Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/May

Newspaper Image Copyright

I'm in the process of botching up an article, that could benefit from a couple of images (of people involved) which appeared in various newspapers covering the story back in the late 60's. Problem is, none of these newspapers (I assume) will actually hold the copyright, or do they ALL hold copyright? They are most likely family pictures / college yearbook pictures, so I imagine that the families might retain copyright? Given that they were published in so many places, does that make them public domain? If not, which is the recommended license to apply? Fair use seems the only option at the moment, but I am wondering, since they were so widely available at the time, whether some other rule may apply?

Any guidance gratefully received. Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

(This question added here by Chzz (talk · contribs), pasted from {{helpme}} question User talk:Haruth#Help Request Newspaper Image Copyright  Chzz  ►  14:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

It sounds like the newspapers or the families (or yearbook photographer or the like) would hold the copyrights. Being republished many times doesn't make them public domain I'm afraid, so fair use if they fall under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria would be the way to go. Keep in mind that if the subjects of the pictures are still living fair use is usually a tough sell. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice VernoWhitney. The subjects were killed in the events described in the article, which is why they were all over the newspapers. Can you clarify for me how their death makes Fair Use easier? I've read the copyright pages so many times, but I'm still really not clear on the difference (I'm a slow learner...;-)). Chances are that I might not even use the images at the moment - plenty of the reference links contain them, and the images won't actually be discussed - just one of these instances where an image says a thousand words. Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy lists 10 criteria which every image must meet in order to qualify for fair use. In particular, #1 "No free equivalent" is easier if the subjects are dead, since you clearly can't take a new free picture of them. The key "make-or-break" criterion for most fair use images is #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Obviously this part is subjective, and I know it's generally accepted to use fair-use pictures in bios of deceased people, but I honestly don't know about an event article. If you want a second opinion (since I don't really have one), maybe someone else hanging around here can give you more guidance on whether or not your use would pass the bar of contextual significance. Hope that helps. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks VernoWhitney. Certainly helped get my head round the policy. The images aren't essential in comprehending the article (I just like lots of pictures in my reading material... ;-)), and will be available via the references section links anyway. I have marked you as copyright guru #1, and may visit you often...lol Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots, are they acceptable?

I once attempted to upload a photo of a musician onstage to Wikimedia Commons. It was no different than many other concert performance photos I'd successfully uploaded and placed in en.Wikipedia. However, that particular photo, because the photographer was too far from the stage, was taken by shooting the performer's image from the large screen to the side of the stage. For this reason, the photo I was trying to add to Commons was denied. I thought that was bizarre and incorrect, but.. there, unlike in the Wikipedia, often it's hard to tell who is blocking the image, and what's going on! So here is my question: I found this photo, (among many) recently uploaded only to Wikipedia, but with either a Creative Commons license requesting attribution, or one releasing it as a free image to the public: File:Luismiguelvivo6.jpg. Is the image acceptable? If so, should it be moved to Commons, or does it need a "fair use" explanation, given my past experience? Thanks- if anyone can reply to my talk page, I'd appreciate it, but if not, that's understandable. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably because, if I understand correctly, the other images were uploaded by their photographers (i.e. copyright holders) and you do not hold the copyright on the film the screenshot is taken from, so cannot grant a license on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

uploaded picture of my father

Greetings,

I am not sure what the copyright information is regarding a self-portrait photograph of my father (deceased in 2005), of which I own a print copy, given to me by my father in the early 1970s, and which I scanned then uploaded to his page on Wikipedia.

My father bequeathed all personal objects to my brother, but I own this photograph. Does that make me the copyright holder? If so, how do I prove it to the satisfaction of Wikipedia authorities?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigony (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Which country are you in, this will determine the appropriate law. The intellectual property rights will be inherited also. Is Wikipedia the first publication ever of the picture? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Explain on the image page that you are the copyright holder, and why, and what kind of license that you want to release the image under - eg CC-BY-SA-3.0 and specify the attribution required, perhaps "Whitall N. Perry". There needs to be a free license granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

How to change the picture of the article?

Hello, I´d like to know how to change the main picture of the article? Caused I was seeing Garrincha´s article and thought there was a better picture for it. Thanks. Marcos H. Ary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoshary (talk • contribs) 02:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question doesn't appear to be related to copyright, nonetheless I can give a couple of quick pointer (maybe someone else can direct you to resources for new users). You can find a series of links to articles and tutorials on how to work with images at Help:Contents/Images_and_media. In particular you may wish to look at the help page for uploading images and the help page for how to insert and use images in Wikipedia articles. —RP88 02:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Exceptionally low res images

Hi, User:Gufcfan has been uploading low resolution images [here] the overwhelming majority are derived from non-free copyrighted works eg File:UCD_Dublin.png becomes File:Ucd_crest.png. My gut instinct is that these new images are derived non-free images, however I was wondering is there a threshold at which this method works? Fasach Nua (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, merely reducing the resolution of an image does not convert a non-free image into a free image, at best it's part of a rationale for including a non-free image on WP. —RP88 06:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Too high resolution of copyright image?

File:PBBTeenClash.jpg There is a disagreement about which version of this image to use, and I dont particularly have an opinion about which one, but one of the arguments the uploader has stated for using the current image is that it is an "HD image and much clearer" than the other. This seems to violate the Fair use guidelines that we should be using a low res version of copyright images. Anyone care to step in and/or create an appropriate resolution image? Active Banana (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I similarly was wondering what resolution should be used for TV screenshots. I figure since it's the same essential question, I'd ask here. It would be awesome if there was some guideline or policy you could point to. — trlkly 02:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Twenty20cuplogo2.png

Is this really free? It's a copyrighted image of the ECB surely, as it is the logo for the competition? Even if the uploader works for the company that made it the ECB surely owns it. It should be non-free rationale surely? SGGH ^ping! 21:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you suspect that an image has been inappropriately claimed under a free license, you should follow the procedure at WP:PUI. More generally, the complete set of steps to follow if you suspect a file uploaded to WP is a copyright violation is documented at WP:FFD. In the case of File:Twenty20cuplogo2.png, a quick search turned up this higher resolution version of the image. In the higher-res version you can see that the "smudge" arround the upper left corner of the logo in the original image is actually the words "© 2003 ECB TM". I suppose it's theoretically possible that the original uploader did, in fact, create the image and has obtained ECB's permission to CC license it, but I highly doubt it. I'll handle the steps of listing it at WP:PUI as well as the appropriate notifications. —RP88 23:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I shall know for the future. SGGH ^ping! 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Want to use images and historical that are in the public domain to create e-books.

Wikipedia is a great source of images and many of them are in the public domain. What I want to know is if I can use them to create a series of e-book for commercial use. Can you provide me with clear instructions so as to proceed correctly? Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.68.210 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Ask a lawyer. Stifle (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Stifle's response was terse, but entirely correct. Nobody here is in a position to provide you with legal advice on how to comply with copyright issues related to your commercial venture. However, hope is not lost. Wikipedia has a sister project, the Wikimedia Commons. Commons is explicitly a collection of reusable media. Commons maintains a page of instructions intended for those who wish to reuse material (text and/or graphics) from the Commons. Not all images on Wikipedia are available via Commons, but those that are have received additional vetting to make sure that they are available for a wide variety of uses, including commercial use. —RP88 18:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of South West African Stamps (1985)?

Does anyone know the Copyright Status of South West African Stamps issued in 1985. "In 1971, acting on a request for advisory opinion from the United Nations Security Council, the ICJ ruled that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and that South Africa was under an obligation to withdraw from Namibia immediately. It also ruled that all member states of the United Nations were under an obligation to recognize the invalidity of any act performed by South Africa on behalf of Namibia". Would the stamps issued by the South African "puppet regime" thus be free of copyright? The territory became the independent Republic of Namibia on 21 March 1990. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

I doubt it. While the stamps may not be considered valid someone will hold the copyright. It might be argued that the copyright transfer from the initial artist be considered invalid but that gets messy.©Geni 00:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Msrasnw, it looks like you got some pretty good answers to your question last month when you asked it over at Commons. Have you looked at those responses? They look pretty good, and put forth a good argument that South West African stamps issued in 1985 are copyrighted for at least 50 years. If you are looking for something more, you might consider contacting Namibia Post Philatelic Services. They might be able to confirm if, or if not, a transfer of government-held copyrights for already-issued stamps from South Africa to Nambia occurred during the transition. —RP88 00:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks - I contacted South African post a couple of weeks ago and they referred me to namib post - they have forwarded my request to their legal department (all very efficient) - but the legal department have not replied yet. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

I don't think the fact that the UN repeatedly voted to demand South Africa leave Namibia affects the validity of SWA's stamps or the copyright on same. They were surely accepted by the Universal Postal Union and its members. I would suggest, in addition to the above suggestions, contacting a newspaper in Windhoek and see if they can shed some light on the matter through their knowledge of copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any argument for saying these stamps are in the public domain. Let's take section 5 of the (South African) Copyright Act 98 of 1978, which applied in South West Africa and which carried over into Nambian law at independence:

(2) Copyright shall be conferred by this section on every work which is eligible for copyright and which is made by or under the direction or control of the state or such international organizations as may be prescribed.

