Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/February

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Copyrighted images and copyright notice not allowed on the English Wikipedia?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Binksternet and JAL78 have agreed that a copyright notice does not belong in a caption. Their content dispute is beyond the scope of this forum. —teb728 t c 06:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Will somebody please have a look at this. I added a picture to an article, but it was removed by the user Binksternet with the reason, that "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice"[1] Is this true? I think Binksternet has misunderstood something. Many images on Wikipedia are not in the public domain, but are copyrighted and can be used under a license. If one think that copyright means "do never use this image" then one have misunderstood the situation. Does the English Wikipedia have a policy saying something like "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice"??? --JAL78 (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We do allow copyright images, but the case here is that being a picture of a real-world object that is not a piece of artist work, we can reasonably expect a free replacement can be taken particularly since its used around the world, per WP:NFCC#1. --MASEM (t) 03:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I suspect he misused "copyrighted" to mean "non-free". Free licensed image are acceptable equally with PD. (Some of the helpers on this forum make the same mistake.) —teb728 t c 03:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see the root of the misunderstanding: You added a photo with a copyright notice in the caption. We put copyright notices on file description pages not in captions. (See WP:CREDITS.) The other user removed the whole image, not just the copyright notice. —teb728 t c 04:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The guideline at WP:CREDITS says that no copyright notice should be placed in the article. The larger issue with the image in question is that it is part of a promotional campaign by JAL78 to replace Bösendorfer, Bechstein and other competitor piano images with an image of a Steinway & Sons piano. ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]) I reverted all of the images thus placed because of conflict of interest issues. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
– Yes, the credit does not necessarily need to be on the article page itself – that cannot be required by the copyright holder; having it on the image page is enough by most Wikipedia projects' standards. Binksternet said that copyrighted images are not allowed on Wikipedia, which is false. Binksternet deleted the image – not only the optional byline – and he wrote that "No copyrighted images allowed, no images with requirement for copyright notice".
– Binksternet's accuse of my edits being a "... part of a promotional campaign..." is just an attempt of removing the focus from the case about a misguided Binksternet deleting pictures, because he doesn't understand what "copyright" and "license" mean. And yes, I removed some bad pictures, including pictures of Steinway(!) pianos, and replaced them with this extremely good picture. There is nothing wrong or suspicious about that – it's actually pretty normal to replace pictures when better pictures become available; that is a part of making Wikipedia better, which is an ongoing process. And by the way, be aware that other editors revert Binksternet's edits.example here --JAL78 (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You both need to take your edit war to the talk pages of the articles in question and let uninvolved editors decide which (if any) photos to keep. If you don't, you are likely to be blocked for disruption. With the subject edit of the present section, however, I fail to see why Binksternet objects to a photo of a Steinway D-274 on Steinway D-274. —teb728 t c 06:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-free book cover or public domain?

Regarding a DASHBot notice on my talkpage, as it removed an image from a sandbox article. I took this photo of a set of books published in 1959, but I listed the photo under {{Non-free book cover}} just to be safe. Given that these are new editions, and that the original publication of the books were back in 1908, and are now public domain, does this 1959 edition qualify for any copyright? Before anyone asks, why don't I just use a photo of the 1908 version: because I don't have the 1908 version to hand, and doubt I could afford them, they will be a rare collector's item now, and not bought to sit and flick through for Wiki. That aside, anyone with clearer understanding of book cover copyright law, in relation to new editions, a confirmation of where I stand would be appreciated: public domain or non-free until 2029 for this edition by the publisher? I'm aware the textual content is deemed public domain, so this refers purely to the items pictured. The covers have no design - just plain red, leather bound. The publisher's logo (of a house) is really the only thing we can see on the books themselves. That design on the case is also just a big wrap-around sticker, with a synopsis on the rear panel, but I'm not even sure if it is considered a "cover" or a label. The logo on that label was raised in a "helpme" response, as to whether it was used on the originals, as that would probably render it public domain. To answer that: I don't know, I have only ever seen photos of the various new editions, but am unable to find a photo of a 1908 original. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 15:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a short note about the sticker on the case. It mentions the introduction by Bell Irvin Wiley. As Wiley was born in 1906, it is unlikely that he wrote an introduction for the 1908 edition. Therefore, the sticker is about the 1959 edition. However, it is possible that its general design could have been reused from the 1908 edition. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it isn't unlikely, I already know he only wrote the 1959 intro, and someone else wrote another new intro in 1978. But any publisher could add 2 lines of text, under Dyer's credential, to an existing design.. that probably wouldn't extend them copyrights to the entire design any more than the new intro gives them rights to the entire book, right? But we don't know if they did that or not. Either way, I still need to know if the new edition, as pictured, is of a non-free or PD nature? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 17:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me that the picture of the outside of a modern reprint edition does not contribute to any article to an extent sufficient to justify the use of this image. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
How's about someone please address my actual question instead of subjecting the image to scrutiny based on misconceptions and personal beliefs of no relevance.. it just wastes my time. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 21:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Free book covers (which is sadly inactive, but it started in my userspace and I still have it watchlisted). I'm afraid that this book design would indeed be considered copyrightable, even though there isn't that much content. If you can establish that the underlying engraving for the case label was used in the original 1908 publication, then my advice would be to scan or photograph the label alone. I know the spine design seems very minimal, but courts have upheld copyrights for things like that when somebody tries to bring out a book that looks exactly like a publisher's signature spine style. Chick Bowen 01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I have been unable to find a picture of the original single-volume release any where. There were only 4,500 copies, and it seems no one has ever taken a picture on one, only newer editions are shown. I don't think, going by a description, the original had any design or logo on the cover, so the case must have been produced especially for the 1959 edition, to house the set. No worries.. thanks again. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 01:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly Unfree Media

  Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am attempting to work with my local Transit Agency to get a set of images for specific stations that are currently listed as needing a photo. I would like to get a consultation regarding the viability of this section in the context of uploading the photos. Is the Use Policy compatible with the "free" portion and therefore able to be uploaded to Commons, compatible with the Fair Use policy, or should not be uploaded with the current Use Policy? I have not yet uploaded these images as I want to ensure the copyright/licence is acceptable before uploading. If I have asked at the wrong place please let me know where I should take it. I have already Come from WP:Copyright Problems. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If they are prepared to give a blanket permission for any purpose then there shouldn't be a problem. But as their terms read (particularly this bit: Permission to download, reproduce, use and distribute DART images for commercial purposes, other than news reporting as described above, must be requested from DART in writing) they are not totally free because permission would be required for every commercial use. I don't think that is compatible with Commons licensing requirements. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
That's what I was afraid of. I guess the long form "This image for this page" request for permission to the agency will have to be the solution with a side order of OTRS notification is the way to stay out of trouble. If any other copyright image workers have suggestions I'll work with them. Hasteur (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks like your best solution will be to get yourself down to the stations that need photos, take you own images and release them under a free licence, then preferable upload them to the commons. I very much think that any request will not allow their images to be freely licenced as we require. ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that per the security policy that DART police have, individual photographers are not allowed to photograph the stations or trains for terrorism concerns. Since I've been informed of said policy I've desisted taking personal photographs of the stations. I'll try to get them to go free, but I'm sure they'll be willing to go to the level of non-free. Hasteur (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Permission to take photos is an issue between you and whoever controls the locations or the owner and in no way prevents you from releasing any images you do take freely if you can take them. I sympathise with your problem. ww2censor (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You say, "I'm sure they'll be willing to go to the level of non-free." That may be alright with them, but it would not be alright with Wikipedia: Any non-free image could be replaced by a free image that could be created; so its use would be against Wikipedia's non-free content policy. —teb728 t c 01:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a good read with respect to illegal and misguided restrictions on the rights of photographers, though I am, of course, not proffering any legal advice. – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OP back, just wante to let everyone know that I got a special permission grant to take photos from publicly accessible areas from the Media Relations department. As I'm taking the photo I can go full out commons licence and share the photos. I consider the issue now closed Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning image

File:Snakewheel.png was uploaded in 2007 as pd-self (self created) where it existed unmolested for several years, until recently were the licence was changed to a non free/fair use licence [15]. Previously the image was only used in userspace. Now, would the image qualify for pd-self? Even if the file is self made it's still a recreation of copyrighted logo, that should pass the threshold of originality. If not, then can user made images be used as fair use images? Яehevkor ✉ 00:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the book and it is not the same, and possibly not close enough to retain copyright. In the original, the snake head has more detail and is longer, the snake crosses the wheel on the other side, the snake is fatter, the wheel has a 3 dimensional look, looking down on top slightly. So whether this is a derivative (possible) or a creation that somewhat resembles the book symbol(possible). The book states that the snake wheel symbol is a trademark. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Spill

I wish to upload and use this image of Daniel Spill to give an illustration of him for his article. I believe this image is now public domain as the subject died in the 1880s but I don't know any details of when the picture was taken or who the author was. Is it OK to tag it as public domain without any of these details ? cheers. Mattg82 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You will need to find out when and where it was first published as it may still be in copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

copyright and tagging issues noted on my User talk page

Hello,

These questions are related to issues brought up on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jgrossnas

With regard to the Entry Logo file- that must have been an accidental upload. I didn't intend to include that on Wikipedia.

