tag to the image page, and add information about the author, source date, description and any other information you want to add. Adding the tag, please read the top of this page, starting at How to add a copyright tag to an existing image. Any further, specific questions, and I'd be glad to help further. Good luck. -Andrew c [talk] 20:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

asking for fair use permission

hi, so I have an article that I needed to make a good article for a school project. It's the article on Leyendas de Guatemala. And in the main title box thing I used a photo of the author Miguel Asturias. It's not a free use photo, but the article about him (miguel asturias), AND another article about one of his books (El señor presidente) have been able to use it by claiming fair use, or whatever. I know that because if you click on the image then under it there is a "Non-free media use rationale" box for both these articles. How do I go about being able to legitimately have that? How did the El señor presidente article do it? Thanks so much for any help, I really really appreciate it. (This is the specific image: File:asturias.jpg --Rekarrr (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds very dubious to me. Instead there should be a picture of the book. One of the ideas is minimal use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

can i upload this picture?

how do i get permission to upload this picture on my page? File:C:\Users\SOHEYL\Pictures\mehran rahimzadeh rad.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehran r rad (talk • contribs) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you take the picture of yourself? Then you can upload it yourself. Otherwise if the photographer can upload the image with the free license cc-by-sa-3.0, that will grant permission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Contactmusic.com: they trademarked the copyright symbol

The logo of Contactmusic.com is literally a UCC copyright symbol with "contactmusic.com" to the right side. For one thing, how can someone register a trademark on the copyright symbol? But more importantly for this page, is this logo even eligible for a copyright? I smell {{PD-textlogo}} but I want someone to second it first. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In the first case, the USPTO search keeps crashing on me right now, so I don't know the full extent of it (nor do I know enough about trademarks to really give a good answer regardless). <shrug> Second, I'm inclined to agree that the image probably qualifies for PD-textlogo. They have text and simple block colors, that's it. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
PD text logo looks OK for this. Like you I don't expect a trademark could just apply to the c in a circle even if they claim it as such. But with the name should be valid.
As with the similar thread on 100% just above - note that the company is Leeds (UK) based. This logo almost certainly is copyrightable in the UK, and the uploader should be aware of this ({{PD-textlogo}} only applies to images created in the US, which sets a very high standard for the level of creativity required to copyright something) and use a non-free license and FUR, unless they are a representative from the company prepared to license under a free license. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. Is there any policy/guideline/whatever that makes it clear that it's only for US logos, or does that need to be clarified somewhere, since I can't seem to find that written down anywhere (except here of course)? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The guidance is actually here Threshold_of_originality which the template links to. It draws out the distinction between US and (particularly) UK stances on this matter. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Srilanka Army Service Corps Crests

srilanka army service corps:c:\Documents and settings\Ruwan\Mydocuments\scan 002-1.JPG

I cannot tell what your question is, but these may fall into the category of fair use in an article about the unit the crest is for. You will need to show that the item is genuine. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Image of a non-living person

I wanted to add a photo to Ravin v. State. Mr. Ravin died earlier this month and there is a photo of him here:[10]. As he is deceased it is obviously not possible to simply take a free photo of him, so can I use that? The article does not attribute the photo to anyone, but since the same paper interviewed him before it's probably safe to assume they took it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use for an image of a deceased person is usually good for an article on that person, but it doesn't seem to me that adding his image to a court case would aid the reader in understanding the article in any way. This fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8, and so shouldn't be used in this way. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that pretty much what I figured. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is permission needed to use this image outside the USA?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Luzi_-_Papago.jpg

I am writing from the editorial office of Diabetologia, which is the leading European journal of Diabetes (worldwide circulation 7,000; 8.3% US/Canada; 73.8% Europe; 12.4% Asia; 5.5% Rest of World). We would like to use the above image on the front cover of the July issue of the journal (http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/).

In the licensing details on this page it says 'This image might not be in the public domain outside of the United States; this especially applies in the countries and areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada, Mainland China (not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany, Mexico, and Switzerland'. However, I have not been able to find any further details.

Please could you let me know if I need to obtain copyright permission to use this image, and if so, how I would obtain this and what the cost involved would be.

It would be very much appreciated if you could get back to me as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance for any information.