(6) Copyright which vests in the state shall for administrative purposes be deemed to vest in such officer in the public service as may be designated by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

Current Namibian law is identical except for the numbering of the subsections. Implementing and maintaining a system of copyright law is not an "act performed by South Africa on behalf of Namibia"; it is the internal administration of the territory, which South Africa was obliged to undertake as the de facto occupying power. Simply because a government is illegitimate (for a given territory) does not mean that all its acts are illegitimate. Physchim62 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct process for images given to me for free use with attribution

I just received a number of pictures that I would like to upload for use in various articles. The photographer sent me some pictures in the past - I uploaded them, selected the "It is from somewhere else" option, then selected the OTRS pending and asked him to send in an email confirming the CC-BY 3.0 license. He did so, but received a message back that it wasn't necessary as he has taken the pictures. I don't quite follow that answer, but now I have a half a dozen more, and want to be clear whether I should ask him to send an email for each one. Can I create an email listing all the files? Can I get him to send an email that says any file created by him and uploaded by me is fine? He has said that a couple times, and I'd like to minimize the work for him as well as the OTRS volunteers.--SPhilbrickT 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS probably got confused, thinking he was the uploader. As specified at WP:PERMISSIONS, in the case where an editor uploads content to which they do not hold the copyright, the uploader generally contacts the copyright holder, obtains either written or e-mail confirmation granting permission, and forwards the permission to OTRS. OTRS generally doesn't expect to hear directly from the copyright holder, since generally if a copyright holder is technically savvy enough to figure out how to correspond with OTRS, they could have just uploaded the image themselves and avoided the OTRS queue. Maybe you can just have him send you a single a consent letter that separately describes each of the files along with a statement that he agrees to publish all of them under one of the free licenses (pick one he is comfortable with). If he does so, compose a message for OTRS containing your request for permission, his response, and the proposed Wikipedia link for each of the images to which he grants permission. You can them upload the files, forward the message to OTRS, and then mark all of the files with {{OTRS pending}}. —RP88 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, that probably makes sense. The irony is that he wasn't really savvy enough to send it himself, I had to call him and walk it through step by step. I like the suggestion, I'll get him to send me the e-mail and I will forward it. Thanks.--SPhilbrickT 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Issue with a logo for an organization that is no longer in existence

I just got a notification that a logo that I have uploaded (Multi-Image_AMI_logo.png) is slated to be pulled due to "This file does not have information on its copyright status. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be deleted after Tuesday, 11 May 2010. Please remove this template if a copyright license tag has been added. "

I have been doing a diligent search since January for the association, it no longer exists and I have not found any records as to who owns the logo other than the organization - which is of course is no more.

I would like to see someone out there who was responsible for the AMI organization assist by pitching in with editing or contributing, but the entry, multi-image is not out or released yet (maybe next week?)

In the meantime is there a way to provide a tag that covers this temporary status? Or should I submit the information in a somewhat different ,manner so it can be approved, and when it is live, someone who does know something about it can respond with better copyright information?

I just want to do this right, the use of the logo might be a way to attract past members or better, past officers of the association so they can contribute.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tranquitas (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The safest thing to do would be to assume that someone holds the copyright (whether they know it or not) and just label the image appropriately to the best of your knowledge, assuming of course that it meets the requirements laid out in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. This would also involve tagging it with {{Non-free logo}} and {{Non-free use rationale}} (filled out of course). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Painting 250ish years old

I've just recieevd a copyright notice about the picture of Ralph Allen at File:Ralphallen.jpg which must be 250ish years old, which was also used on Bath Daily Photos & they uploaded to Flikr. I've put some text onto the image explaining but I am unsure what tags to use.— Rod ^talk 06:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a reproduction of a mezzotint made by John Faber Jr (1695-1756). It's probably a scan of a reproduction of the mezzotint that appeared in some book, but I can't track down which one. John Faber Jr made the mezzotint in 1754, but he was copying a portrait by Thomas Hudson (1701-1779). I'll clean up the sourcing and copyright for the image. —RP88 19:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.— Rod ^talk 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1978-89 publication

Works published between 1987 and 1989 are in the public domain only if their copyright wasn't registered within 5 years, correct? Therefore, is this booklet in the public domain since I can't find evidence of any copyright notice? I'd like to use its pictures in the Benet Academy article. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, works first published in the U.S., with a date of publication between 1978 and March 1, 1989, without a copyright notice, and without subsequent copyright registration within 5 years are in the public domain in the U.S. due to failure to comply with required U.S. formalities. Such images should be tagged with the {{PD-US-1989}} copyright tag. You can do an online search of the U.S. copyright archives for registrations and renewals that occured on or after January 1, 1978 at the U.S. Copyright Office's Public Copyright Catalog. —RP88 03:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

copyrights on articles

If I want to use texts from wikipedia on my own websites, what do I have to do to make sure that I do not violate any copyrights? Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the answer to my question myself. Wereldburger758 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Election Commission of India copyright

Election Commission of India copyright page claims: Information on this Website is protected by Copyright. However, since this information has been put in public domain, it may be quoted in print/electronic/other media subject to the condition that the source "Election Commission of India Website "http://eci.nic.in " is clearly acknowledged.

So what is the usability status of the site for Wikipedia? feydey (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Play it safe and contact them for a direct answer (and have them forward it to OTRS via the WP:CONSENT procedure if it's a yes). I suspect that the writer of that page had a different meaning of "public domain" in mind than we do—it may not have a well-defined meaning in Indian law. Given that it asserts copyright, you should probably avoid using it except if quoting with attribution as directed. (I'd say that disclaimer removes any limitation—e.g. through fair use—on the amount of text quoted.) TheFeds 16:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that opinion and assume that it's copyrighted unless they specifically tell you otherwise. And given that as far as I know Indian copyright law is based on Crown copyright, I'm not optimistic. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would assume they refer to the election data being in PD, how about the images there (like File:Cecofindia NBC.jpg)? feydey (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The election data is PD under the idea-expression dichotomy (Art. 9.2 TRIPS, to which India is a signatory). The Election Commission would hold copyright over any original expression of that data. I doubt it holds the copyright to images such as the one you mention: I suspect it is using them by permission, and the copyright is held by the original photographer (perhaps assigned to the person who ordered the photograph). Physchim62 (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a file

I want to upload a file to correspond to an article I created. The file is associated with the article in that it is the log for the orginization. How do I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwstapp (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Upload it to Wikimedia commons. See the left box for upload. Then use the link to the file in Wikimedia commons in your article. Wereldburger758 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free logo

I want to follow the non-free use rationale that several other non profits have used for uploading their logos. This is what I am trying to do and have seen their descriptor pages for their logos; I am just not sure how to do the same thing.Cwstapp (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you're talking about File:Climb 72dpi.jpg, it looks pretty good, just a couple of issues I see:

1. The source should preferably list an actual webpage or other specific place the image was taken from, not the entire organization.
2. You should add {{non-free logo}} to the image page also, so that its copyright status is clear.

Other than those nitpicks, it looks good. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Random music question

My choir would like to perform Bach's Magnificat, but we are concerned about copying the music and performing it from the copies. Please advise. May 5, 2010

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.121.112 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This forum is for questions regarding the use of images on Wikipedia, we cannot give legal advice here. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with VernoWhitney, we can't help give you legal advice on what you can do with the score you have in your possession. However, I can direct you to where you can obtain a public domain score that you can copy or otherwise use as you like. The International Music Score Library Project has downloadable public domain music scores in its online Petrucci Music Library that are free for any use. You can download several different public domain versions of the score for Bach's Magnificat in D from their site. —RP88 22:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tag problems

I have copied some film star images from 1932 and 1938 British movie magazines. There are no signs of authorship. I used the "PD-EU-no author disclosure" tag as they are over 70 years old but "ESkog" doesn't think it is the right tag. I have been unable to find any alternatives that might fit so I can get on with filling in a fair number of such images missing from the wikipedia.