Please detail on which Wiki page and which section of it the Copyright problem occurred so that I can address this.

For the DavidYarnold-thumbnail.jpg picture in question, that can now be deleted and removed from the Wiki database. I have a better, larger version of the photo here that I'd prefer to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DavidYarnold.jpg

Thanks for your help, Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgrossnas (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

On 3 March 2010 you uploaded File:Entry logo.jpg without a copyright tag and added it to National Audubon Society. It is still used in the article. The warning was added to your talk page on 24 March 2010. On 29 March 2010 you added a tag on the file description page, ‎File:Entry logo.jpg, which is all you needed to do for this image.
File:DavidYarnold-thumbnail.jpg has no copyright tag, and it will be deleted unless one is added, which apparently is OK with you. Does that answer your questions. —teb728 Ⓣ Ⓒ 07:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
It could be more complicated. Versions of this photo (original or retouched) have been published on Audubon websites and on Yarnold's faceboook page. The original appears to have been taken in 2010 in Mexico [16], [17] or [18]. The facebook version [19] looks like it was retouched to remove the background. Those published versions do not seem to mention the author's name. The version uploaded to Commons looks further retouched to remove a hand and part of a head in the foreground of the subject's shirt, and to boost its size. In such circumstances, the Commons policy normally requires that the uploader sends a mail through OTRS to verifiably confirm not only that he owns the copyright on the derivative but that he owns the copyright on the original or was authorized to use it for creating a free derivative. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-free photo of Olivia Hack

Is she qualified under WP:NFC to have a non-free image of herself in either Star Trek Generations or The Brady Bunch (film)? --George Ho (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand: How do you think the use of a non-free image might significantly increase reader understanding of the article? —teb728 Ⓣ Ⓒ 06:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Is she most likely recognized as "Cindy Brady" from Brady Bunch movies? Well, no one recognizes this person, yet these movie audiences may recognize her as "Cindy Brady". An image may merely identify Olivia Hack as Cindy Brady with the hairstyle, her age, and the '70 dress. I will put an image into her filmography section if approved; what do you think? Look at Leonard Nimoy: it has a non-free image of Spock. --George Ho (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I read her resume in IMDB. Her last on-screen appearance was 2005 or 2006. I would consider her on-screen career retired, but she continues her voice acting. --George Ho (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... having trouble reading the copyright documents

Could you please help? I have two photos I wish to add to my page, first one is a photo taken by me of the Church, taken January 2012. The second photo I belive was taken of the Church around 1877 and was given to us to use as required. Which copyright tags do I use? Thank you in advance. Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katemulholland (talk • contribs) 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you took the contemporary photo entirely yourself, you can choose any of the license tags at WP:ICT/FL. I recommend {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} unless you prefer something else. For the old photo use {{PD-Australia}} and provide whatever information you have about source and author.
While I am looking at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/St Dominic's Parish Melton: You seem to have copied the draft article from another website. While theoretically you might get a license to use the copy, doing so would just lead to other problems. Instead you should rewrite the article based on coverage in published reliable sources, providing verification of the content by references to those sources. —teb728 t c 06:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The AFC draft is a clear and obvious copyvio and I have tagged it for speedy deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo from NPS site

  Done

While reviewing a CCI, I see this edit adding this image File:CampDissapointmentB.jpg. The licensing indicates it is PD because it is the work of an NPS employee.

Perusing past discussions, I see that one cannot conclude automatically that any image on an NPS site is pd, so I want to make sure this one is OK. At the source, the caption states Photo from National Historic Landmarks collection. Can we conclude from this that it is taken by an NPS employee and therefore pd?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it at https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NHLS/66000434_photos Marked NPS in the photog spot. Public Domain. Smallbones (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Rom Landau.jpg

Can someone kindly assist re an image of Rom Landau I have uploaded? I would like to incorporate it in the Rom Landau article, but don’t quite know how to achieve this, or indeed if the image can be used on this media. Thanks. --Stephen Castro (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Done in this edit. Note however that the image page is lacking an appropriate copyright tag. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. --Stephen Castro (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Jets to Zurich.jpg

I was told the image has no source, I got it off Facebook from the band's official page which they are happy for people to do. If I can be shown how to change the image's source I can correct this.

Imperious2780 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

Facebook images from band webpages are usually copyright to someone and without any specific permission or evidence the image is freely licenced we cannot accept it. You are welcome to ask the band to donate a freely licenced image for use here, if they wish. In that case get them to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Videos

Is there a way to download a Wikipedia video file and use it as an object in a PowerPoint slide presentation? My specific interest is the NASA video showing the Aurora Borealis from the International Space Station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.213.210 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Clicking on the video will take you to its file description page. If the video was created by NASA, there should a statement, “This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA.” This means that you may use the video. If you right click on the video, your browser will give you a menu including an option to save the video to your hard drive. —teb728 t c 22:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Going to the Sun Mountain 1932.jpg Second review requested

  Done In view of recent events, I would appreciate it if someone would do a second review of the pd status of File:Going to the Sun Mountain 1932.jpg. If this isn't the right place to make this request, please let me know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly the image is hosted on the commons so this is not really the place to discuss its status. Second the copyright status was reviewed back in May 2010 and found to be good. Lastly, having looked at the source, it does appears to be a National Parks Service image as it is attributed specifically to the NPS, so is PD per all other US government images. ww2censor (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The editor who reviewed it is now the subject of multiple CCI investigation because of copyright violations, which is why I am requesting a second opinion, and not accepting the 2010 opinion. Your point that it is on Commons is a good one, I'll see if I can figure out where to ask about it there. I do see the attribution to NPS, so that may be sufficient, but I read this discussion about photos on NPS sites, in which the editor is trying to make the argument that they are Ok to use, clearly implying that there is some question (and I was unable to determine what consensus, if any, was reached). I also read this discussion abut an image found on an NPS site, where the discussion closes with I've tagged it for speedy delete on Commons, so I want to be careful about what is and is not acceptable. I think the distinction is that in the case of the photo that was deleted, while it appeared on an NPS site, it was captioned Courtesy of AP/ Wide World Photos therefore not considered NPS generated, while the Going to the Sun photo is specifically captioned with (National Park Service) Is it fair to assume that the caption indicates that it was NPS generated?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have to assume some good faith that the attribution given in this instance is proper. This issue has come up with NASA images too where NASA specifically states some images are not theirs and you will find those images attributed to external photographers/organisations. We have to assume these governmental organisation have some clue as to what is theirs and what is not, unless there are red flags indicating otherwise, such as credibly finding them elsewhere attributed to someone else. ww2censor (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
NR nominations are just about always submitted by non-government people, but we have no reason to believe that an unattributed photo the the NPS website is privately created. This should be quite safe. Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploading Public Domain Images to Wiki Commons

I've been told that to insert images in an AFC I must first upload the images to Wiki Commons. The images are sourced from the Library of Congress, and in the public domain. Having difficulty finding where and how to start...can anyone help or tell me where to go within Wiki's website? I am a relatively new user. Thank you.

Navigator42 (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there actually any point in uploading images as the article you are trying to write Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Washington Map Society appears to be for a non-notable organisation? You can however contribute public domain image to the commons here. ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be further editing(soon)our AFC for resubmission. I will have some new support for notability. It is our desire to submit a comprehensive revision, including images.

Navigator42 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question — go to http://commons.wikimedia.org for the Wikimedia Commons, or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:upload for the page where you can upload images. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

cc-by-nc derivative relicensing question

There is a picture on flickr licensed with cc-by-nc. And this means we can't use it given its licensing. Now, what if I were to take it and make a derivative work from it, and license that using a compatible license (e.g. cc-by-sa). It would seem that, without knowing much about cc licenses, since since the author didn't include the sa or "share alike" attribute, that I would be free to license the derivative work however I pleased, as long as I gave the original author credit and (myself) didn't use it for commercial purposes. Can you do this? Can you make a derivative work of a cc-by-nc licensed image and then license that under a less restrictive license? Thanks jheiv talk contribs 08:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to also point out that I've reached out to the original author to ask them to relicense it or provide permission but have gotten no response.jheiv talk contribs 08:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I originally tagged this one, and I just looked up the legal bits - Section 4b of http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
I think that stops you changing it from NC to SA even if it's a derivative.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 13:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I've found something useful - http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work.3F - chart about 2/3rd down page - a derivative of a BY-NC image can only be relicensed as BY-NC or BY-NC-ND or BY-NC-SA.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

1850 map of Maryland by J. C. Sidney

Hi,

Earlier today I uploaded three images that consisted of sections of an 1850 map of Maryland by J. C. Sidney. I annotated the maps to highlight the location of certain roads on the maps; otherwise the map sections were unchanged from the original. Given its age (> 150 years old), I believe that the map (i.e., the sections I have scanned) may be used freely in Wikipedia articles. Please correct me if I am wrong. At any rate, subsequent to uploading the map files to Wikipedia, I uploaded them to Wikipedia Commons, where I have made use of them in the article "Old Harford Road." Please forgive me for having uploaded the files to Wikipedia; it was a mistake.