Diabetologia Editorial Office —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sh3ll3y (talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot provide legal advice in any jurisdiction. However, we can say with a degree of certainty that this image is still copyrighted in Germany, as a case (11 U 22/00) was decided by the OLG Frankfurt-am-Main of 7 October 2003, which held that only German law applies in determining the German copyright of U.S. works. As the author of the photograph (Edward S. Curtis) died in 1952, the usual German 70-year pma rule applies.
I don't know who represents the surviving rights over these images, but these people might. Physchim62 (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I'm a producer and wanting to use the wikipedia logo in an educational feature documentary. It's for a cinematic release (commercial) but still an educational production. Can anyone give some clarity on what I need to usage rights I need to obtain?

I don't believe it fits under fair dealing.

Best Elin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.183.50 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not something that Wikipedia users can handle, and you will need to contact the foundation directly. Their trademark policy may be of use to you.-Andrew c [talk] 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, if you don't think it fits (UK) fair dealing then it probably doesn't! There are certainly copyright and trade mark concerns that you need to discuss with the Wikimedia Foundation directly: nobody here is authorized to give you the authorizations you would need or to determine the conditions involved. Physchim62 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe nobody watching this page, but User:Mike Godwin is WMF's legal counsel. His phone and email are listed on his user page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a bit ambiguous! I only meant to say that nobody who is authorized to give permission (it's probably Sue Gardner's job) would give it on this page. Physchim62 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

File:ChrisPinkhamHeadShot.jpg

File:ChrisPinkhamHeadShot.jpg
was provided directly to me from a family member of the subject. I have permission to publish this on their behalf. Are there any other steps I need to take? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuyper (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENT is your guide here. You may need to forward - or get the family member to forward - permission. Bear in mind that copyright rests with the photographer, not with the subject, which could be an issue if the photo wasn't taken by a family member. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AAP and other media outlets

AAP, and other media outlets have quite a bit of photo, and media material that can be used as supportive material in current events - such as an AAP Photo of Carl Williams (criminal) found here http://images.ninemsn.com.au/resizer.aspx?url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/img/news_feeds/carl1009_400x300.jpg&width=310 - what are the licence condtions betwen AAP, and wikimedia? --Amckern (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all, press photographs are not usable on Wikimedia sites. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
While Wikipedia allows images to be uploaded if they meet the non free content policy, images from commercial image galleries, media resource sites and similar are not allowed, as the copyright holders have created these images specifically to make money on them, and their use by Wikipedia would infringe on that (and if anyone was going to sue, it would be a commercial company that makes a living from the images) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you --Amckern (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of articles published in Wikipedia

I am interested in using sections of the following articles for a book I am writing and want to know if Wikipedia holds the copyrights for these articles or if I need to contact the individual authors. If so, how do I contact the authors? (They are not listed.) 

         "English spelling reform"
         "Bnjamin Franklin's phonetic Alphabet"

— Faunahinton (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that edits here are copyrighted by the individuals who made them. You can see who edited those articles by reviewing the page history, from the "History" tab at the top of that page.
Do note that if your usage is compatible with the Creative Commons Share Alike 3.0 license ( here for text ) then you don't need to ask additional permission from a legal standpoint; it's already licensed that way.
If you do need to secure additional permissions (see an IP lawyer) then you need to check the article history for who created those sections of text and who edited them since, and then contact them for those additional permission. Many Wikipedia accounts can be contacted by email using the "Email this user" link on the left part of the page on their user page. If not, then you can leave a message on their user talk page requesting permission.
Good luck!
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You should read WP:REUSE. ww2censor (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Evelyn West Photo

I'm trying to figure out how to appropriately label an image for a deceased dancer, Evelyn West. The image was published before 1977, so isn't it fair use to show a publicity shot of a celebrity for non-commercial purposes? An image of a person who made their living by what they looked like is quite pertinent to an encyclopedic article.

She died without a will, and I'm her heir if that helps.