Also I got a screen shot from the 1950's American "Life of Riley" TV show, which the Internet Archive site (which is fussy over copyright) says is a public domain TV show. I have no idea which tag is appropiate for it. Can you help? (Cyberia3 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Regarding "Life of Riley" - some collections on the Internet Archive may be fussy over copyright, but not all of them seem to be. The Life of Riley videos don't give any justification for their public domain claim. I checked a couple episodes there, "Riley's Separation" & "Riley's Anniversary"; they have the necessary copyright notices at the end of the credits, and searching copyright.gov's database yields renewal registrations for those episodes (and many others). So it's doubtful that the videos really are PD. --dave pape (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been extremely difficult to find anything relevant on the web. I did find this:

"It is also legal to download TV shows when the copyright owners have released material for free distribution. This is sometimes the case with older series’ that have long been internationally licensed and have no further distribution value."

http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-legal-to-download-tv-shows.htm

What distribution value has a 60 year old (1949) B&W show in today's HD-TV world? (Cyberia3 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Distribution value isn't the key part to take out of your quote (although the answer is in selling DVD sets and rebroadcasting the show for people who like classics). The key part is "when the copyright owners have released material for free distribution". In other words, it must have entered the public domain, either by the owners not renewing the copyright or by explicitly releasing it. Continuing what Davepape said, if they have copyright notices and renewals, it's highly unlikely that they're public domain. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Images

I want to upload a few pictures of my favourite band members but I'm not sure which are allowed and I don't know how to find the copyright on the images I find online. I really want to upload some pictures —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amebabame (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know who owns the copyright to an image, you can't upload it here. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can make a reasonable assumption about the copyright (as for an image from the band's official web page), it could be uploaded if it satisfies all 10 criteria listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

picture deleted at: Paul Martin (illustrator)

Hello, my main picture at this web site was deleted (from Wikipedia Commons) yesterday due to copyright issues. It was a scaled down version of a picture that appeared in an issue of the Saturday Evening Post in 1930. (It was the new trademark figure of Fisk Tires, which was drawn by Paul Martin, who passed in 1932.) I was told by a Wikipedia editor that the picture is the property of Fisk Tires, and since they were bought out in 1940, and that company was bought out by someone else etc., that the image belongs to the current tire company which is Michelin!! Hence, it was deleted. Is there a way to get this picture (SmilingBoy) back onto the article's page? What would be an acceptable copyright tag? Such as: an exempt because it's a lower resolution version and needed for ID (or educational) purpose or because it falls under "fair use." Thanks. Jim Percy (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the facts as you present them, If this work was first published in 1930 with notice and the copyright was renewed, it will fall into the public domain on January 1, 2026.

So one possible avenue you can pursue is researching whether or not its copyright was renewed, because if the copyright was not renewed this image would be in the pubic domain and could be tagged with the {{PD-US-not_renewed}} copyright tag (make sure you also document your renewal search at the image description). Since, at the time, a copyright renewal had to be sometime in the 28th year and the publishing of renewals wasn't always immediate, to be safe you should check for renewals in the copyright records of 1957, 1958 and 1959. Copyright records from 1978 onward are available to search online from they Copyright Office, but this doesn't help you. Prior to 1978 you have two options. First, the records are available in print and microform, both at the Library of Congress, and at other major libraries around the country, including many Federal Depository Libraries. A few libraries known to have a reasonably full set are the Carnegie Library in Pittsburgh, the Free Library of Philadelphia (in microform), the University of Chicago library, and UCLA. Second, scanned copies of a portion of the earlier copyright records are available online from a number of parties. In your case you're in luck, the University of Pennsylvania Libraries has placed online scanned copies of many of the earlier copyright records covering the period in question. In particular, you want to examine the renewal records from 1957, 1958 and 1959.

If that sounds like too much trouble, or it turns out that the copyright was renewed, you might consider using it under a fair use rationale. I haven't gone through the criteria with respect to your proposed image, so don't know if possible to make a valid fair use claim for it that also complies with WP's non-free content criteria. However, if you think it does, the two things you must include on the image description page are: an appropriate copyright tag explaining the basic claim of fair use (see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free for a list) and a detailed fair use rationale for its use on the Paul Martin (illustrator) page. —RP88 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's a lot for me to digest--later. Right, I figured that most public libraries don't have catalogs with this information anymore. Jim Percy (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this illustration from an advertisement, or from editorial matter in the magazine? If it is from an advertisement, did the advertisement carry its own copyright notice? If not, the advertisement is in the U.S. public domain. Per U.S. copyright case law, outside advertisements (i.e., not from the publisher) are not covered by a periodical's copyright. — Walloon (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Walloon. I see you found a couple good finds and added them onto the article. I wonder about the two references in the opening born/died line. I've never seen them put in that spot before. Anyway, a Wiki-editor deleted the picture without warning, but I'm pretty sure that this is how it reads at the bottom (below the boy's feet) in three lines: Time to Re-tire / GET A FISK! /trade-mark reg. us. pat.off. Understand, that their original drawing of the boy and saying were copyrighted in 1910. The boy (their trademark) was redrawn in 1930 by Martin. By 1934, they switched back to using their original drawing. It would seen to reason that this short-lived boy that was used as their trademark from 1930 to about 1934, was not reclaimed (or renewed) around 1957-59. I really don't know. PS. Yes, the picture/s accompanies an advertisement by Fisk Tires Jim Percy (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright and trademark are two different things. If there was no copyright notice in the Fisk Tires advertisement from 1930, then the advertisement immediately entered the U.S. public domain upon publication. As for trademark, the phrase "Time to Re-tire?" has been dead as a trademark since 2003; I just checked the online trademark registration database. The smiling boy illustration has been dead so long it's not even listed in the trademark database. — Walloon (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, there is no "Wikipedia Commons." Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons are separate projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The image in question was uploaded to (and deleted from) the English Wikipedia. —David Levy 05:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Strangely the Saturday Evening Post did renew some things but not complete issues. From this time period they renewed "The world does move" from 1928, "The night letter" from June 15 1929, "The deferred living plan" from June 1 1929, "Robe de style" from Febr. 2 1929, and then nothing till 1932 with "Keeper of the Keys". So as it would have been used in advertisement? and not in these stories, it looks like copyright not renewed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Graeme- thanks for the feedback. Jim Percy (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Walloon- Some background: I have library access to the original Saturday Evening Post from the 1930's. The Smiling Boy image appeared 11 times in their magazine, via Fisk Tire ads for the year 1930. (I could not spot any Fisk ads that appeared after that year.) Only 3 of those 11 images were signed by P.Martin. So, that was mentioned in the article, in order to establish authorship. Fisk Tires was taken over by United States Rubber Co. in 1940, and then renamed Uniroyal Inc. in 1961. Anyway, a person above gave me some helpful tips on searching for copyright information. I checked under the mentioned years of 1957-1959, and found nothing under "Renewals for artwork." I did spot something under "Commercial prints & labels" (with subheading: renewals) for Jan. to June 1958. United States Rubber claimed their 1930 print called "The air-flight principle." I recall seeing a few of these ads in the Saturday Evening Post of 1930. Something (as recalled) about the dynamics of Fisk Tires, told through a set of diagrams. But, that's something completely different. I recently uploaded another imagine of the Fisk Tire Boy. I tried to put the right details in the description page (seen after clicking the enlarge icon). Maybe, you can reword it better. Is the layout okay. I suppose the important thing is that if fits within Wikipedia's guidelines. I didn't spot any copyright insignia (or word) on the original drawings of the Smiley Boy of Fisk Tires. I figure that's a good sign, but not something to be replied on completely either. I hope that covers it all. Jim Percy (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Renewal of copyright was unavailable if the work lost its copyright because it was published without a copyright notice. Renewal, trademark, and later ownership of the company — these are all irrelevant. Your research is complete when you see there is no copyright notice on that 1930 advertisement. The appropriate copyright tag at Wikimedia Commons is {{PD-US-no notice}}.

— Walloon (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Walloon- I noticed that you took out the closing paragraph under the heading "Fisk Tire Boy." I was the one who put it in there. I thought it did pertain to the subject matter, because so few people today, have heard of Fisk Tires. It was a quick overview to explain to the reader, that Fisk Tires was a major tire retailer of its day, and it showed the linkage of Fisk Tires to modern times. (That can only add creditably to the illustrator.) Also, there is no article at Wikipedia on Fisk Tires. Another reason the information seemed worthy. Plus the links it gave to US Rubber, Uniroyal etc. Jim Percy (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

KENS 5 HD Logo

I've been wanting to change the logo on the wikipage for KENS-TV (KENS 5 Eyewitness News in San Antonio) and finally found a good picture via google:

http://sanantoniobrownberets.com/assets/images/kens5-logo.png

Is this acceptable for uploading and replacing the current picture? or is there a copyright issue? if so, I will not proceed to upload. 20AL09 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This picture is not just the logo, but includes it and some promotional screen. This may be OK if it is commonly show on the TV station, but the more common is to just cut out the logo. However the resolution is too great, and you will have to reduce resolution to a non excessive amount, say 300 pixels wide. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

taking a picture of a coprighted image

if i take a picture of a tv screenshot with my own camera, why is it copyrighted? my camera=my own work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadgofmaine (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's what they call a "derivative work"; it's no more "your own work" than if you photocopied a copyrighted story and sold it as your own. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a slavish reproduction, so no creativity goes into it. Cameras aren't magical copyright stealing devices, just like blank VHS tapes and CD-Rs don't transfer movie and album copyrights to you (you know bootlegging and piracy and all...) -Andrew c <sup>[talk]</sup> 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Where be piracy? Argh, ye matey! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

License list

Is there a list of acceptable GPL and CC licenses? Specifically, is Creative Commons Attribution 2.5/2.0 Generic acceptable? Shadowjams (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about acceptable licenses to for importing material into Wikipedia, there's one at the copyright FAQ, and the particular answer (unless I'm missing something) is yes, CC-BY 2.0 and 2.5 licenses are acceptable. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Public Twitter Profile Picture

Why can't I use a Public Twitter Profile Picture? I would think it'd be okay. Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The answer is that just because an image is in public view does not mean it's in the public domain. The owner of the Twitter account still holds the copyright to the image, and as such we'd need their explicit consent to licensing the image under a Wiki-friendly license before we can use it. Tabercil (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a Twitter account, so I can't contact him, so I can't do anything about. So the Suburba.jpg I think might have to be deleted. If someone would like to contact him themselves, it's twitter.com/timhoh

Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I use...