Here are the files names:

Many thanks for you assistance, Sincerely, accas1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accas1 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted all three for you. For future note to request deletion of items only you have edited is to add {{db-G7}} to the top of the page ( = where the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion in good faith)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response and fix! accas1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.147.62 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Where to check rules on photos of buildings

Where do I check to determine if I can upload a picture of a building taken in the United States from public property? RJFJR (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You're looking for "Freedom of Panorama", which is spelled out at Commons. Photos of US buildings taken from public property are not protected by copyright and thus can be uploaded as a free image (assuming you took the photo and are willing it license it as such ) over at Commons. --MASEM (t) 16:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
That's it. Thank you for the swift response. RJFJR (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Photos of US buildings taken from public property are not protected by copyright EXCEPT for the photographer's own copyright over the images; the buildings themselves don't affect the copyright status of the image. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Question about 1916 photograph from France

File:Fonds VDSA 6135.jpg

I have responded to commands from the "Imagebot," but I am not 100% sure I have done the right thing.

This photograph was supplied by the owner in France (a local history organization) specifically for the purpose of illustrating the article on Gustave Rives. The photograph dates from 1916 and should be out of copyright. The building in the photograph, by the way, no longer exists.

I inserted the code {{PD-US-1923-abroad|pdsource=yes}} under "Description," but there is still a notice to the effect that "This image does not have a copyright tag."

What additional information or permission is required to satisfy the requirements?

Thanks,

Pcampsie

In order to claim pd-us-abroad, it has to be demonstrated that the photograph was PUBLISHED prior to 1923. The date the photograph was taken is not relevant. What is needed is when the phoitograph was first published. Nigel Ish (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
And uploading it to the commons without the appropriate country tag and evidence of publication does not work either. We really need more accurate information. ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
It could be used under fair use on en Wikipedia too, due to the building no longer standing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The reason it still has the "This image does not have a copyright tag" notice is that you didn't delete the notice when you added the copyright tag. —teb728 t c 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing an image

My company updated its logo and would like to change the image on the Wikipedia page to reflect that change. How can I go about changing the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgStarComm (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The best way would be to upload the new logo and then add it to the article. Whether the old one is deleted depends on whether the logo is eligible for copyright or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:KCAL-TV Logo.png

Is this image eligible for copyrights, regardless of typeface? --George Ho (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say it's probably PD-ineligible, but IANAL. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Tang_type-96.jpg

Could someone take a look at this file? The uploader (who is no longer active) claims it's his own work, and I can't disprove that. However, a) it has what appears to be a watermark in Chinese, and b) I found it because I was going through the uploader's contributions after finding a copy-paste from an external site. I think this image isn't his, and I could be completely wrong, but I'd like a second opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tineye finds a copy at http://www.takungpao.com/news/07/07/24/ZM-770071.htm (but not there now) and at 512 pixels wide, whereas this is bigger. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Google find several other copies mostly in forums. ww2censor (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Image from me Rejected.

I uploaded an Image but it's rejected, and they say I need some sort of license or template or something like that and I didn't understand a word. Can you please assist me on how to obtain a license to upload images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcelonafan1999 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean File:Ronaldo2012madridhomekit.jpg which has neither a proper source link and nor a copyright tag. Google found it for you on an internet webpage, but you don't tell us where, so you just copied it, uploaded it and did not prove to us that it is freely licenced. The majority of internet images are copyright to someone and unless you can show the copyright holder has released the image under a free licence that we accept, we can't use it. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia-logo.svg

Curious: how does this logo meet the criterion for copyright as defined here? Specifically,

"Lastly, a logo is not eligible for copyright if it consists entirely of simple geometric shapes."

Best, Weatherman1126 (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

See discussion in also Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:Wikimedia-logo.svg. --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do museums hold the copyright of head-on photographs of two-dimensional reliefs or carvings?

Museums typically license their photographs of two-dimensional reliefs or carvings such as the image below. Can it be argued that such a photograph belongs to the Public Domain?

File:Aten_disk.jpg

Commons policy on this is explained at commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. – ukexpat (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
We follow commons policy, and they specifically call out coins as 3D art that fails to fall into the PD-Art allowance. As this is a carving/relief structure, the same concept applies, so if this is a photo that a museum has licensed, then we cannot call it public domain. --MASEM (t) 19:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Rationale stuff?

I uploaded this file, and a user left a message on my talk page saying that the rationale I put was unacceptable. It had been used for a DVD cover of another movie too, though, so I'm not really sure what to do. Help, please? Fireblazex3 (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you use a {{Non-free image rationale}} template with as much detail as possible. That will present the rationale in a standard format. – ukexpat (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It is not used on any articles. (Did you intend to use it on Tere Ghar Ke Samne?) A non-free file cannot be hosted on Wikipedia unless it is used on an article. And there must be a non-free use rationale for each article that (among other things) names the article and explains how the use significantly increases reader understanding of the article. What rationale you have provided doesn't do either. —teb728 t c 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Using a friend's images

Having completed a successful project for my local railway museum on the closed railway lines in Scotland I thought it could be of interest to produce a similar display for Wikipedia users. Some of this has already been done but many of the articles could be improved. It makes the pages much more interesting if they have images to go along with the text. I have a friend who has a large collection of suitable photos. He is more than happy for these to be used on Wikipedia and the wider on line world. I have struggled to find out how to do this but eventually found the declaration of consent form which can be completed and e mailed. Does he have to send this or can I do it on his behalf? (He is not computer literate) Does he / me have to complete this form for every image used (there could eventually be hundreds) Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated. I am fairly new to this and am finding writing for Wikipedia a real challenge. To date I have been experimenting with my sand box. Alanyoung2154 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming he took these pictures himself? Yes, I'm afraid he has to do it; we're not allowed to take your word for it that he's okay with this. And yes, each image must be individually licensed, as each one is individually copyrighted. Sorry! --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Assuming he's the copyright holder and the images haven't been published elsewhere, he could upload the images to Commons himself as well. Probably a bit simpler than sending dozens of OTRS emails and then having you upload them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

category for uploading permission for photograph

I have a letter from the woman who took a series of pictures of me for my use (for which I paid a fee). She gave me a letter stating I could use all pictures in any manner I deemed necessary. I do not understand all of the categories on this section so do not know how to categorize the permission I have or what form I use to upload my picture to my article. Carl O Helvie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl O. Helvie (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • So it appears you had a professional take some photos but because it was a work for hire you own the copyright and may release them under any licence you desire. Of course we only accept freely licenced images so that what you much choose if you want to use them here. Consult WP:TAGS to choose an appropriate copyright tag of which a Creative Commons licence is most likely the best for you. ww2censor (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Help With Copyright Info

I was wondering if [this] image (it's the second one with the guy with a broken nose) is ok to use in my article that I am writing. If not, I need information on how to get permission to use it. Thatemooverthere (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The content at your link has changed since you posted; so I can't see the photo any more. The subject is a living person, right? If so the photo would have to be licensed under a free license if we are to use it; permission to use it only on Wikipedia is not enough. Most stuff you find on the internet is not free licensed. In order to get permission you have to find out who the photographer is and then ask him for permission as described at WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 07:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Stamps

I need to know if I can upload an image of a stamp that was produced by China in 1988. I am aware that I can upload American stamps: are there any other countries whose stamps I can upload without violating copyright? If so, where can I find the information?Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright in China lasts 50 years; so a 1988 stamp could be used only under the restrictions of WP:NFCC. (U.S. postage stamps produced in 1978 or later are under the same restrictions.) If the use conforms, tag it with {{non-free stamp}}, and use {{subst:stamp rationale}} for the non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 10:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
In most instances non-free stamps may only be used in stamp articles per WP:NFC#Images #3 unless there is sourced critical commentary about the stamp but just using it to show the subject is not allowed. Many such uses have been deleted. Also see Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. ww2censor (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
In my case, that means effectively "no". Thanks, anyways. Your advice was very insightful.Ferox Seneca (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

how to upload pictures on wikipedia?