Thanks I'm new at this. Hollywoodgenes (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Hollywoodgenes

There's not normally a problem with uploading an image of a deceased person under WP:NFCC (do read it, it is slightly different to fair use). Do you know who holds the copyright in the photograph? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Iconic photograph(s)

An image that I'd like to use to illustrate The Beatles at Rishikesh has been called "one of the most iconic photographs in the history of rock 'n' roll ...". So far as I can tell, the students at the ashram were posed and then photographers were invited to take pictures. There are several slightly different versions of the same posed group floating around, obviously taken at different moments, and apparently by different photographers.[11][12][13][14], etc. There are sourced, critical comments we can make about the photograph(s) regarding the circumstances of the photo opportunity. Does anyone see an issue with using one of these photographs with a fair use claim?   Will Beback  talk  11:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to discuss the photo in the article for it to have a valid fair use claim. You might want to consult User:Fasach Nua. A good rule of thumb is a paragraph of text (cited!) about the image for it to be valid fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that info. Yes, I'd planned to write a paragraph or so of cited text, which would include the quoted comment above. Does matter which version of the image we use? Some versions have an identified photographer and source, while others are just anonymous images floating around the cybersphere. Identifiable is better, right?   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no question. And I'd try to use a version that is demonstrably talked about in the source.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
One more question: Is it OK to place the photo in the lead, and then talk about it later in the article?   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I think so. But again, I recommend talking to Fasach Nua or another editor who does a lot with images and fair use rationales.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I've left a note on Fasach's page. In the meantime, I've uploaded the file and added it to the article. File:The Beatles at Rishikesh.jpg/The Beatles at Rishikesh‎. The article seem much more complete with it there.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Not a Beatles fan but it's better with than without.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos from "USA RAIL GUIDE" on TrainWeb

The creator of this website says "Before completing all stations, all rights were reserved on this website. Now, all rights are not reserved. You are free to use all photos on my website. You do not need to let me know when you use my photos. Note: You are not allowed to use photos from other people." Does that count as a release into the public domain? --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 23:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, unfortunately, it's not clear enough what the creator means by "use". Physchim62 (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, "all rights are not reserved", doesn't mean the same thing as, "I give up all my rights". So yeah, basically the site author needs to be more explicit about what people can do with their photos. Until then, we can't use them. -- Hux (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the nature of the site, the best thing would be to have a clear license on the site itself (CC-BY seems to be what the creator is looking for). Physchim62 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting a unsourced image

If an image file that has no source data and no date, and it is entirely created by an editor, can it be deleted from Wikipedia? Sonic99 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is created by an editor, isn't that the source then?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
But if the image doesn't have a date and it is unencyclopedic, should it be deleted? Sonic99 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you are looking for a reason for deletion. I doubt if you can get an admin to delete if the only flaw is the lack of a date. First thing to do is to ask the uploader to supply a date. This forum really can't judge the other thing, the unencyclopedic.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sonic99: If an image has no source information and you think that it might be a copyrighted image then you can list it at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. If an image - any image - is being used in an article in an unencyclopedic way then be bold and remove it from that article; if it's no longer being used in any articles then you can list it for deletion as well. If there's no source information and you're certain that it's a copyrighted image then you should request a speedy deletion ASAP. In all cases where you're listing something for deletion you should notify the uploader so that they have a chance to contest it. -- Hux (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hux,he said it was created by a user.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Permission with Recognition?

I recently went on a trip to Belize but lost my camera. People traveling with me from a student group have given me permission to upload their pictures onto Wikipedia, but some want their names accredited if used for other purposes. I know there is a way to do this with your own pictures. How do I select this option for other people's pictures? People who have given me such permission to upload their work under this condition?

You need more than just the verbal permission of the photographers. Generally speaking, photographs become copyrighted the moment they are created, the copyright being owned by the photographer. As such, there's a procedure for properly requesting permission to use such photos on Wikipedia. See: WP:COPYREQ. -- Hux (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Headline text

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dawn_Cricket_Club_Huramzai.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 I have problems with attaching some owned (personal) images to one of the articles. The images are in my ownership & I want to attch it with an article but every time I do it, problem occures. Kindly help me in this regard

What problems are you having? The image upload page is fairly straightforward. If these are photographs that you've taken that are entirely your work then just click where it says, "Entirely my own work", and follow the instructions. If they are photographs you own that were taken by other people then you will need to get permission from the photographer(s) by following the procedure at WP:COPYREQ. Once you've uploaded the images, you add them to an article by doing something like this:
[[File:IMAGE_FILENAME|thumb|300px|right|IMAGE_CAPTION]]
This would add the image on the right of the article, with a thumbnail size of 300 pixels. Hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I use a photo I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons?

I've uploaded a photo to Wikimedia Commons. Now I'd like to use it in an article. How do I retrieve it, and display it on the page?

See Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons#Embedding Commons' media in Wikipedia articles. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 09:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


free use of people

A previous article in copyright said that you cant use a screenshot of a film for the person in it, but it also said that a free content image of the person from the same shot can be obtained and used. how can this be done? --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point. You cannot use a screenshot to illustrate what the actor looks like. If he is still alive, you are expected to find a free image - ie one that someone has taken and uploaded to one of the Wikimedia projects, or has uploaded to Flikr under a free license, or one you've took yourself. If he's dead, and no-one ever got a snap of him and released it to Wikimedia, then you may use a source such as a publicity shot (NOT a screencap) with a non free content rationale. Hope this helps. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand, but i want to use the screenshot on the actress' article, however i wish to use a screenshot because it would be part of a section of her article dedicated to the franchise of which the screenshot comes from, and so techinically would be about the film. its very confusing and im not sure if its going to riddled with copyright or not. --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The image is copyright. There is no such thing as a free version of a screencap. Talking about the franchise doesn't make it about the film, it makes it about the franchise. You can only use copyright material if it passes all the requirements of WP:NFCC. Does it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

old family photo

I have what looks to be a professional portrait photo of my grandfather, John Kirtland Wright. I would like to add the picture to his site. There is nothing written on the back to indicate who took the picture. I'm guessing it is over 40 years old as my grandfather died in 1969. May I use it? Tzarcat (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Tzarcat

Only if you do not have a photo of him taken by a family member that could be licensed as free to use. If there are no free photos of him, you may upload it under a non-free content rationale. If there are free photos, then you may not, until you have either got permission or ascertained that it is out of copyright.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Screen Shot depicting 1960's TV character

A low resolution screen shot from the 1960's TV series "The Wild Wild West" of Robert Conrad that satisfies all four prongs of the fair use requirements, appears to violate wiki policy: "Warning: Non-free screenshots that are just an image of a person are not permitted. Non-free images must, among other things, be irreplaceable by a free image that exists or could be created, and must add significantly to readers' understanding of the articles in which they are used. If the reader would get the same or similar information without the image, then the image is inappropriate." [15] A current photo would not be an equivalent. My question is how can any visual of what is his best known character from 40+ years ago be used? Would permission from CBS Paramount Television, the copyright holder be required? Eudemis (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that "just an image of a person" means "just an illustration of what the guy looks like." If the screenshot is an illustration of what the character looks like, and you describe the character in the article in a way that discusses the screenshot, then you can use it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of WP:NFC#UUI #12 implies that his appearance as it was during the show must be notable (and be a topic of discussion as Elen said), which usually rules out the use of something like that in an actor's article under WP:UNDUE, and restricts it to an article about the character they played in order to meet the "Contextual significance" prong of our Non-free content policy. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback and the clarification. The picture would be appropriate for an article on the character, James T. West, but is probably non essential to a discussion of actor Robert Conrad absent a significant discussion of the character and his appearance within the article. Eudemis (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Press photo of NZLAV

File:Napier tank.jpg was uploaded with a FUR, and as the image description says it comes from a Stuff.co.nz article (photo gallery, #19) which credits ROBERT KITCHIN/Dominion Post. There is a free photo of an NZLAV File:QAMR vehicle.JPG also. I'd like to ask if Napier tank should be deleted. XLerate (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think that Siege of Napier Hill is OK with a picture of a similar tank then delete, otherwise the FUR indicates that the fair use picture is of the actual tank used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. XLerate (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I upload a picture to a Wikipedia article?

How do I upload a picture to a Wikipedia article that I have written?

It is a picture that I have taken myself, I own the copyright, and I release it to the public domain, when I post it in the article.

I am a novice, so I need to be walked through the upload process, step by step, and don't assume I know something. I need to know each and every step to do it.

Thanks!

Csneed (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

read Wikipedia:Uploading images, for your purpose start at Commons:upload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Alice Eve Needs an Image

Because it is a directory called uploads, with heaps of other miscellaneous images, it would not be owned by the web site. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The image also appears at http://www.starpulse.com/news/Kevin_Blair/2010/03/12/shes_out_of_my_leagues_alice_eve_prove which also explains the circumstances of it. It also states: "Photo Credits: PRN / PR Photos". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Film stills (publicity stills)

Can movie stills be uploaded using the "screenshot" fair-use licence, or a similar fair-use licence, to illustrate an article on a film?