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/Multiverse2009.jpg ? Chaotic Inflation theory could really use this image. In the talk page of that article it looks like someone was asking A. Linde (the apparent creator of this image) if they could use it in 2008 and seemingly had no response. I feel that since this is an illustration of a published scientific theory it seems logical to be for public use... but I suppose it is also an illustration, something the artist would own the rights to. If you feel this is not allowed to be uploaded, do you think that if I were to make my own replication of this in Photoshop that would be allowed? That feels less kosher somehow. Eddie mars (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is an illustration, so it is copyrighted, most likely by the artist. If it was an illustration created based on some kind of non-creative (and thus non-copyrightable) data, then you could recreate it and that would be allowed, but if it is simply an artistic representation of what something could look like then you can't just replicate it in Photoshop, as that would be a copy, or a very close derivative work (I'm not at all familiar with Chaotic Inflation theory, so I don't know which is the case here). Assuming that it is just an artistic representation of something, then you should be able to just use Photoshop to draw something else which serves the same purpose. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Traced SVG file

Hi! I recently traced a logo from PNG format to SVG using Inkscape. I am trying to upload it, but I am unsure of whom the license belongs to. Does it belong to me, as I traced the bitmap? Or is it again a fair use rationale image like the original PNG? Help? —Untitledmind<sup>72</sup> (let's talk + contribs) 18:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of photograph of subject with autograph

http://www.detroitcitysports.com/servlet/the-430/Ernie-Harwell-Autographed-8x10/Detail Below is email correspondence with the store owner. Does this meet the criteria?<br. />—NBahn (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lengthy emails

Mr. Foley-- What matters is that Wikipedia does not get sued. Thank you very much for your time and information; I will forward both your information and the images to Wikipedia. Have a good day, sir. --XXXXXXXXXXX -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html & http://www.openoffice.org (XXXXXXXXXXX) On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:32 PM, DC SPORTS <Info@detroitcitysports.com> wrote: I believe it is the Detroit Tigers official photographer. So, by extension, I would have to guess the Detroit Tigers own the copyright for the image itself. Since ours is autographed, would it be considered a different image? We did the scan. We obtained the autograph. I am not sure how it works. Thank you, DC SPORTS *Since 1987* 586.566.8331 www.DetroitCitySports.com ----- Original Message ----- From: XXXXXXXXXXX To: DC SPORTS Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 1:29 PM Subject: Re: Ernie Harwell Image (link added) Mr. Foley-- You wouldn't, by any chance, happen to have any ideas as to who might hold the copyright, would you? Any information that you can provide will be greatly appreciated. --XXXXXXXXXXX -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html & http://www.openoffice.org (XXXXXXXXXXX) On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM, DC SPORTS <Info@detroitcitysports.com> wrote: XXXXXXXXXXX, You have our permission. We are not the copyright holder, though. Thank you, Mike Foley DC SPORTS *Since 1987* 586.566.8331 www.DetroitCitySports.com ----- Original Message ----- From: XXXXXXXXXXX To: info@detroitcitysports.com Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 6:10 PM Subject: Ernie Harwell Image (link added) To whom it may concern: I am writing to request permission to use the attached image on the Ernie Harwell Wikipedia Article . Sincerely, XXXXXXXXXXX -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html & http://www.openoffice.org (XXXXXXXXXXX)

It does not meet the criteria to be uploaded as a free image, as there would need to be permission from the actual copyright holder of the original photograph, and it would need to be more permissive than using the image on Wikipedia; it would have to be released under a compatible license (or into the public domain) as per Wikipedia:DCM#Donating_your_photographs. As far as I can tell, you would not be able to use it under the terms of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, as there are free images available of him, which appear to be equivalent (I could be wrong about that part though). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Screen capture from publicly available PDF with no copyright statement

I have uploaded 2 images that were screen captures from a publicly available PDF with no copyright statement. How do I attribute them so they are OK ?Jembana (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Source was http://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Documents/Research/ODonnell.pdf

I have emailed Aberystwyth University but no reply yet.Jembana (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Publicly available" does not mean public domain. And neither British nor U.S. copyright law requires a work to contain a copyright notice to preserve its copyright. — Walloon (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Dicc_RAE_1780.jpg

I am concern about the message http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhurtadon#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Dicc_RAE_1780.jpg about File:Dicc_RAE_1780.jpg. It is obviously an old book (1780). It is out of copyright, so I could reproduce it as long as I wished. Also, I have stated that I made each image I have uploaded. What do I have to do? Do I have to state from where the book itself come from? Well, it is done right now: "It is my own photograph of an out-of-copyright book of my own library." I hope that this clear any uncertainty. Whether it does not, you are free of erase the file. But it will be a shame.

Concerning "NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page.", I did not identified such tag rightly. So, I called your attention by erasing

Image Copyright problem

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhurtadon#Image_copyright_problem_with_Image:Dicc_RAE_1780.jpg instead.

I thank you. Rhurtadon (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhurtadon (talk • contribs) 05:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That was nearly 3 years ago. It appears the only issue was that when you uploaded the file, you neglected to choose a license. Becaue of this, a Bot saw that error, and tagged the image, and left you a message on your talk page. 2 hours later, you removed the tag from the image, and added a license and fixed the image yourself. The image was then transferred to the Commons and deleted from the English Wikipedia. Then 2 and a half years passed. There are no current issues with the image, and you apparently already fixed them yourself the day your image was tagged back in August 2007. Users often archive older content on their talk pages, but by default, old messages are not deleted or removed, so you are just seeing a very old message, which no longer applies. Hope this explains things. -Andrew c <sup>[talk]</sup> 13:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Illustrator_CS5_Windows7_64bit.jpg

I have a problem trying to license a screenshot of Adobe Illustrator CS5(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Illustrator_CS5_Windows7_64bit.jpg). Could anyone tell me exactly how I need to change the current licensing to make it correct.

I probably need this:

• {{Non-free software screenshot}}

But it currently says this:

• {{FAL}}

If I post the Non-free software screenshot license on wikimedia the screenshot is tagged for speedy-deletion. What do I need to do to make this correct?

I used this as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Photoshopcs5.jpg

Thank you very much,

Martin Jorn

Your problem, first of all, is you tried to upload non-free content to Wikimedia Commons. Fair use images can't go in the Commons, they have to be uploaded locally. So try it again, but upload it using the "upload file" link on the English Wikipedia. Hope this helps. -Andrew c <sup>[talk]</sup> 13:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding non-free content

I asked this on File talk:Brettina cover portrait.jpeg before I saw the pointer to direct such questions to this page:

Although I've done occasional Wikipedia edits for a long time, adding non-free content is new to me. If I've under-documented this image, please help guide me through the process of getting it right. If I've over-documented the image, also please let me know so I don't overdo it if I add non-free content in the future. If I got it right, letting me know that would be useful feedback too. Thanks.

Thanks in advance for the requested feedback. —Steve Schonberger (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm inclined to say that you've mostly documented the image well, but it fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria as it is currently being used. The part I think documentation could be improved is whether it's the entire album cover or just part of it (the dimensions don't look like a cd cover to me), and this leads into the fair use criteria I'll get into next. As far as it being her biography photo (which is how it is presently being used), I feel that it fails criteria #1: No free equivalent and #8 Contextual significance. As you indicated on the file's page, free images exist of the subject and this particular image is no more helpful to her biography than a free image would be, It may be usable for her album section (and article, whenever it gets split out) if it's the entire cover art since no free equivalent of her album cover would exist and then it would have contextual significance, but not as her primary biography image. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The file is the portrait that was used on the CD cover, but the cover image was cropped more tightly, from just below her chin to just above her hairline, and narrower on the sides too. To illustrate the CD, I could re-crop it to match the CD cover, and even paste in the title text (just her name in blue-gray next to her chin) to approximately replicate the cover, or just photograph the cover (since my scanner driver is dead).

Although free images of Brettina exist, I would prefer to use one she approves; I know her and don't want to annoy her by using a picture she doesn't like. But if I can find a suitable image – or someone else provides one – that would probably be the best fit for the infobox image.

Assuming the infobox image is replaced with something else, would it be appropriate to move this image (either as-is, re-cropped to replicate the CD cover image, or a photo of the cover) to the discography section, to the right of the one CD listed there?

I'm still learning about this part of Wikipedia editing; thanks for the guidance. —Steve Schonberger (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as the picture for the infobox, if she approves of this one enough, perhaps she would be willing to license it so that it would be a free image (there are instructions available at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). If she's not willing to do that, then her opinion as far as the image doesn't really matter as far as our fair use policy goes, and it should still be replaced by one that is free. As far as the discography section, I see no reason that there couldn't be a picture there (at least until the album gets its own article), but ideally it should be a scan or photograph of the actual cover (or similar found at an online store or the like); it should not be recreated to replicate the cover art, it should be the cover art, otherwise it fails criteria #4 "Previous publication" of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I hope that clears things up some more. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a tolerable picture of Brettina that I took myself, for article's infobox. If I find a better one I'll replace it.