sir i wanted to know that how to upload photos or pictures on wikipedia while writing an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepak dattreya shenoy (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See Help:Files. —teb728 t c 09:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Funweareyoung.jpg

Can you guys please help find the licensing for the image, I really don't know where else to find it as I already put all the information I could possibly find.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raveonforever (talk • contribs) 22:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I added the appropriate {{non-free album cover}} copyright tag to the image. A bot will reduce the size automatically to comply with the WP:NFCC criteria. ww2censor (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

IMage uploaded to Mendocino Music Festival

I uploaded a photo with permission from the photographer. His credit is embedded in the photo and that is why it is ok with him if I use it on our wikipedia page. Is that ok or do I need something else? Thanks much Andria Richey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendokitties (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to be acceptable File:Mendocino-MF-tent-hirez-3041a-NWilsonPhotoCom.jpg would have to be licensed under a free license, which grants permission for modifications like the removal of the watermark. Permission for use only on Wikipedia or only unmodified is not acceptable. If that is acceptable to the photographer, handle the permission as described in WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 02:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proper licence format

I've been advised you need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images which I uploaded. How do I respond? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTBoughner (talk • contribs) 22:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I presume you mean the image File:CherryPointView.jpg. Usually photographers will add the copyright template {{PD-self}} or {{Attribution}} to their images, though there are other choices which must be freely licenced and more info can be found at WP:TAGS. Copy the template with both pairs of curly brackets and do not use the code you see in the edit view. Also, fill in the missing details of the information template I added to the image file. ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reuse of images

How can I copy images from Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.91.3 (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Follow the instructions here. Let us know if they are unclear. Superm401 - Talk 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

is this image okay to use? ....

im editing the Denton Music section I was wondering if it was okay to use this image from the internet... http://forthebeat.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/neon-indian.jpg

the only place i find this image is on frontbeat. When there I can't find any information as to who took this image or if its free use under public domain. Please let me know if its appropriate or not or what I need to do to get it legit.

thnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chekitoutbro (talk • contribs) 00:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you found the image used on some page on the web, that page might give some indication of the license status--or at least what copyright owner to ask for a free license. A naked jpg gives no clue--not even what the image shows or how it might be used. —teb728 t c 06:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Photo from my facebook account

I uploaded a photo from my facebook account. A friend tagged me with his photo. The photo then was automatically added to my (facebook) photo album collections. Does this photo needs permission from facebook to be released?

Coek (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which photo are you asking about? File:Amado Benito, Jr. in Singapore.jpg? —teb728 t c 05:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Image from a book at Project Guttenberg

I would like to use an image, a plan of Fountains Abbey, from this book. Is it OK to upload it from the UK? If so, which copyright tag should be used, please? Thanks.--Harkey (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In UK anonymous or corportate published pictures and books over 70 years old are in public domain. Also if this was published in US it is pre 1923 and also public domain. See or use template:PD-UK and put this to commons. It would have entered public domain prior to 1996 so that issue does not apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help.--Harkey (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent Photos to Concordia Choir

Our recent photos, including the South Korea picture, Christmas Concert 2009 picture and Paul J. Christiansen photo are all owned by the Concordia College department of music in cooperation with the Concordia Department of Communications, Sheldon Green. We would love to keep these photos on Wikipedia and think they add a non-biased and accurate portrayal of the choir and its recent endeavors. Please let me know how I can best accomodate your copywrite needs. We're more than happy to provide you with any information necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalieman11 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are authorised to donate images to Wikipedia, you should read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and follow the procedures found there. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. However, because you appear to be involved or employed by the organisation in question, for editing purposes, you should be fully aware of our guidelines on conflict of interest. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Birth Cerificate of Marilyn Monroe

Is this image still copyrighted: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-Marilyn-Monroe-AP-wire-photo-birth-certificate-/180815059351?_trksid=p5197.m7&_trkparms=algo%3DLVI%26itu%3DUCI%26otn%3D5%26po%3DLVI%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D6329900168394764326 --George Ho (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm not up on the state law but I suspect {{PD-CAGov}} applies. ww2censor (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Science of Life Studies Logo big.jpg

An OTRS email has been sent by SOLS247 for this logo to verify a GFDL license. However, the logo is much too simple to be eligible for copyright and is clearly a case of {{PD-textlogo}}. I have already notified the uploader but we might want to change the license to public domain right now. If they hadn't sent an OTRS mail I'd have changed the license myself already but I was wondering how to proceed here. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I added that PD-textlogo OTRS permission may be useful in other countries where nothing is too simple for copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering about removing the GFDL license but you've got a point there. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking permission

Hello,

I'd like to upload an image to my article on wiki. I'd like to use the photograph of the subject that appears on her twitter account. Is it alright for me to request a copy of the same or another photo from the subject along with the relevant permissions for free use ? Wikita sss (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:PERMISSIONS. – ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploading a Picture from NFL.com

If I wanted to upload a picture from there like this 1 from example: http://prod.static.jets.clubs.nfl.com/assets/images/imported/NYJ/photos/clubimages/2012/01-January/124729099_10--nfl_medium_540_360.jpg

How exactly how I go by doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjryb (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a copyright question board, the first step is to find out who owns the copyright and whether it has been released under a free license. Look at the page where the image appears and it may well say all rights reserved. Normally we cannot upload pictures that are found on the web, because their copyright is owned by someone or a company, and rights have not been released. We would need written evidence of any of this.
If however you did find that the image had a caption that said public domain or CC-BY-SA-3.0, then we could take a copy. One way would be to right click the image pick the option to save to your computer. Then at Commons:commons:upload pick the options taht say from somewhere else, then select the file, and answer the questions that appear as you progress. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
A higher resolution of the same image is found at http://bleacherreport.com/gallery/Dallas+Cowboys+v+New+York+Jets#page/77 and is clearly attributed to Getty Images, so sorry but no we you may not upload it because it is copyright and Getty Images will not release their images under free licences for us to use. ww2censor (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple and more complex logos of TV stations from Los Angeles

Simple
Unknown
Complex

Are these above images eligible for copyright? --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What, no replies already? Is this title not easy to browse nowadays? --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
How about now? Personally I would say that File:Kvcr 2011.png and File:Ktla2009.png don't pass the test of creative originally so should be freely licenced with the {{PD-textlogo}} template though they should also have a {{trademark}} template attached. This likely also applies to File:KBEH63Tr3s.png but File:KABC-TV Logo.png is not comprised of simple text but complex shading and three dimensional styling of the graphics and certainly of the number 7 even though the abc text is rather simple; it is non-free. ww2censor (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Current KCET logo doesn't look simple, but is it still eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Everything except the KABC logo looks PD-textlogo to me. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Indonesian magazine

Hi, I'm working on an article on the Indonesian magazine Poedjangga Baroe and the Lontar Foundation will provide me with a scan of the cover of a 1937 issue. I am a little unsure of the copyright on the cover though. Would it be considered a photographic work or a work published by a legal body and thus have fallen out of copyright in 1987, or would it require 50 years pma to be PD? Any feedback greatly appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If the Foundation owns the copyright, the simplest route would be for them to provide an appropriate copyright release as described in WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • They do not, they just own several copies of the magazine (the only cover on the internet is of the less influential second series and the magazine itself never had more than 150 subscribers at a time, so it's quite rare). The copyright would presumably be held by the cover artist or the publisher, Pandji Poestaka. The image is now here under a fair-use license. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The image File:Cover Poedjangga Baroe 1937.jpg is currently being properly used as a non-free image in an article about the publication and unless you can verify it is actually freely licenced its use elsewhere is restricted without sourced critical commentary about the cover itself. However, I would assume that Netherlands law applied to the Dutch East indies and that law, according to commons:COM:L#Netherlands, provides for a 70 year copyright period, so with some more investigation you may be able to prove the image is out of copyright and can be used anywhere. ww2censor (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's another possibility that I forgot. If it is under the Dutch law (as a publication from the Dutch East Indies), then it is PD in the Netherlands (assuming no credit was given to the cover designer) but copyrighted in the US because of the Uruguay Round Agreement Act. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • How is it PD in the US and not in its host country. URAA doesn't specify we protect them under our laws if they never applied for a copyright, do they? We DO protect foreign copyrights if they are copyrighted in their home country though. Am I missing something? Buffs (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Announcement: new File Upload Wizard now testing

Hope you folks don't mind me cross-posting this. Regulars of this page might be interested in a new Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard I've been working on. It's meant to help new uploaders with the sourcing/copyright/FUR information in a more user-friendly way.