Strictly speaking, publicity stills do not appear to be covered by the screenshot upload wording. Stills, at least for older movies, were taken by a stills photographer on the set, before or after the movie camera had filmed the scene; in other words, no publicity still from the older era of film making actually represents an image that appears in the movie itself.

So, can stills be uploaded under a fair-use licence, and if so, which one? --JN466 17:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the origins of publicity stills, although I think the category Screenshots covers both screencaps and screenshots created the old fashioned way. There is a tag specifically for publicity shots {{Non-free promotional}}, so if the still was used in general publicity for the film, that would also cover it I think. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Looking at it, I'd be inclined to use the "non-free promotional" license for a historic publicity still. --466 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bhaurao Patil

I wanted an image for article Bhaurao Patil. He was an educationist in India who founded several schools and colleges. I could find no free image for the article, but there are a few which I got in a google search. The image at [16] would really be helpful for the article. This image appears on a website of one of the colleges he founded. Can we use that image on this Wikipedia; If yes, what would be the license? I have autoreviewer rights on Wikipedia, but frankly I am not that comfortable with uploading images. So rather than uploading the image in hurry and then getting it deleted by someone else, I felt it prudent to ask someone for help. Thanks. Shivashree (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if there's no free licence and if you can't determine whether the image is still under copyright (roughly speaking, a 60-year term for India), we can't use it. If you want, you could contact the website's owner, and refer them to WP:CONSENT, where they can find instructions for giving permission to use the image (if they own the copyright). Also, if there's a way to demonstrate that this is a particularly significant picture, and isn't replaceable, there might be room to use it under fair use (see WP:NFCC). TheFeds 05:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Photographs for use in article George Brain

I have 3 photos that I would like to upload for use in this article. The first one is a photo that I inherited as a personal family photograph taken by my parents File:George W Brain with grandson Stephen circa 1964.jpg The second and third photos are photos that once again I inherited as orginals but am unsure of their origin. File:Billy Hughes and George W Brain.jpg The third photo was orginally in a newspaper (unknown)and I would feel is a historical fair use image. File:Hats off to Billy Hughes.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrain1 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

File:BennelongCampaign.jpg

This image is likely a copyright violation, as the original portrait photo on the depicted poster is assumed to be copyrighted (if not proven otherwise) and as the photo of the poster is very unlikely to be covered by freedom of panorama-law of Australia[17] (no permanent display). --Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right. -Andrew c [talk] 13:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

using public domain pictures of senators and house members?

I'm working on a project I need to finalize tomorrow, filing for a copyright, using images of senators and house members that are public domain, is it ok for me to use these pictures? I am using them for a editoral type product, but do plan to make money off it, can I do this? If I can only charge for my cost of the product, I could charge for shipping and handling to make up the difference. What about right to privacy? Didn't they forfit that as long as I do not use personal information only public information?

Candie

You are free to use any public domain photos for any purpose. I don't think we can advise you as to the right of privacy stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Rnc-logo.png

Hi. I've recently nominated the article Royal National College for the Blind for FAC and have been told that the fair use rational for the logo used in the aricle is valid but not quite right. I've had a look at WP:FURG but am still not sure how to correct this. Can someone help? Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Using the logo rationale template Template:Logo fur may help you. -Andrew c [talk] 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll take a look at this a bit later on, at a more sensible hour. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I made the original review comment and am sorry if I was unclear. One of the other FAC comments was that it might not pass the threshold of originality and should be tagged {{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademark}}. It's a good question, actually, one I am curious to know the answer to myself. Any expert opinions? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now updated the template but would be grateful if someone would take a look at it for me. It seems to be repeating one or two things in the infobox. Not sure about the other stuff. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Swa 1andahalfd1937stamp.jpg

I have uploaded this file (Swa 1andahalfd1937stamp.jpg) but seem to have had trouble with getting the copyright tagging correct. I am sorry. I could not see the proper way to do this. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

It seems OK now (Msrasnw (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

Old photos and posting on behalf of others

My local History Society have collected a significant number of very old photos of our village. The people who took the photos are either dead, or unidentifiable (and probably both in 99% of cases!) We would like to put them on Wikimedia, but none of the licence conditions seem to fit the bill