I photographed the actual cover, and retouched only to the extent necessary to remove scuff marks on the surface, and white-balance and contrast-adjust it. I placed that in the discography.

That seems to match with the rules, as long as I got the photo tags right. The templates helped with that. Do I have everything right now? —Steve Schonberger (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that Brettina disliked my image; she asked me not to leave it as the main image. I explained about donating content to commons, but after reading Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials I have a question I couldn't answer for her. Could she donate a low or medium resolution version of an image to Creative Commons, while retaining full rights to the image at higher resolutions? —Steve Schonberger (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to my understanding, that is quite possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

TINLA. A number of users upload a low res file deliberately, as the licence applies to that file, so anyone wanting a high res needs to get specific permission for it. To reinforce that, you could state "for higher resolution or other permission, contact the photographer". User:Gmaxwell is knowledgeable about such things; it is probably quicker to contact him at Commons:User:Gmaxwell. Ty 11:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

facial reconstruction of "the younger lady", tutankhamun's mother

hi, i was wondering if the facial reconstruction done by the discovery channel was copyrighted or in the public domain? i think it would be good to put the reconstruction on the wiki page for tut's mother. when this mummy was thought to be nefertiti, they did a reconstruction. since the mummy is tut's mum, and not nefertiti, it should be posted on the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimmon (talk • contribs) 09:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The copyright would be held by the sculptor, or whoever filmed it, so it is very unlikely to be free if you snatch a screen shot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For example, if you did a colorized interpretation of what T rex looked like based on the bones, your thought and effort went into the construction, so your work is copyrighted. Same goes for the younger lady.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How do I upload a photo?

How do I upload a photo I have taken to a page I created? My account is more than four days old and I have edited the page I created a few times! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yarldevi (talk • contribs) 10:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You are still not autoconfirmed, so since it is to be a free license, load it at commons:upload. Pick entirely my own work, and release it under a free license like CC-BY-SA-3.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Derivative works of PD works

Hi. I created a derivative of file:Flag of France.svg for use in Flag of France; specifically, the naval jack, with it's slightly different proportions. However, I don't know what the correct licensing is. Riffraffselbow (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the naval jack is over 70 years old, I'd just use {{Anonymous-EU}} , and put an explanation stating that you created it from the French flag.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Riffraffselbow (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use, magazine cover from 1944, possibly defunct organization?

Hi,

I've just started this article: Society for the Prevention of World War III, but I have no idea what image to add to it. The closest I've gotten is a magazine picture, but I need to know the copyright rules, i.e. is it fair use, or something else, that could be applicable? The society published the magazine "Prevent World War III" monthly from 1944 to 1945, then more and more seldom, the last issue one apparently in 1972. I was thinking the front of one of these magazines could be useful. I found an image here, it is a site that sells old magazines, and they scanned the front of one.

Would it be permissible to use the image in the article? Thanks for help.--Stor stark7 <sup>Speak</sup> 04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if you have a good enough fair use rationale. Defunct organizations' property still goes to someone--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the issues of the periodical Prevent World War III published in 1944 had their U.S. copyrights renewed in 1971 or 1972. So, that issue cover from May 1944 is in the U.S. public domain. — Walloon (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Military Photo's and Insignia

Please help with the correct Copyright tags for Insignia of a Military unit (South African) and Photos of said unit taken by myself and or by others but who gave permission for the use of these ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alloutlenses (talk • contribs) 11:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's your own work, you will just use the "Own Work" (or whatever it says) tag. For someone else, it would be best if you uploaded it with the tag with says someone else has given permission and get them to email OTRS saying what photos they took and that they give permission for the images to be licensed here on Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave up

I came across a publicity picture of Dave King in a 1980 book about the TV stars. His wikipage doesn't have a picture (there are very few of him about) so I thought that would do. But then I looked up the copyright stuff and after so many pages, thought to myself, why am I wasting my time here when a few hours after I post it, someone will tell me it is scheduled for deletion next week as it is missing such and such information, etc? It just ain't worth the effort. (Cyberia3 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC))

Good idea. I don't know which of the 17 Dave Kings, you're talking about, but if he's still alive, a publicity picture would be deleted after about a week for not being free content. We can't use images like the one you're describing unless they meet the non-free content criteria, and a picture of a living person almost never does. --Carnildo (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'll guess that you meant Dave King (English singer)? If so, he's been dead for 8 years. So, we would accept a non-free image of him if no free alternatives exist. If you want assistance, you can upload the image, tell us the source, and we'll give you a hand. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a similar question and share Cyberia3's frustration -- but I'm not willing to give up!  :-) I figure, once I understand the process, and the rationale, I can add more missing photos with confidence that I'm doing it properly. I would like to add a photo of T-Bone Walker [1] which appears to be a publicity shot. Since he is deceased, could it be uploaded as "Historically significant fair use (deceased person or historic events)" or "Promotional material"? If so, which one? The photo is from 1942 and Walker has been deceased since 1975. I intend to use the photo for his Wikipedia entry. --Archaeolojae (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Since that photo is so old, is it possible it was published without a copyright notice, or copyright not renewed on the material? Do you have an original publicity material? In that case the picture will have entered public domain by now. Otherwise "Promotional material" would be the right term. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe one of the contributors to the website, from which I obtained the jpg, has an original. The caption for it says "From the collection of Robert Pruter". I received permission from Mr. Pruter to use the photo (even though he may not be the copyright holder). Unless otherwise instructed, I will put it under "Promotional material" just in case Capitol Records still has rights to it (it says Capitol Records on the photo). --Archaeolojae (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

License and Source?

Okay, I've uploaded some images on some pages, but they will be deleted in a few days because I do not have a license or source. Now I do not know all the technicalities of this copyright stuff. How do you acquire/mark a license? Also, what does the source refer to, the person who took the pic or the website/gallery where I acquired it? I really need some clarification on this issue.Meteorico (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

well the source is where you got it from. The license is the permission granted to use the picture. If you took it from a website, then there must be evidence to show that the picture has a license that is added. Hopefully this is free, allowing derivatives, or commercial use. Most pictures taken off web sites are not suitable for Wikipedia. If you do find a free one it can go to the commons. The reason that the information is needed is that other people need to have confidence that the material on Wikipedia is free. Commercial users have to take copyright very seriously and need to know on what basis the image can be used. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of black and white photographs which have been colourized

In the UK, what is the copyright position of a black and white photograph that has been colourized and otherwise improved ie dropping in sky, sea, grass etc. Is this a new creation/image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.53.142 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a derivative work. See Commons:Commons:Derivative work, but in short, the original photographer and the person who made the colourization etc. must both permit any further uses of the image. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sound bite

First is it possible to upload an audio sound bite, and if so what are the file (data) restrictions?

Second, I have a sound bite from a publicly available sermon. I made this recording myself. Does this entitle me to use it? William Herbert (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC).

Your own recording, gives you a copyright. It would be good to get permission from the speaker before you upload. Hopefully the speaker is not reading any otherwise copyrighted material. You should be able to release the recording under the free license you choose (CC-BY-SA-3.0). The sound has to be in the .ogg format.

For your sound bite, presumably this is someone else's work. You may be able to use it under fair use, which has to satisfy the fair use criteria. There has to be a reason to use it which adds value to the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Using a photo without knowing the source

I uploaded two picture files, and although I don't know the original source, both photos were given to me by the subjects (i.e., William Baer emailed me the photo of himself specifically to upload to his wiki page, and Joseph Urbanczyk emailed his photo to Dr. Baer to give to me to put on his wiki page). How do I copyright tag photos like that so they are not deleted? File:Baer1.jpg File:Joseph_Urbanczyk.jpg

Find out from the subjects who holds the copyrights on the photos, and get those people to release them under a free license. Algebraist 13:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I need help figuring out what the license is

I would like to upload the following image: Baton Rouge seal. what is the appropriate license to be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yar2 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

fair use with {{fair use rationale}} and {{non-free logo}} should do the job. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

How can i upload any file to eikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salampadpu (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Once you have made enough edits and are around long enough you can become autoconfirmed, then you will have permission to use special:upload. In your case you can make a request at WP:IFU to ask someone else to do it for you. Or you can upload at WP:Commons by using commons:upload, if you have a free item. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Album Art

How do I correctly add album artwork to an album page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermillion92 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Files. However, note that there should generally only be one album cover image per album page. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

question about copyright

What if a picture is commonly used by a church such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NealAMaxwell.jpg

but the church doesn't want to openly license the picture. Can the picture still be used?