Please help testing! Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FutPerf, we don't always agree, but I REALLY like where you are going with this. GOOD WORK!!! Would you be open to tweaking the phrasing under "It is too simple to be eligible for copyright"? Buffs (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Chattertocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I uploaded the Chattertocks logo that was sent to me by The Chattertocks from their own website page. I entered 

| image = Chattertocks logo.jpg|thumb|

I got an email from Wiki questioning the copywright. It doesn't have a copyright. I just put in that it was from The Chattertocks. What else do I have to do? ````psantry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psantry (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 February 2012‎ (UTC)

If you have permission from the copyright owner, it must be communicated via the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Or if you don't have a free license from the Chattertocks, tag it {{non-free logo}} and use {{non-free use rationale logo}} for the non-free use rationale. —teb728 t c 19:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
A Fair Use rationale is in order. However, if you can show that they used this logo prior to 1978, it's likely in the Public Domain. Buffs (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot Questions

Hi Guys, First of all, thanks for all your help figuring out copyright questions. I run DASHBot, and I'm not really good about being prompt in replying to messages on my talk page. People often leave messages asking about media copyright (in response to something my bot did, such as removing their image per NFCC#9), and I feel bad when I can't reply promptly. Could I alter the bots message templates to direct further questions about media copyright here? Tim1357 talk 00:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally don't object. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Seems like a great idea, Tim. Buffs (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded Image File

Hi, I uploaded an image File:FloridaMap1600xegamiami.jpg. It is an vintage map from the Library of Congress and should be public domain, right? I included the map in the article Jaega and received an automated response that the image was not properly tagged.

Your help appreciated. How do I go about responding to this situation? How do I tag the image as public domain?

Thanks, Tedbro (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a LOC URL for the image and how old is it, so we can help you? Not all LOC images are in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
ww2censor, the image is from a published book from 1912...and they sourced it to something else in Spain. Ergo, it was published prior to 1923 and is in the public domain. Buffs (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Historical pictures only available at this website and not in PD

I had already e-mailed the website owner and gotten permission to use these photos. They don't exist anywhere else (that I have found) and they are appropriate for my article. I was looking at fair use, historical but I don't know.

When and where were they published if ever, and are there other similar freely licenced images that would, serve the same purpose? Does the website owner have the copyright that he could give you permission? If so he needs to verify that with the OTRS Team per the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
These images seem to be in the WWI era (judging by uniform styles and helmets). I would suspect they are actually PD (no matter what that website says). If you can point me to the specific page where each of these photos appear, I'd be happy to help you nail the proper image tags for WP use. Buffs (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-SA

Hello, I know it is not possible on CommonWikimedia, but can I upload a file that is under CC-BY-NC-SA which is on Flickr ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/lounginglinda/230028812/ ), on WP ? Thanks for the response in advance. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The most likely answer is no, but possibly under fair use if the file and its use satisfies all the 10 criteria. Free means that the material has to be free for commercial use too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If it has not been released under a free licence, then it's free here either; right now it's not a free image. Have you asked the Flickr user if they would change the copyright to a free licence? It appears they are the inheritors of the image, so that might be a way out which would satisfy both us and/or the commons. ww2censor (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Or how about {{non-free with permission}} and/or {{non-free with NC}}? Why is submitting an image as free more encouraged nowadays? --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Help!

Hello, I am unsure about File:AlliedChemicalBuilding1965.jpg. I found it somewhere but I don't know if it had copyright or not. It is from 1965. Somebody500 (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No answers? Somebody500 (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a recent photograph; in liu of evidence, we must assume it's copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. We shouldn't just default to "it's copyrighted" when that's patently absurd. We have the ability to check copyrights of that era and we should do so. Many of them never were copyrighted and no one really cared. I think it's important to credit the photo (as in the source) to "Wired New York". However, even if it is copyrighted, I think it's a valid Fair Use image as it shows what the structure looks like WITHOUT all the advertising on it. I personally never knew it looked like that! Other opinions? Buffs (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Upload an image

I uploaded an image from this site

http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/pebl/index.php?title=PEBL_Perceptual_Vigilance_Task

How do I put it appropriately on my page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandac16 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you have already done it if you are talking about File:Ppvt.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I did but I received an email saying I did not put an appropriate license tag on it and I am not sure how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandac16 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

When uploading, you have to add a licensing tag so we know what kind of image it is and why it should be used on WP (the tags help us sort through the thousands of images uploaded daily). I went ahead and added {{PD-textlogo}} as you image fits its criteria. Please fill in the remaining blocks when you get a chance. If you need additional assistance, please don't hesitate to ask for help either here, my e-mail, or this talk page. Buffs (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

i want to restrict my own images from commercial use, but free for wiki....

I noticed that the options for "my own work" do not include a selection for artwork that I choose to only share with wiki/education sites but disallowing commercial uses (which would be my absolute preference). Why not? HansOg (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to be a freely redistributable work irregardless of the final use. If you are uploading your own work, you can only upload it in a free use manner for all users; otherwise we have to treat it as non-free. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an administrator, but, if you are concerned, why not using {{non-free with permission}} along with a license tag in English Wikipedia? It may be non-free, but it proves that you are an author of a work; {{Non-free with NC}} can help, as well. By the way, {{cc-by-nc}} redirects to {{db-f3}}, a speedy deletion tag. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
now i want to delete the image or change its copyright to non-free with permission. Possible? HansOg (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Not delete... well, if you upload a bigger size, then upload a smaller size in the same page; write a summary and rationale in either template format, like File:Eileen Herlie.jpg, or simple format, like File:Taxi ABC Cast 1978.jpg. Then beg for {{non-free reduced}}. What is the image? --George Ho (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I really don't mind if somebody else makes a profit off my artwork, it's happened before and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then outright theft for profit should be doubly gratifying. File:Dross_onnaTear_sm.jpgHansOg (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
If you are not using that image for any article, then publishing the image as "free to share and derive under attribution" would be all right especially for User and Wikipedia namespaces. However, if you are concerned about copyrights and profits and do not plan to use it in Article namespaces, then please have an image deleted with {{db-g7}}. Under policy, non-free images are not allowed in non-article pages. --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the info!!! HansOg (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed also that your image has already been published online under a non-free license at Dross comics. To be on the safe side we need a confirmation by email that the image may now be used on Wikipedia under the license you've speficied, if you intend to keep it over here. Please send a mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and then put a text string {{OTRS-pending}} on the image page here on Wikipedia. Thank you, De728631 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Would I have to send this email for every image loaded to commons I desire included on my user page? I've added my wiki username to the metadata on http://dross.com, will this suffice? HansOg (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You can send a collective email for all images you've uploaded to Wikipedia so far. Just list the file names in the email and confirm that you have released them under the current licenses on Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Also I added the {{information}} template to the image but you need to fill out the missing details. However, your wiki user name and the source site are not the same name so someone will likely assume the image is copyright and that you uploaded it without permission and will nominate it for deletion. You should either make it clear on your user page that you are the same person or email your permission to the OTRS Team with the website email following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. The image you uploaded is of a low enough quality that there is little likelihood of anyone being able to make any commercial exploitation from it. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The leading sentence does say this is my personal info and clearly states toward the bottom that http://www.dross.com is my creation. Can you suggest a way to make this more obvious to a casual visitor of the page? Mange Tak! HansOg (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I've added your Wikipedia user name in parentheses after "Dross" in the file information template. De728631 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Logos of cable networks

(*) Active

Simple?
Unknown
Complex?

My apologies, I forgot to write a message. Is any above logo eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that your unknown and complex groups are creative enough to have copyright, and your simple may be too simple for copyright. They all seem to be under fair use. Dates they were created would be useful too so that copyright expiry can be shown later. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You said, "your simple may be too simple for copyright"; does it imply PD-textlogo and trademark? --George Ho (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly that, the logos in the "simple" section above are not copyrightable. De728631 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody stole my image! ....

