Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/March

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

File:Newstraitstimes new.jpg

Is this image eligible for copyrights in Malaysia? --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The only way that it could be copyrighted is if the country allowed people to sue you for reproducing the filename, since there's no difference. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words, File:New Straits Times logo 1965–2011.jpg and File:New Straits Times logo 1965–2011.gif are ineligible in Malaysia? --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I had just another discussion: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:Newstraitstimes new.jpg and File:New Straits Times.png --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Images in Stanley Kubrick

I have seen too many images there and wonder if they meet WP:NFCC. --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

They have been discussed before but most agree that it is appropriate in discussion of Kubrick's assets as a director in the visual medium. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What about license tags? Are they really "historic images" or something more appropiate, like "non-free fair use in"? --George Ho (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright on drawings etc

What do copyrights entail on drawings, paintings, or pictures? Say for example I see a photo, a picture in a book/magazine can i legally draw it free hand and say post it on an art website as my drawing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.164.26 (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give legal opinions. —teb728 t c 10:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is precisely the point of this page — if we all had your response, there would be no point to having this page. The answer to the question is no: if you make a drawing of a picture you find elsewhere, it's a derivative work of that picture. Unless the picture is in the public domain or available under a license that Wikipedia accepts (both of which are very unlikely, unless the picture is very old), you cannot upload it and allow people to do whatever you want to allow them to do with it. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the point of this forum is to answer “copyright-related questions about media … uploaded to Wikipedia.” Your reply would be appropriate if the OP were asking about uploading to Wikipedia, but if you look more closely they are asking about a personal website. For such a website the answer would not be so clear-cut, depending on whether creative elements of the original photo were maintained and on whether fair use was applicable. But we are not allowed to give legal advice. —teb728 t c 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Christmas tree decorations

hello,

I uploaded a CC-BY file from flickr depicting several tree decorations, and one of those depicts Charlie Patton. Now I want to have it cropped and then add the pic into the infobox, but that might be a copyright violation. Now I need your help if this is really correct or not. I want to add a new picture without paying anything :/ (the latest was deleted because the copyright holder requested it on OTRS). Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What image are you referring to? ww2censor (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

See the obscure "might be a copyright violation" link. —teb728 t c 21:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In what way is it "obscure"? Regards.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 10:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I called it obscure because it was not obvious that it was a link identifyimg the image. I almost posted the same thing as ww2censor. —teb728 t c 03:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather than going off topic, can somebody please help me, because this is pretty important for my future article. Thanks.--GoP _T ^C _N 11:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the Patton image, I think the decorations may be a copyvio as well. The characters in the middle (one of the focuses of the picture) are Muppets and therefore copyrighted designs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Crisco! Would a drawing of this picture be a copyright violation? Regards.--GoP _T ^C _N 10:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ownership vs copyright of artwork

Let's say, for argument's sake, that I own a sculpture by a living artist. Could I take a photo of that sculpture and upload it to Commons? Does the artist, in selling his work to me, transfer copyright as well as ownership? Let's say in this particular case that the sculpture is located in my home and not on public display (so no freedom of panorama) and that I live in the US (also no freedom of panorama).

Would the answer be any different if it were a painting?

This may seem like a silly question, but it could have implications - were museums to donate images of contemporary art to Wikipedia...

I imagine that museums don't have to pay premiums to living artists when they post images of their work in online catalogs... or do they? And if not, why should it be any different here? Thanks, Lithoderm 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If he has clearly signed copyright ownership to you, then you own the copyright and a photo you take, you can release to commons as the copyright owner under a CC-type license.

However, most cases, when you buy a work of art, the artist still owns the copyright on the art. Thus, while you can take a photo yourself, the copyright of the art is by the artist, and most likely can't be used on commons without getting the artist's permission. I would expect contemporary art museums work the same way - they don't have copyright on the art, and thus while they can donate their pictures of the art freely, we're bound by the IP problem. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. This was pretty much what I suspected.

So the idea that a photograph of a 3d artwork has sufficient originality (based on choices such as lighting and angle) to be considered a different, copyright-able work only applies to 3d artwork that is already in the public domain? Is that clause even in Bridgeman vs Corel, or is it something we on WP have inferred? Thanks, Lithoderm 20:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the line we have drawn based on BvC. Unless the 3D work is barely 3D (like coins) where photographing them is effectively making a slavish, non-artistic copy, a photograph of a 3D work creates a new copyright to the photographer due to the impact of lighting and shadows that comes into play with 3D artwork. Note that BvC doesn't have strength of any SCOTUS case or the like, so it is a guiding line, not an absolute. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons has deleted a lot of photos of coins; only scans of coins can be kept without permission of the copier. BvC is pretty well embedded into US law, and is based off of Rural v. Feist, which is a SCOTUS case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Linda_Parks_head_shot.jpeg

I am a noobi at wikipedia and would like to know what to do. Linda Parks provided the picture and asked me to put this on her page. If she would prefer to not release the copyright, what is the best path to follow? Pmacdee (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal for images are to be free. If non-free, see WP:Non-free content. If published as free to share, commons:File:Image-Shelf_cloud_pano_oct07_ver4_edit.jpg can help. Also, go to WP:File copyright tags to see what is suitable for this image. If confused, go to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to the above answer, if the copyright owner is not prepared to release the image pursuant to a license acceptable to Wikpedia, then you have fall back on the non-free use content criteria. That image would fail criterion #1 because a free image could be created by someone taking a picture of the subject and releasing it under an acceptable license.--ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fatty Arbuncle mugshot (1921)