I'm having this situation with two files:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chad_Webb.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kim_B._Clark_PR_photo_high_res.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhiltoniii (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If the person in the picture is dead (as in File:NealAMaxwell.jpg) then it could meet the non-free content criteria, but if they're still alive then the images should be replaceable because someone can just take a new picture of them. For Kim B. Clark in particular we already have a free picture, so it could be replaced by a different free picture, but not by a non-free one (and I've reverted the page to the older version accordingly). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

File:S ali naqi.jpg

what is problem with my work (File:S ali naqi.jpg) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't explained who took the photo or what gives us permission to use it. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

image of devi kaali and durga maata

these images are my own creation. please tell me what i will have to do to for copyrigt tag to these images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamanjee (talk • contribs) 10:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Choose one of the licenses from WP:ICT/FL and add it to the image description pages. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

viewing media message

how do i view a message sent to me from a mobile phone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wezparis (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 May 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. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The image of the White House south facade

Please grand permission to use the image in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG in a power point file for an article for submittal to a journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.69.30 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you read the licensing information on that image, you do not require permission to use it. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is an approval mark copyrighted?

Can I upload an image of a german approval mark for car bulbs?

I have no idea whether this is copyrighted one or the other way.

It is somethings like the "CE" mark found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cemark.svg

As a matter of fact I'm not yet able to upload files, because I'am not an (Auto)confirmed user.

What to do to complete my contribution to the project?

Already asked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Is_an_approval_mark_copyrighted.3F

Mleimann (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have an article on the topic, it would certainly be fine under fair use. If the mark is just a few simple characters the the pd-text-logo probably applies, and it could be uploaded to commons (commons:upload) which you could likely do yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Long quotes on talk pages - copyvio or fair use?

In discussions on how to improve an article on a talk page, is it permissible to post a longer quote (say 5 paragraphs) from a source, along with a citation of that source, and say "this reference (the quoted source) contradicts what the article asserts", and also to have the quote up there so that editors can collaborate on selecting what passages/information from the quote to use in the article? I have seem editors delete quotes from other editors' comments on an article's talk page, saying they were too long and violated copyright policy. This seems a rather over-strict interpretation of copyright policy and law to me - the quotation is attributed, and it is merely being discussed on an internet talk page, not republished for gain.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Five paragraphs from a book would probably be fine. Five paragraphs from a journal article would probably also be fine. Five paragraphs from a newspaper report, a magazine article, or a short web article would probably not be fine. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, does Wikipedia policy specify lengths of quotations relative to length of source, or is it more up to subjective interpretation?Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it's really pretty subjective. The Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines only tell us that "brief quotations" are acceptable, whereas "Excessively long" quotations are not. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

I received a warning about a picture of me that may be erased because of no copyright info. File:shane4.jpg. Maybe that will link to it. It's the only picture currently on my userpage; user:rangermatthias.

This picture is just a photo of me. It's mine, but I don't understand how to tell you guys that. Or prove it. It's me, I can show you my drivers license or something...if I knew where you were :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangermatthias (talk • contribs) 07:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

While you may own the image, though you did not fill in the source (i.e., who took it?), you have not added any copyright tag to the image page to tell us under what copyright licence you are allowing its use. Please sign your posts. ww2censor (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Another question

Please help me with this. What do I seem to be doing wrong? I tried to fill it out properly, but these bots say I haven't provided copyright information properly.  ???http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbits-framed.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not clear to the bot that there was a license there. I added the template with attribution. I cannot tell what version of CC license, but it may be original one. For your future uploads, please always select a license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. A follow-up: if I colourize and add sky etc to a photo taken by another person(ie improve it, creating a new image) do I have to seek the permission of the copyright holder before publishing it on the net or in a publication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.165.47 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you would need permission (unless it's released under an open license, such as CC-BY-SA, already), as you would be creating a derivative work of their image. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask the photographer?

Hi there. I want to add an image to an article I'm in the midst of creating. I want to add an image that is on the photographer's Facebook page. Is it enough to just obtain her permission to use the image and then say in the image's description that permission has been obtained? Or do I need actual documentation? Also, it won't let me upload a picture saying the file extension doesn't match the MIME type? It's a PNG file, and it says that it accepts PNGS... if you could post back on my talk page, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you!  :) (StringUsername (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Follow the steps at WP:CONSENT Basically Wikipedia would like confirmation from the photographer that they are willing to release the photograph under a free license. Re the filetype, one possibility is that someone has just changed the file extension, rather than actually converting the file. The other is that someone has converted the file to another format and not changed the file extension.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Random question

can i use the photos for my woek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.103.106 (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Does WP:REUSE help?-Andrew c <sup>[talk]</sup> 16:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a picture of a cover of a book

I'm trying to upload a picture of the cover of the book "Evernight" by Claudia Gray and add it to the page "Evernight (series)", but is there anything I need to do before I upload it? It seems like I got a lot of different things to do before uploading it and I don't know which to do first. T torres02 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you list the things you need to do before you upload, and I'll help narrow them down for you :) Or, just click the "upload" link in the toolbox in the left column, and read the instructions and choose the option for a book cover, and fill out the form and choose your file and press upload. You are welcome to post here once you have uploaded the file so we can check to see if you did it correctly. The important parts are choosing a correct copyright or licensing tag, and if the image is non-free (copyrighted) then you need to have a proper fair use rationale, which we have a default one for book covers if they are used in certain ways in articles about the book. Good luck. -Andrew c <sup>[talk]</sup> 17:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Uploading from newspaper

Hello, this image File:Indian airlines 557.png appeared on a local kannada Newspaper dated 23 may 2010. Now this news paper also publishes e-paper. So i copied this image from that page http://www.udayavani.com/epaper/PDF//2010-05-23/Man23051005M.pdf. So now i don't no what copyright tag to put. so anybody help me.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajithrshenoy (talk • contribs) 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. :) Cheers, Theleftorium <sup>(talk)</sup> 14:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use rationale for an image published in a scientific paper.

Hi, I would like to upload an image of the assembly of the genome of the synthetic life form created by Craig Venter and his group for use in the Synthetic Genomics, Craig Venter and Mycoplasma mycoides and any other associated articles. This is an image from a paper in published in Science. The only fair use rationale I can put up for uploading it is the fact that it is a major milestone in science - an image of the first ever synthetically created genome to power a living cell - and therefore would be very important both scientifically and historically. I would like to know if it is possible to upload this image and what fair use rationale I should mention for it. It is a very low resolution image - 854 px × 877 px to be precise. Thanks in advance. Manoj Prajwal (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the diagram, you would have to redraw it. That particular drawing is copyright to the author, but the information in it could be used to draw another diagram illustrating the same information without breaching the author's copyright. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think the diagram itself has any historic value. If you mean one of the photographs of the critter, that might be considered of historic value, and would currently not be capable of replacement by a free version, and so would probably be acceptable under a non free content rationaleElen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do both. --Manoj Prajwal (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Permissions

hi

I received a talk request about the picture I uploaded and I have received the permissions but if you could please let me know the next steps to get the picture approved and I am not sure how to put the picture into the actual posting. If you could please provide some insight I would appreciate it.

Thank you,

Carol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayola830 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:IOWN for guidance on sending permissions to Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots

If I make a screenshot of a software application, then the picture is my property right?

But am I allowed to depict the software which I don't own the rights to? And then upload the screenshot to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamirGunic (talk • contribs) 10:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The picture is a derivative work, so unless the software is free software, reuse of the screenshot requires permission from both you and the author of the software. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright with Picture//Confusion persists..

Hi, an admin notified me that my picture File:2009RockEagle4-HCampCounselors.jpg is in failure of a copyright license. You can view what they said on my talk page. But my confusion is this. My friend sent me the picture to put up on the Georgia 4-H page for summer camp. He is inside the picture and to the best of my knowledge bought the picture.

Does that give him some strange right to still post the picture up through me? I know I know, you're probably thinking you have to have permission by the photographer. Correct me if I'm wrong. I emailed the photographer that took the picture last summer and am waiting for a response from him to use the picture under the CC-BY-SA license. I just wanted to use the picture under Free Use and not get in trouble for any type of copyright infringement. I know how strict Wikipedia is with their licensing rules with copyrighted material. Advice would be helpful. Thanks to whomever reads and addresses this need. Tamer of hope (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While your friend may have bought a copy of this photo that does not confer any copyright to him. The source website you linked to on the file page clearly has a copyright notice on the bottom of its home page and that photographer most likely owns the copyright though they might have sold their copyright to the school when contracted to take the photos. Either way, you have not evidence that the copyright owner has given their permission to use the image. If you make contact with the photographer and they tell you they will give their permission to use the photo under a free licence you must get them to follow the procedure shown on WP:PERMISSION. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Question

I was just wondering if someone could double check the image I uploaded and make sure it has the correct copyright information and that it won't be taken down. The image is: File:Finish-SprintforSight-Large.jpg

I would really appreciate it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshbdork (talk • contribs) 16:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks good to me, if you took the photo and own the copyright then you can release it under whatever license you want. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alaotra Grebe is extinct

The Alaotra Grebe was confirmed yesterday to be extinct, so there is no longer a possibility of taking a picture of the bird and releasing the picture under a free license. There are, however, at least two images of the species:

1. A painting (license unknown, likely copyrighted) by Chris Rose; and
2. A photograph (license unknown, likely copyrighted) by Paul Thompson, which is the only known photograph of the species.