I found that a user named "Sakawat crsc" stole my image File:Chittagong_kings_edited_by_sakawat_crsc.png He edited it and used it in the English Wikipedia page "Chittagong". I used this image before in group in Facebook. Here's the link:: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2863147052341&set=o.337531552931762&type=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.234.155.94 (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. The image is hosted on Commons, so technically we can't delete it right here, but I have nominated it for deletion over there now; the Commons admins will take care of it. That said, and just as an aside, are you sure you are actually yourself the copyright holder? This seems to be a collage of several photographs, and unless you are the original photographer of each of the components, you likely committed a copyright violation yourself when putting it up on Facebook. (But of course that's of little concern to us as long as you're not trying to use it here on Wikipedia.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

File:PloverCrocodileSymbiosis.jpg

Hi, I've just had a nice surprise - a very swift DYK for my article on Cleaning symbiosis - and a nasty one, a speedy nomination for the long-existing image File:PloverCrocodileSymbiosis.jpg. It actually already had a detailed file description but perhaps as it wasn't in the modern filedesc template it wasn't spotted by some hasty editor. Anyway, I've updated the file description and would be very glad if you could confirm the image is now all right. Thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the statement "copyright laws were created in 1923" is incorrect, the reason is that copyrights from before 1923 have expired. Did Henry Scherren die before 1942? if not then the 70 year statement could be incorrect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll check... yes, Scherren died in 1911 so presumably we could even use a 100 year statement. Have corrected the claim. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Heroes Welcome UK

Hi, I have been trying to upload our Heroes Welcome logo to wikipedia in order to help illustrate what we do. However after a couple of weeks the logo keeps getting removed due to copyright issues. The logo is free to use by all and is also freely downloadable from our website, we do however ask that it is not used for commercial gain. As the senior scheme admin officer I have given. Permission for release to the public domain but that is not enough, any advice would be appricated . Many thanks Fwe506 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The deletion log for File:HWanybroughPDF.pdf and the message on your user talk page indicate the image was deleted because it did not have an “image copyright tag.” All images on Wikipedia must have such a tag, or they will be deleted. Let me tell you about the tags. There are two kinds of images on Wikipedia:
  • Free: These are images the can be reused by anyone for anything including commercial gain. For a free file the tag indicates the specific reason the image is in the public domain or the specific free license that permits anyone to reuse it for anything including commercial gain. If I understand correctly, your organization does not allow the logo’s use for commercial gain; so your logo is not free.
  • Non-free: Any other image is used without the copyright owner’s permission, but it may be used only under Wikipedia’s non-free use policy (which among other thing assures the use is permitted by fair use law). One of the restrictions of this policy is that an image may be used only if the use significantly increases reader understanding of the article—for example the use of a logo to identify an organization as the subject of an article. In this case the tag identifies the category of non-free use. For example a non-free logo would have the {{non-free logo}} tag. In addition to a tag a non-free image must have a non-free use rationale to explain how the use satisfies the policy. For example the rationale for a non-free logo would use {{non-free use rationale logo}}.
I hope this helps. —teb728 t c 04:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
One other thing is that according to your admission above, you are editing on behalf of the organisation and that poses the problem of you having a conflict of interest, so you should be aware of our guidelines on this by reading WP:COI. ww2censor (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Jstar American Flag.jpg

I believe that this image, File:Jstar American Flag.jpg, is {{cc-by-3.0}}. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. Devin Davis (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand: What makes you think it has any permission at all. —teb728 t c 21:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't all images uploaded to Wikipedia have to have a permission/licence? Devin Davis (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes they do, but it has to verifiable not false. The image is claimed to be authored by Allan Amato sourced from Jstar's website and uploaded by User:Jeffreesworld without any verification of it having been released under a free licence. Please prove the claimed {{cc-by-3.0}} licence. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I added that information to save it from deletion but it looks like I've just dug another hole. It says, "Unless a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the image will be deleted..." What would this permission look like? Devin Davis (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The copyright holder would verify the permission they gave by emailing our OTRS Team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OTRS permissions for images on page Viktoras Miliūnas

I have e-mailed the appropriate permissions-commons address with permission granting usage for the file I created ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miliunaskapas.jpg )

The owner has e-mailed the appropriate permissions-commons address with permission granting usage for the files V. MILIŪNAS.jpg, and File:V. MILIŪNAS-4.jpg . ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:V._MILI%C5%AANAS.jpg ) ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:V._MILI%C5%AANAS-4.jpg )

This is all for the article located at: http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktoras_Miliūnas

Can I add these images back to the webpage while this information is reviewed? Or can someone review it delete the Speedy Deletion / Copyright violation tags?

Thank You, Lugan2k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugan2k (talk • contribs) 04:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of images on Edin Osmanović

Hi! The author of the article claims to be a personal acquaintance of the subject and to have taken the two film photographs (File:EdinOsmanovic.jpg, initially uploaded only as a thumbnail, and File:Edin Osmanovic and Obrad Mudrinic Champion.JPG) himself. This led to a conversation at Template:Did you know nominations/Edin Osmanović, which led me to suspect his claims. Am I being overly strict and suspicious and should I assume good faith? For now, I intend to make him remove the images from the article so I can verify the DYK nomination, though I his stated intention is to actually readd the images after the article has been removed from the Main Page, without settling their copyright status. Any assistance and advice appreciated! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 19:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair use of sport uniform images

When doing NFCC 10c enforcement, I often encounter uses of files such as File:NFCN-Uniform-GBoriginal.PNG. These files are tagged as non-free. Is such a tagging for sports uniform images correct? As far as I know, NFCC doesn't deal with trademarks, which seems to be what fair use is claimed for in these cases. Can someone enlighten me? This is important since if the tagging is incorrect, this would mean the files in categories such as Category:Sports uniforms and Category:National Football League uniforms shouldn't be tagged as non-free. Furthermore these files appear as if they are user created images, which means they would be in violation of WP:IUP#User-created images which requires that all user created images must be released under a free license. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think with uniforms, there will be a large mix of copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements depending on a team's logo, etc.; uniforms using only colors and stripes, and text-only logos, are uncopyrightable, while others may have such images that make the uniform copyrighted. Unless there is something I am missing, I would this that if we can mark them free, they should be. (Being trademarked is not a consideration under NFCC)
To the second question, this is an IAR thing. Obviously (on the presumption of free-ness) we'd have the user-created uniform picts that are free, and then we would either use the same style of user-created pics for the copyrighted ones (the user's work being a derivative, but obviously consistent with the rest) or go and try to find a copyrighted version to match. Because the latter is likely not going to happen, I think we can allow for this case here where the user-generated version to create a consistent look across multiple articles with the same visual element but with different licensing is fine, as long as the user is not passing off the copyrighted elements off as their own. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Insert an image into the Herbert Hoover Wiki Bio

Dear Sir, I have come across an image of a young Herbert Hoover, taken in Perth Western Australia in 1898. It appeared on this web site [20] and was attributed by a link to the State Library of Western Australia [21]

I have contacted the Library and they responded with the following thread in reverse order..............


"Good afternoon John

Posting it on Wikipedia is fine, all we ask is that the source is acknowledged.Kind regards


Public Orders Coordinator

E wlmailhtml:../S&C%20Services%20%20Public%20Programs/adam.peterson@slwa.wa.gov.au

From: askus

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:49 PM

To: 'John Lyster'

Cc: askus

Subject: RE: Suggested records from the Dept of Mines, AW (MJ)

Hi John

The photograph in question is located on our website www.slwa.wa.gov.au :

Title 

Herbert Hoover

Imprint 

1898.
Herbert Hoover, 1898

LOCATION 

CALL NO

Online Image 

 000890D

If you wish to order a copy of this image you will need to complete an order form, located on our website under

‘Quicklinks’, ‘Order an image’, ‘Pictorial orders’, ‘Imaging services order form’

Complete all the details, including credit card details to cover $25:00 for the image, and publication details for the Reproduction Permit (no charge).

Forward this order to our pictorial orders email, and allow maximum 15 working days for completion. 

Regards


Library Technician, Client services" 

                        .................................................................

My understanding from these two emails is that I can either purchase the full image for $25 with a "Publication Permit" and then upload this or I can simply upload the thumbnail (23KB) and only need "acknowledge the source". No other copyright issues.

Three questions: 1)Am I correct in my understanding? ie, no copyright issues with simply uploading the thumbnail so long as I cite the source?

2)If I do decide to purchase the full version, is filling in their "Publication Permit" sufficient to cover me for copyright issues, or must I still have them complete the copyright licenses that are elsewhere on the wikipedia web site?

3)How do I go about uploading the image onto the Herbert Hoover Wiki Bio page?

regards, JL

Jlyster (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well any photograph taken that long ago in Australia is public domain, whether or not published, and this is also recognised in the US. As a courtesy and per our sourcing requirement you should certainly say where you got the image from. But {{PD-Australia}} applies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


  • I have just uploaded this image to the Herbert Hoover wiki bio and now there is a comment re needing a copyright tag. I do not understand how to do this...........please help. The owners, the State Library of Western Australia have indicated that there is no copyright on this photo, taken in Perth in 1898, and they are happy for me to upload this with just an acknowledgment only. It is very late here now and I must go to bed so I am happy for this correction to be made by another person if at all possible please. The image was seen her [22] and referenced from here [23]

Jlyster (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Self portrait image

I have my picture in Wikipedia, the link is here. I put the image in my User Page. Then, ImageTaggingBot notified me that the image had wrong copyright and license information. I looked around and ended adding a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0.