For a few, the photographer is alive, and happy for the photos to be placed on their behalf (but have no computer skills of their own), but Wikimedia doesn't seem to allow for that either. Any advice gratefully received. Sammy_r (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Where the photographer is alive, get them to write you a letter stating that they release whichever image under whichever license they deem appropriate, including their name, address and dated signature. Take a scan of that and email it to OTRS - it should function just as well.
Where the photographer is deceased, you have a problem, as copyright persists for 70 years (in the UK) after the photographer's death, and the rights pass to their next of kin, or as assigned in a will. If the next of kin is known, they could be asked for permission.
Where none of these apply, you may not upload the image to Commons (as it must be free) but you could upload to Wikipedia if it meets the non free content requirements. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a third option. Judging from Sam's message, these are probably (in their majority) anonymous unpublished photographs and, in this case, the copyright terms starts from the date they were created not the author's date of death. We also need to know which country we're dealing with, as copyright laws vary A LOT! Physchim62 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean that (in the UK) for photos that are clearly taken over 70 years ago, we can post them to Wikimedia (or Wikipedia)? If so, which category do we use? Sammy_r (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your answers. Hate to sound dim, but what is OTRS? By the way, we're dealing with the UK. Sammy_r (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The OTRS is Wikipedia:Volunteer response team. (you mean you are not familiar with every combination of alphabet soup letters that are Wikipedia abbreviations???? ;) Active Banana (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Screencaps from C-SPAN?

The C-SPAN copyright page http://cspan.org/About/Copyright.aspx says that coverage of legislative hearings is in the public domain, as it's a creation of the Federal government. This suggests that a screencap of a headshot of a witness who's testifying may well be free to use. Would this be acceptable to Wikipedia?

SJFriedl (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't speak for the project, but it's acceptable to me. It would be public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
That's my understanding too, so long as it's screenshot from the government-produced video and not C-SPAN's video (which restricts the reuse to non-commercial, and so would fall under WP:NFCC). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with explaining non-revocability of CC licenses?

I've just declined several requested speedy deletions (example) of GFDL/CC-by-sa images, all by the same user. At each of these images, the uploader added (months after upload) a notice of "don't use this except at Wikipedia", and months after that, s/he added a speedy tag with "No longer free. Now copyrighted." as the reason. I see this as a blatant attempt to revoke the licenses; accordingly, I'd like to explain to the uploader that they're nonrevocable, but I'm not sure where to start. Advice on how to proceed, please? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There's an essay that might help: Wikipedia:Revocation of our licensing is not permitted. (I didn't know it existed either!) TheFeds 05:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

don't understand

Hello,

Please help me. I received this:

Thank you for uploading File:KooBitslogo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

How to add a copyright tag to the image description page? When I click on 'copyright tag' it tells me what is copyright tag but doesn't give instructions on how to add a copyright tag.

How to specify a file's license and source of the file and tag it? I click on the 'link' and it brings me to a page which requires me to enter logs, from year and month, and tag filter. I don't understand what is required of me. I just want to put an image up. I created it.

Please help. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliphang (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Your questions appear to be answered at the top of this page where it says: How to add a copyright tag to an existing image. Follow the steps listed there. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Porcine and pericardial valves.jpg

I appear to have made a real mess of providing information for this file, and all the other images I have uploaded! This file was created by me for use in the article I am developing, I believe I am therefore the copyright holder. The photo is from my personal collection and I wanted to use it to illustrate my article. I obviously allow use of this image by anyone using wikipedia under the creative commons share alike licence. Please can you help me with this?Jflatarget (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just from a quick look at that file and some of your others, it looks like you scanned pictures/charts in a book, which means you aren't the copyright holder, most likely the book publisher is. In this case, each of the pictures needs to meet the standards laid out by Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria in order to be included. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help you, but just like VernoWhitney, I too got the impression that the underlying image did not originate with you. To help identify the copyright status of the image, could you provide the exact details of how you made this image. Is it a scan of a photo or an illustration? If it is a scan of photo, who took the photo, etc. —RP88 21:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Flickr question

I found this photo on Flickr and I know I can use it here, but I'm wondering if I'm allowed to crop it, to center on the ship, before uploading it? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 22:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That image is licensed under the cc-by-sa 2.0 license, so you're allowed to modify it. However, it's generally considered best practice to upload the both the original, unmodified image, as well as your modified image and then in the image description of both images reference the other image as an alternate version (see Help:File page). Also, it's probably best to upload appropriately licensed images to Commons, that way the images can be used on more than the English language wikipedia. If you don't have a Commons account, see Commons:First steps for more help. —RP88 22:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2010/April&oldid=987766706"