Having read the text of {{Non-free 2D art}}, it appears that the painting may not be used merely to illustrate the topic of the article; rather, there must be "critical commentary" of the artwork itself. Would the photograph qualify for fair use under the {{Non-free historic image}} license? -- Black Falcon <sup>(talk)</sup> 18:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the {{Non-free historic image}} is for similar situations as the {{Non-free 2D art}} tag, only specifically for notable photographs (e.g., File:Vj day kiss.jpg). However, if the fact that it is the only known photograph is discussed, then it would probably qualify. You could also just use the generic {{Non-free fair use in}} template. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about the generic template... Thanks! -- Black Falcon <sup>(talk)</sup> 20:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

de:Datei:Flag_of_Australia_with_Aboriginal_flag_replacing_Union_flag.svg

Can this image be used in en.wikipedia.org? --84.62.209.203 (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It can be uploaded and used here, but only so long as its use meets all 10 of the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and it is appropriately marked as copyrighted per the discussion and sources linked at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Australia with Aboriginal flag replacing Union flag.svg. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Burj Al Arab

Please add images to the article Burj Al Arab! --84.62.209.203 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 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. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Family snapshots

I had the idea of trying to obtain some kind of family snapshot to illustrate the article on Sonnie Hale, of whom, so far as I am aware, there are no unambiguously free-licensed images suitable for Wikipedia use.

However, I find myself very confused by Wikipedia policies on image copyright/consent in this context.

If I could get a photo - and I must emphasise that I don't yet know what the family possess - it would be from at least fifty years ago, and I don't think it's very likely that anyone would know who the original photographer was. If one can assume that it was probably some family member of the older generation (but obviously not the subject himself), would a current descendant be in a position to release the copyright?

And even if WP:CONSENT does apply (I'm not clear that it does), how do I get and submit permission from someone who isn't online? Do I have to scan in a signed letter? And do I have to provide my own legal identity and proof thereof (which I can't do?) Igenlode (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

CONSENT does apply. Copyright passes to the deceased's estate, so beneficiaries of the estate can benefit from the commercial rights etc (as with Peter Pan and Great Ormond Street Hospital), so if deceased Auntie Gertie took the snap, her daughter Cousin Melba could release it PD. Cousin Melba would need to provide something - a scan of a signed letter is acceptable. She would need to provide her full name and contact details on the letter, but you wouldn't need to prove your own real life identity. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

UK government report - uncertain diagram

File:Goldustvolatility.png

The diagram in question

Hi, I used this diagram on the right on an article to make a point about the relative riskiness of gold compared to a benchmark. This is taken from a UK government report that was presented to the House of Commons in 2002. I have no idea where this picture fits into wikipedia copyright use. UK Government works are not public domain (crown copyright). However, there are fair use clauses that apply to such works. --yoctobarryc ⁂ ☎ 18:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming it's copyrightable at all, this isn't eligible for fair-use, since a free alternative could easily be made showing the same data. In fact, using png for graphs is silly anyway, so making a free svg of this would kill two birds with one stone. Algebraist 18:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite. From the original data, not this chart, naturally. We don't want anyone scream "derivative work" at us. - Jarry1250 <sup>[Humorous? Discuss.]</sup> 18:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The report would be Crown Copyright but the data itself can be reused to make a new chart.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

H. M. Bateman in Life

I am trying to figure out if this image should be considered as copyright free. It consists of a public domain image (published in the US in 1920) with a LIFE Magazine watermark added on. It's marked as "For personal non-commercial use only" though this would be a moot point if the image is PD. Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems very likely to be {{PD-1923}}. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and it's good news but how do I go from "likely" to "can safely upload to Commons and LIFE watermark be damned"? Pichpich (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If it was published first in the US before 1923 then it is public domain and can be uploaded to Commons. Faithful digital reproductions of public domain images which merely add non-copyrighted content (i.e., the LIFE logo) are still public domain (there's even a Commons policy on this subject at commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). Per commons:Commons:Watermark it should be tagged {{watermark}}. There's also some further evidence of public domain "no visible notice of copyright; stated date is 1920" and a PDF which has the picture available with a watermark of "Digitized by Microsoft" instead of "LIFE" here (on the 40th page of the 195MB monstrosity; I'm not sure what resolution it could be extracted at since Adobe's being uncooperative at the moment). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the image from the PDF I mentioned above comes out to a hefty 29.1 megapixel PNG, but apparently Microsoft was using some sort of edge-detection software which means the major lines (and most of the others) are crisp and clear, but some areas are blurred. I can upload the file I've extracted to commons (shrunk to fit below their 12 megapixel cap) if you want to compare and see which quality works better for you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon

I have added a copyright tag to Deepwater_horizon_in_gulf_of_mexico_2004.jpg

File:Deepwater horizon in gulf of mexico 2004.jpg

This image was published by the US dept of the interior. I don't know what else to do to prevent the image from being deleted. There is still a warning of deletion on the file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giorgostr (talk • contribs) 05:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Publication by the US government does not automatically render copyright material in the public domain. Images CREATED by the US government are in the public domain - in this case, the copyright resides with Transocean and the Government only published it - under some kind of licence from Transocean which probably does not place the image in the public domain. Hope this helps.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How to Copyright Images Produced by Municipal Government

I am employee within municipal government in the U.S. We have numerous images that have been taken by staff members over the years that are used widely in various forums to visually illustrate our city. I would like to upload one of these images to a Wikipedia page, but do not know how to license it. These images need only to be attributed to the municipal government as a whole, not to the individual staff member who originally took the photo. These would definitely be considered works-for-hire. The images may be freely distributed. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurorapio (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If the images are truly works for hire, then the copyrights to the images are owned by the municipal government. As such, these images can only be used on the English-language Wikipedia in one of two ways: either by complying with Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free copyrighted content (i.e. only use as permitted by WP:NFCC, include a fair-use rationale on the image description page, and tag it with one of the non-free copyright tags), or, alternatively, you can follow Wikipedia's instructions for requesting permission to use copyrighted material on Wikipedia (i.e. contact an official of the municipal government authorized to make decisions regarding copyright, ask them to consent to license the images under a free license, and forward the consent declaration to OTRS). —RP88 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Public domain? Just want to be sure

Trying to evaluate a DYK—can someone confirm that the license on File:Thomas Darden.jpg (This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.) prevails, despite the copyright notice here? I'm guessing that American Samoa Government can copyright a page, even though it may contain public domain material, but given the prominence of a DYK, just want to be sure.--SPhilbrickT 00:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

While the {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} tag would indeed be the correct tag for a photo portrait taken by a U.S. Navy photographer in the course of his official duties, I don't see any evidence that that photo was made by a Navy photographer -- that fact that the subject of the photo is in the Navy and is pictured wearing his uniform doesn't necessarily mean it was taken by a U.S. Navy photographer. It was probably an official Navy portrait, but plenty of servicemen sit for third-party portraits wearing their dress uniform and I can't see any indication that wasn't the case with this portrait. —RP88 00:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this photograph is his official governor portrait. At the time he held the office, it was a post in the US Navy, and the office was appointed by the Secretary of the Navy. So, even if the image was not taken by a navy man, it was commissioned for the Navy, and was a work-for-hire where the photographer does not own the copyright. That being said, I have removed the image from the article until this discussion is closed. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That all may be true, but it's just supposition. At the very least you need to include that reasoning in the permission section of the image description. Why not contact americansamoa.gov and see if they'll confirm the portrait was taken by a U.S. Government employee? As a side note, in the U.S. the work-for-hire doctrine generally isn't applicable unless the photographer is an employee or signs a written contract agreeing that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. —RP88 03:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Scalper, I notice that you've uploaded a bunch of portraits from americansamoa.gov to Commons, and while many are Naval officers, several (including commons:File:Phelps_Phelps.jpg and commons:File:Richard_Barrett_Lowe.jpg) are not. In the case of those two you've indicated that they're works of the US Dept. of the Interior and American Samoa, respectively. How were you able to determine that the portrait of Phelps Phelps is a photograph taken by a photographer working for the US Dept. of the Interior? Just because Phelps Phelps at one point in his career worked for the US Dept. of the Interior doesn't mean that one of its employees took this photo. In the case of Richard Barrett Lowe, you've attributed the photo to American Samoa, but americansamoa.gov has an explicit claim of copyright and the {{PD-USGov}} tag you've placed on it does not apply to U.S. territories. In fact, most, if not all of the images you've uploaded to Commons that are sourced to americansamoa.gov appear to be problematic, while it seems plausible that they are all public domain, there doesn't appear to be enough information to confirm their PD status. I'd encourage you to contact americansamoa.gov and see if they can provide you with additional details about the sources of these images -- particularly since they're on Commons, which holds images to a higher standard than Wikipedia. —RP88 03:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There was a page I had found on their site that stated that the governor photos were all official portraits. As I said previously, all the Naval governors portraits would be owned by the US Department of the Navy, and the appointed ones would be owned by those who controlled the office at that time: the Department of the Interior. It is not until the governors began to be elected that the modern day Office of the Governor owned the photos or administered the office. Until recently (1978), every governor was an officer of a US federal agency, and the portraits did not belong to the territorial government. I am having a hard time finding that page now, however, since the entire website underwent a major overhaul very recently, and was hard to navigate even before that. I will continue looking for the page that says they are the governor portraits. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if the photo was commissioned for the Federal Government but done by a private photographer, it is very likely not PD, as the Federal Government can acquire copyrights. I've run into that problem with official photographs of Supreme Court justices.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the image is hosted on the commons the above discussion is rather academic and the image should be nominated for deletion there but if it is deleted there you may be able to use it under the fair-use criteria as long as it complies with all 10 non-free content criteria because the subject is dead. ww2censor (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Earth