Since it is my picture, a portrait of me, and I have released it into the web with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, I am asking here if everything is ok. I do not want the picture to be erased. Thank you. --Forich (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} that you added is what you needed. Every file must have "copyright tag"--that is a good one for you. —teb728 t c 00:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Forich (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Deadlink to original permission for File:Boris-podium.jpg

I've been admonished by Kelly for websites deadlinking their permissions pages again. How are we expected to keep "proof" around from external websites? There's no real point uploading images to Wikipedia anymore and I doubt I'll do it in the future as external website reorganisation is going to kill content.--Sully (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The only sure-fire way is to ask them to e-mail permission as described at WP:CONSENT and the permission will be archived in the OTRS system. – ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Did anyone even try to find the archived pages, both of which can be found at: http://web.archive.org/web/20070313055529/http://www.icheme.org/pr_and_media/awards/awards2005/photos.htm and http://www.icheme.org/pr_and_media/awards/awards2005/photos/jt9v4648.jpg ? Perhaps some editors are just a bit lazy or don't even consider they might find the pages archived online instead of doing a drive-by deletion nomination without even a little further thought. Ok sometimes it's not this easy. ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please help with filling in file info

Hello,

I'm hoping someone can help me. I uploaded a photo to a page a few days ago, and when I did I was having some trouble doing so. Initially there was a request for different kinds of copyright information, but after trying upload that request disappeared. So that information was never filled out.

Now I'm having a horrible time trying to get the information attached to the photo file so that the photo isn't deleted. An editor told me to go to the copyright tags page to select the right category. I went to that page, but there didn't seem to be anyplace to "select" the category (no check boxes or anything like that), just information on what each tags means.

Can someone please tell me how to amend the file info so that the photo is not deleted. Should I just delete it myself and try again? Do you think a fresh start will give me access to the methods of selecting the right tag?

I'm so confused ... I keep trying to respond to the editors' requests, but I honestly don't see how it gets done. And I know Wikipedia has millions of photos on it, so obviously everyone else is figuring it out.

Please help!

Thank you, Tundra14 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you'd explained which photo you were talking about. Do you mean File:David Lichtenstein.jpg? Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs permission to use the photo. Since Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, a “free license” is required: one that permits reuse by anyone for anything. You say Lichtenstein is the copyright owner of the photo: Which specific free license has he explicitly granted? See WP:COPYREQ for how to handle his permission. —teb728 t c 23:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Hoover 1.jpg

  • I have just been asked to correct an image tag for the photo that I have just uploaded to the Herbeert Hoover wiki page, entitled "Hoover 1.jpeg" It is of a young Hoover taken in Perth WA in 1898. The State Library of Western Australia, who own the image, have indicated to me that it is no longer under copyright and that I am free to upload it with an acknowledgment. It is in any case a small 23KB thumbnail version. I do not know what to do and would be happy for you to correcrt this if possible please. It is very late now and I have to go to bed. Jlyster (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I tagged it {{PD-Australia}}. —teb728 t c 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Logo for Studio 2000

Is this eligible for copyrights: http://pic.aebn.net/stream/movie/studios/s20525_i1012_l.jpg --George Ho (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. – ukexpat (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:IUP, an SVG format should make a good derivative non-free image. I don't have tools to establish SVG, so can you or someone else do it for me, please? --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Krone

Hi

How do i get copyright for making this image? File:Countries using the Crown.png $200inaire —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC).

What is the base map you used to create your map? —teb728 t c 23:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Suitable for Commons?

The Oregon State Archives has a gallery of beautiful photos here, sorted by county. I'm not sure if the image use requirements at the bottom of the page mean that the photos are in the public domain. Some of the photos have already been uploaded (see here). Is the licensing okay? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Note the terms of use are different on this page are slightly different from the one linked above. The latter seems to imply that use of the lower-res images only needs a photographer credit. Valfontis (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

magazine cover

Hi,

1 - I am creating a new Wikipedia article about a magazine. 2 - I want to include a cover image of the magazine. 3 - I have secured written permission to use a specific cover image from the magazine's editor. 4 - His is a small magazine business, and the editor/cover creator-designer is the same person. 5 - I have read the info that accompanies the cover image of the magazine called "The Atlantic" at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Atlantic_magazine_cover.png 6 - Can you help me provide the proper proof so that an image once uploaded will not be removed?

Thanks very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E19S24cr (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC) --E19S24cr (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC) added after I read a link that said my question was unsigned.

With the {{non-free magazine cover}} tag on the cover we don't rely on permission. It is used under fair use law; so permission is not required. —teb728 t c 20:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
But if he decides to release it under a free license (which would be awesome but is not expected), we would need proof that he agreed to license it that way. If he chooses to freely license it, permission can be sent to WP:OTRS. If it is not released under a free license, the image may still be removed from the article and/or deleted. Reach Out to the Truth 00:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I misread the post thinking it was about The Atlantic (which is of course not a new article) and its cover image. Now I see they are asking about a cover for a userspace draft of Banjo Newsletter. I agree that it would be great to have a free cover, but permission would have to be a free license—not just permission for use in Wikipedia. Uploading it as a non-free image before publishing the draft was premature, and until the article is published, it is subject to deletion. But if the article is published and is not deleted for lack of notability, a non-free cover used in the infobox would not be at risk of deletion. Rather than worry about the cover, however, the uploader should be concerned with establishing the notability of the subject: if the article is delete, there would be no use for the cover. —teb728 t c 02:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

CC-by permissions

Can you tell me the difference between the cc-by version permissions - ie, cc-by, cc-by-sa-2.5 or cc-by-sa-3.0? As I understand it, they all are attribution sharealike licenses. Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY is not a share-alike license. The SA indicates share-alike. Share-alike is copyleft, meaning that derivitives of CC-BY-SA licensed material must also be licensed as CC-BY-SA. CC-BY does not have that requirement. The difference between 2.5 and 3.0 is mostly wording differences, I believe, but you could compare the text of the 2.5 and 3.0 licenses yourself if you want to be sure. I've never felt the need. Reach Out to the Truth 00:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for this explanation....and what does "unported" mean? LoreMariano (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The "generic", "unported" or "international" CC licenses are the licenses that are not specifically adapted for the law of one particular country. "Ported" licenses would be licenses like CC-by-sa-2.0-France or CC-by-2.5-United States, etc. For more information, see the CC FAQ at the section What are the international (“unported”) Creative Commons licenses, and why does CC offer “ported” licenses?. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:CBS-Milogo.jpg

Is this image eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably not this as it is too simple, just simple text. The jpeg artifacts seem to cover any possible creative content on the "IMPOSSIBLE" word. If there is deatail at higher resolution this may be copyrightable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:CKRA-FM.png

Is this logo eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Silver lock

Why Is The Sliver Lock Still On There because There is No End In Sight This Is Taking So Long And There Is No Super Bowl XLVII Logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.51.152 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The silver lock indicates the article is protected against editing, you will have to tell us what page that is. But in your situation of anonymity you will have to make a request on the talk page to get a change. Are you talking about Super Bowl XLVII which is to be held in 2013? This was protected because of Persistent vandalism, and will not expire till next year. If you know where is there an official logo you can ask for it to be uploaded at WP:IFU. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

image titled Arnold Leibovit.jpg

I am maintaining a number of Wikipedia pages for a friend, Arnold Leibovit, (for those of you who took issue with the terms "maintain" and "friend", yes I am editing his pages to meet Wikipedia guidelines and yes we have an acquaintenance via email only...not exactly a "close" relationship and certainly not a COI) president of a movie production company: Arnold Leibovit Enterprises (ALE). He owns an image of himself taken by a now-unknown videographer who was employed by ALE. The images taken became the property of ALE. This image has already been posted by me and then removed by you due to F11. I submitted an email with a persmssion from the owner ALE, and tagged the image with the OTRS, tag but the image was deleted anyway apparently w/o ever being looked at.

What do I have to do to get thie legitimate image posted permanently on the Arnold Leibovit Wikipedia page? Thank you Recado (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully you will get a response from the OTRS team. The volunteer will get the image back if they can work out what it is. It may be that the copyright holder will have to send the email themselves to prove the claim. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Did the email grant a free license (one that permits reuse by anyone for anything)? Just so that you know, Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

sharing of wiki articles on my website

Hello,

i am creating a website and will need some articles / part of articles from wikipedia for the build up of my website.

my problem is that how to cite wikipedia on my website. i gone through all the copyright articles and so on without great success.

what would help me is an example of a citation or correct me if am wrong from below

wiki article on my website Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers.

source : wikipedia author : Mr X Link : www.wikipedia.org


is it how i should do the citation???

thanks for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zukzex (talk • contribs) 07:29, 24 February 2012‎

You can use this page, and pick the format you like most. Keep in mind that all authors of substantial content MUST be attributed. →Στc. 07:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

3 Newspaper ads-PD-pre 1978?

There are 3 newspaper ads in backlog that appear to be able to be changed to PD-pre 1978. Am not able to view the full page of the paper online, but it looks like the uploader has provided the complete ad, which proves Hershey park did not copyright them. Looking for additional opinon(s). Thanks!

Yeah adverts weren't covered by the newspaper's copyright (Commons:Image_casebook#Advertisements), so these are definitely PD. --Lobo (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much-will get busy on them now! We hope (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting Licensing tags?