Can I upload a screen capture from Google Earth to Wikipedia? Djmaschek (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, images created by Google Earth are constructed from satellite imagery licensed by Google, and as such are copyrighted derivatives of the copyrighted satellite imagery licensed by Google. Google allows non-commercial personal use of the images (e.g. on a personal website or blog) as long as the appropriate copyrights and attributions are preserved, but this is not adequate for Wikimedia's free content policy as WP considers "non-commercial use only" images to be non-free. However, you might consider taking a look at NASA's globe software World Wind. Images created with NASA's World Wind use the Blue Marble, Landsat or USGS layer, all of which are a terrain layer in the public domain. You might be able to use this software to produce a suitable image instead of using Google Earth. —RP88 02:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Help!! I need to change the copyright setting of my image

This image File:Bill lucas house.jpg was actually a sketch of a picture for which I have obtained permission to use. I assumed that since I had sketched it, I could authorise it for use in the public domain but I read in the help topics that it is only an adaptation and thus, it still needs to be referenced. Could someone show me how to edit the copyright settings on the page? Or if someone could delete the picture altogether so I could start again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakuramoji (talk • contribs) 09:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

From what did you adapt it? If you simply mean that it's an adaptation of the house itself, and that you were the only one to produce a 2D image, don't worry. If I'm misunderstanding, please clarify a little bit. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I sketched it from a photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakuramoji (talk • contribs) 10:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Photos from Presidential Libraries

I am looking at a photo on an official White House "archives" website. The photo was taken in the White House of a presentation to President Reagan. The URL is > http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/president/holiday/hanukkah/03.html. However, on that White House archive website, the photo is labeled, "courtesy of the Reagan Presidential Library." There are other photos of former presidents on the same site, taken in the White House, but now labeled "courtesy of" their presidential library. I am almost certain that these White House photos are the ones taken by the presidents in question for their libraries. My question is whether these photos can still be treated as official government photos, especially if the "courtesy of" line is included? Or -- once they move from the White House to the presidential library, do they leave the public domain, and permission must be obtained from the Library? NearTheZoo (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If it was taken by the White House photographer or another federal employee in the course of his duties, it's PD no matter what. I would contact the Reagan Presidential Library, emailing them with the URL and ask them if it was taken by the White House photographer. Try to get their catalog number and the name of the photographer and the date it was taken. With that, and sending their affirmative reply to OTRS, you should be good to go. This is what we did for two photographs on the Antonin Scalia article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Great advice! Thanks very, very much! NearTheZoo (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Shared experience makes things easier for everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How to add scanned image of book that is out of print

I have a page for my great grandfather Alfredo Jahn. He wrote two books "Los Aborigenes del Occidente de Venezuela" parts 1 and 2. I own these books. The copyright shows 1973, but he dies in 1940, so I know the books are much older. I scanned the covers of the books and added them as images, linked to his page. But they were removed because of fare use. Not sure how to correct this. I see book covers all over Wikipedia, so I assume I should be able to add is. Can you please help me? The legalize seems very complicated and makes it very difficult to update Wikipedia. Thanks for your time. AlfredoJahn (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know who owns the copyright on the cover of those two books? Usually it is the book publisher, though in some cases it is the artist who designed the cover (in which case you'd normally see an artist credit on the book's copyright page). Assuming you do not own the copyright to the book cover, a scanned image of the copyrighted book cover should only be used in Wikipedia by complying with Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free copyrighted content. Unfortunately, in this case I don't think it will be easy to meet criteria #8 at WP:NFCC, namely "contextual significance." As the Alfredo Jahn article currently stands, non-free images of two of Alfredo Jahn's book covers would be merely decorative, as the article doesn't have any critical commentary about any of his books, much less these particular books. Are these two books particularly noteworthy or otherwise representative of his works? If not, it seems unlikely that you'd be able to modify the article in such a way that you'll be able to draft an appropriate fair-use rationale for scans of his book covers.

However, If you want to be able to use these scans, I think your best approach is to obtain permission from the owner of the copyright for the book covers (as mentioned above, this is probably the publisher) and follow Wikipedia's instructions for requesting permission to use copyrighted material on Wikipedia. Ask the publisher to license the book covers under a free license (i.e. one that allows modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes) and forward the permission to OTRS (see instructions at WP:PERMISSIONS). See WP:CONSENT for an example letter of consent that you should get from the copyright owner (i.e. publisher). —RP88 11:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Screen shots from television

What about screen shots from television? The section "Screenshots" only covers computer software screen shots. With software like BBC iPlayer, you can get a TV programme screen shot that is as good quality as a still digital photo image. Is the copyright of a still captured from (say) a news broadcast by the BBC owned by the BBC or is it public domain for the purpose of Wikipedia? (There are clips from major TV channels/companies being added to YouTube all the time and they are full video, moving pictures with sound, and seemingly freely uploaded there.) Iph (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Images captured from copyrighted television programs, news programming or otherwise, are derivative works of the copyrighted program, and as such are not in the public domain unless the television program itself is in the public domain (which BBC news programming is not). As such, images captured from a BBC news program should only be used on Wikipedia by complying with Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free copyrighted content. In other words, an image captured from a television news program must meet WP:NFCC, include a fair-use rationale and accurate description of the source of the image on the image description page, and be tagged with one of the non-free copyright tags (probably {{Non-free television screenshot}}). —RP88 11:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, they should not be full resolution per the WP:NFCC. NativeForeigner <sup>Talk</sup>/<sub>Contribs</sub> 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo supplied by owner keeps getting deleted. Licensing confusing.

I was supplied a photo owned by the owner for use on Wikipedia and it keeps getting deleted. It says to supply the image link, but if the image keeps getting deleted how am I supposed to do that? The photo was for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Baldesarra The image that was uploaded was File:Lara BaldesarraPhoto350x250.jpg Lara Baldesarra, the subject of the page, owns the photo.

The client is asking what the problem is, and I don't have an answer. Any advise greatly appreciated. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportswriter77 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC) — Sportswriter77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's improperly licensed. You need to have the client release it as CC-BY-SA 3.0. It's impossible to release it as Wikipedia only: the image has to be licensed so that it can be reused by people that reuse content from Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You can see why on the log for your upload. Also if the image was sourced from Lara Baldesarra, did she give you the image or was it on a web page. Either way you actually need a free licence so if you did not take the photo, as seems the case, you need to get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

SportsWriter77, there are still two problems. First, you say Lara Baldesarra owns the photo, but does she own the copyright to the photo? The reason I ask is that generally if one hires a phtotographer to take a portrait the photographer may sell you copies of the photo, but they retain the copyright to the photo. Have you confirmed with Lara Baldesarra that she actually owns the copyright to the photo in question? Under U.S. law copyright can only be transferred by a written document that explicitly assigns the copyright to the new party, so the photographer may well be the copyright holder for this image. Second, you've licensed the File:Lara_BaldesarraPhoto350.jpg photo with {{self}}, which claims that that you, SportsWriter77, are the copyright holder of the image. However, as you indicated above, you did not take the photo yourself, the copyright is either owned by Lara Baldesarra or by the photographer who took the picture of her. Since you are not the copyright holder, that is not the correct permission to indicate. I've modified the image description to indicate the current status (assuming Lara Baldesarra holds the copyright), but you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:PERMISSION if you're going to upload an image that you do not own. —RP88 17:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Josh Klinghoffer

File:Joshklinghoffergnarlsbarkley.jpg does not have any licensing information, and I need it to use the photo in the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, a current featured list candidate. I do not know anything about licensing photographs or media on Wikipedia, and I would appreciate it if a more experienced user in the field would determine the credentials of the photo. Thank you, WereWolf (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to ask the uploader, Sean Master 150, to provide details about the source of that image. Nobody here can do anything without that information. —RP88 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte County Public Schools blocking of YouTube "This site has been blocked" page

I have a file I would like to upload for use in Censorship of YouTube. The file is quite similar to some screenshots already existant in the article, only this one is of a public school block page whereas the others are of the federal government of Turkey. Would permission from the district be needed to upload it, or could it just be uploaded like the Turkish ones? PCHS-NJROTC <sup>(Messages)</sup> 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you believe the image meets WP:NFCC, then you don't need permission, as our use would be under a "fair use" claim. If you want to contact the school and ask if they'd release the image under the terms of a free license, then that's better for sure, as Wikipedia does favor free content, especially if the image doesn't meet NFCC. -Andrew c <sup>[talk]</sup> 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to take a closer look at the image. If it's a screen from a for-profit piece of software, like WebSense, the copyright for the image may belong to them instead of, or in addition to, the school district. (ESkog)<sup>(Talk)</sup> 19:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)