Hello, I noticed this file has both a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license tag and a Public Domain tag - how is this possible?

File:SolarSystemAbundances.png

Thanks, OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It appear the derivative image of File:SolarSystemAbundances.jpg was improperly licenced as PD, so I have removed it on the commons image. ww2censor (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Window furniture" of presumably copyrighted graphical user interfaces?

Hopefully this is one that's been discussed plenty before, but I can't find it quickly...

Most graphical user interfaces have "window furniture". For example, it's common to have a(n) X icon to close the window, at either the top right or top left of the window.

If I am taking a screenshot of the contents of the window, and I include the window furniture (so, not just the X, but the scrollbars, the other icons that make up the window, et cetera), and I believe the design of that particular windowing system may be copyrighted (for example, a very recent Mac OS X window), can I use that as a free image, if the contents of the window are the key point of the image? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If the copyrighted part is purely incidental, you may get away with it, but it wopuld be far better to cut it off by cropping to remove doubt. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about Permissions email addresses

I noticed the OTRS info box instructs that permisPermission for File:Our Injustice, Vietnam-lge.jpg and File:Vietnam-lge.jpg was sent by Dorothy Koppelman, the holder of the copyright, to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. sion should be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia. org-is this a different mailbox? The OTRS volunteers have not moved either print to Commons and I am concerned they will be deleted. What can I do to check whether or not the OTRS volunteers need more information? Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Normally, send to permissions-commons for media destined to the Commons. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit and Commons:OTRS. If the images are for Commons, upload them to Commons. Insert the template OTRS pending. Have a look at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard to get an idea of the current OTRS backlog (currently 30 days). If you need to discuss with the OTRS members, you can use that same noticeboard page. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. This is very useful. LoreMariano (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Breach of copyright or not?

I am a teacher and am presently engaged in a multimedia project which I am planning to launch on the internet this year. One section of each module contains a research folder where the user downloads a webpage to complete. Since wikipedia is as a rule the best source for this activity, so almost invariably it is the research reference of choice. Below is an example. Example A is the exercise and Example 2 is the answer sheet:

EXAMPLE A: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_investigators

1. This article defines private investigators, (or otherwise known as ________ ________, ________ ________ or ________ ________ as people who can be ________ to carry out ________.

2. The first detective agency was established in ________ by ________ ________ ________. In ________, the first detective agency was set up in the United Kingdom by ________ ________ ________ and in the US in ________, the ________ ________ ________ ________ was established by ________ ________. He became very well known when he discovered a plot to assassinate ________ ________ who was soon to become the 16th. President of the ________ ________.

EXAMPLE B: 1. This article defines private investigators, (or otherwise known as private eyes, private detectives or enquiry agents as people who can be hired to carry out investigations.

2. The first detective agency was established in 1833 by Eugene Francois Vidocq. In 1852, the first detective agency was set up in the United Kingdom by Charles Frederick Field and in the US in 1850, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency was established by Allan Pinkerton. He became very well known when he discovered a plot to assassinate Abraham Lincoln who was soon to become the 16th. President of the United States.

1. Will the above contravene copyright/conditions of use? 2. Will I require permission from the author who has been paraphrased.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Your's sincerely, John R. Moore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.96.49.6 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is licensed for reuse subject to the terms of the licenses under which it is published. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for details. Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, however, you should be aware that Private investigator could be vandalized while you are trying to use it. —teb728 t c 08:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Public Domain for uploaded image?

Help,

I have uploaded the image File:AU565(synonomous with SkBr3) Cells; 20x Magnification.jpg recently. It was taken from http://cancer.lbl.gov/breastcancer/viewline.php?id=4 The file was recently tagged with "This file is missing evidence of permission."

I assumed it was in the public domain because it is listed under the section "public data" at http://cancer.lbl.gov/data.htm Also, on the main website, a banner states "A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory Operated by the University of California." Federal Government material?

http://www.lbl.gov/Disclaimers.html <- Here is the laboratory's disclaimer.

If this is not sufficient evidence to be considered in to public domain, I would like the file to be deleted immediately until a formal request can be made.

If possible, please respond on my talk page

Thanks, Bcary (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The disclaimer page you cite says, "Materials on our websites not specifically noted otherwise are © 2009 The Regents of the University of California. Requests to reproduce, modify, or distribute materials on our websites should be directed to the page owner. The Regents of the University of California reserve all rights to these materials unless a different license is explicitly designated." —teb728 t c 03:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Use of old postcard images

Does anyone know what the copyright position is on old postcard images made by companies that are now defunct? I know that old stock is sometimes bought over by another company continuing to trade, but that is difficult to trace. Can anyone give advice on whether it is safe to use such images, and how their licence should be marked for Wikipedia purposes? Kim Traynor 11:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You will have to determine which country they were published in, and what date. Is there a photographer or company marked on it? Is there a copyright mark (particularly relevant if this is USA). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Graeme for your reply. The postcards were originally published in the UK. No name of publisher, nor date given. Also no photographer's name nor copyright mark.They were probably on sale in the 1920s. The licence that refers to them being published in the States before 1923 seems the most appropriate choice, only it is unlikely to be techically correct as I assume they were not in fact published there. Kim Traynor 22:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It might seem more appropriate to use {{PD-UK-unknown}} so long as you comply with the specifics of the template regarding the "reasonable enquiry" you have made. ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That's most helpful, thanks. I wouldn't even know the starting-point for enquiring, as I've no handle on who produced the postcards when, but I see the principle involved. Kim Traynor 10:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Here in the USA, you can sometimes date postcards by their postage statement: some have "Place 2¢ stamp here" inscriptions, for example, and you can check the postal rates for when postcards cost 2¢ to send. If your postcards tell you how much postage is required to send them, you can look up the postal rates in a copy of the Stanley Gibbons stamp catalogue, an edition of which should be at your local public library. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:The Guard logo.jpg

Is this image eligible for copyrights? --George Ho (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
What about Canada? --George Ho (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It's too simple; one cannot copyright two words on a monocolor background. Otherwise, you could be sued for reproducing the filename, since that's two words on a monocolor background. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Discovery images

Are File:Mab moon.png and File:Cupid moon.png definitely in the public domain? I'm not certain. (Even if they are not, they could still be used here as fair use since the moons can't be discovered again.) Double sharp (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can show that NASA produced the images then they would be public domain. The circle is too simple to copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The discoverers (Showalter and Lissauer) created these discovery images. I'm not sure if NASA was also involved in creating them. Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Image owned by the subject of the page

I am trying to upload an image of an individual who is the subject of the page. He owns the image. It is of himself.It was taken by a photographer who was employed by the subjects company. The image is in the possession of the subject. He owns it. He paid for it. He has in fact stated that in an email which was sent to you. Yet, you continue to reject the image and remove it. What do I have to do? I obviously do not undertand what you want. Pls enlighten me.Thanks. Recado (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As I asked you in reply to your post above, #image titled Arnold Leibovit.jpg, “Did the email grant a free license (one that permits reuse by anyone for anything)?” If he granted permission for use only on Wikipedia, that would explain it: Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The specific problem with the current version of File:Arnold Leibovit.jpg is that it doesn't have a tag identifying the specific free license which the email grants. —teb728 t c 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is : he did not offer a license for this image. To be hosted on a Wikimedia website, this type of images must be licensed for free use. It's good to know that he's the owner of the copyright, but as such if he doesn't offer a free license for its use, it cannot be hosted on Wikimedia. For details about the mission of Wikimedia and about free licensing, please see the pages Mission statement, Commons:First steps/License selection and Commons:Licensing. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Earlier image of Jack Wrangler

The infobox image is a later appearance of Jack Wrangler. Is uploading an earlier appearance of Jack Wrangler all right under WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The existing infobox image identifying the subject is non-free so replacing it with a different non-free image would be ok, but adding another non-free one would not be ok. However, any free image would trump either non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
In this case, can an earlier image belong to a section of this article? --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
No, as mentioned previously, not unless there would be some critical commentary about the image itself that will be supported by some WP:RS, so it would fail WP:NFCC because its only purpose is to identify the subject, which the replacement image would be doing. ww2censor (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Kodak logo 1987.svg

Is this image eligible for copyrights? The background is yellow; text is simple, and font is simple; shapes are kinda simple. Am I missing something? --George Ho (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

In my view that shows elements of creativity, beyond simple text and color, but I'm not an expert, so interested in the views of others. (My crude test; I wouldn't be able to create this myself in a basic image editor, without some guidance.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, it is just two rounded shapes and some text on a plain yellow background. It should be using {{PD-textlogo}} but you could take it to WP:NFCR for more opinions. ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Under discussion in WP:NFCR. --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2012/February&oldid=1086098810"