Hi, I was wondering if this mugshot of Fatty Arbuckle, taken in 1921, could automatically be assumed to have been published. If so, it should be PD. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Terms and Conditions could help you decide. Possibly, the mugshot was taken after several arrests, wasn't it? Or maybe taken in 1923. This page doesn't say the year of mugshot. --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If the image is PD, the terms and conditions would be moral rights and not copyrights. Wikipedia doesn't recognize scans as being copyrighted to the scanner. I'll look at Arbuckle's article to see if he was arrested more than once. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A good direction for research is to discover whether any books, magazines or newspapers published the mugshot before 1923. If so, it's fair game. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be the most definitive, I agree. However, since mugshots are used for police files and whatnot (and often released to the press, for famous cases), wouldn't mugshots automatically be considered published (at least internally)? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. Unpublished pictures were subject to state laws before Copyright Act of 1976. Under 1976 Act, anything created yet unpublished is still copyrighted. In this case, only restricted police force has an authority to access police files and mugshots. Permission is needed for non-authority persons to access police files. Speaking of access, I don't know how Dr. Macro obtained that photo. To me, that mugshot was technically unpublished. --George Ho (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's everywhere on the web. This supposedly says 1921 (according to Google), but I can't access the site. It's here too, but the author doesn't note where he got it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The site says photo taken in 1921. It also mentions San Francisco Examiner as sensationalising the story, so that would be the place to look for the image. Arrest was 10 September 1921. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The image must surely have been published around the time it was taken. The Fatty Arbuckle trial received a huge amount of media attention. --Lobo (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo for biography

I requested a photograph from the subject of a biographical article (Uri Davis), and he emailed me a photograph. He did not provide (as requested) any copyright information, and I am reluctant to approach him again over this. My experience with previous requests to other subjects has been a failure to understand Wikipedia's requirements, and a reluctance to provide the required information. How can I use this photograph? RolandR (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically you cannot, the subject may not own the copyright on the image, and may not know the owner. Since copyright license grant has to be in writing, you have not got permission. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

images on maspedia

hello - there are totally unrelated images on my father's mashpedia page - how do i get the proper images posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.180.45 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mashpedia content is not under the control of Wikipedia or Wikimedia except insofar as they faithfully mirror our content (which our free license allows them to do). If their content is totally or partially different, you could take it up with them at their Contact Us page. —teb728 t c 00:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

About using a pdf file from government of india web site

I would like to include following file for improving wiki article Directorate General of Economic Enforcement: http://www.directorateofenforcement.gov.in/Organisation_Setup.pdf Apparently, the web site is in the public domain. However, the web site does have a copyright at the end saying: © 2006 Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance| All rights reserved worldwide. Can this file be used in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkarr (talk • contribs) 05:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think the web site is in the public domain when there is a clear copyright notice on the main page and you have seen it? Also, commons:Commons:L#India states that Indian government works are copyright for 60 years. You can however use the document as a reference to some prose that it supports in the article but you can't just copy the document. ww2censor (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Ww2censor. Onkar 19:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkarr (talk • contribs)

File:Time Warner Cable.png

Is this image eligible for copyrights? The eye symbol... is it common? --George Ho (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes, that symbol is not common. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing my username

Can I be able to chenge my username on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruvimbo321 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username. —teb728 t c 23:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright question

I just would like confirmation regarding 2 pictures that state copyright has expired. I want to use both images in a talk that might be shown on YouTube. I included info on both images below. Let me know if you need anymore information. Thank you.

/Desktop/406px-Alois_Alzheimer_001.jpg /Desktop/220px-Auguste_D_aus_Marktbreit.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minalmax (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Those pictures are on your computer; so we can't see them. Also they are jpg's; so they wouldn't provide copyright context. Can you refer us to a webpage where they are used? —teb728 t c 23:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One picture is at File:Auguste D aus Marktbreit.jpg which states copyright expired, as published in 1902. THe other File:Alois Alzheimer 001.jpg also taken pre 1915 from unknown photographer, so copyright expired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this a copyright-free logo?

Under WP:Logos, a logo may be considered copyright-free if it consists of a sequence of letters and/or contains simple geometric shapes. Does this image qualify? It would be used here. Randomnonsense (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This logo is possibly copyrighted in United Kingdom due to lower standards of threshold of originality. File:BBC.svg is possibly copyrighted in United Kingdom. Not sure about United States at first, but the drawing looks very creative and makes the logo non-free. --George Ho (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing at the top right is likely a problem. To avoid problems, I'd suggest that you use {{Non-free logo}} with a fair use rationale if you want to use it. As George Ho wrote, almost all logos are copyrighted in the UK, and File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg was ruled copyrightable by a British court last year, but this is an American logo, so you don't need to care about British laws. But as I wrote, the thing at the top right is a likely problem. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is American logo, why is the organization founded in Britain? Would the logo be UK? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I deleted all but the domain name from the URL and found the web site of some kind of organisation in Minneapolis which is in the United States. What I didn't realise was that this appears to be an unrelated organisation. OK, British organisation and definitely not PD in the UK. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The logo is from a defunct UK charity, which has been expunged from the web so the logo can only be found on unrelated websites. Randomnonsense (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Sketches-of-Rawabi-001.jpg

I copied the picture from The Guardian where it is marked as 'public domain'. The author is surely www.rawabi.ps. Can we use the image under 'fair use'? --Pevos (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have amended the file information page with an appropriate PD template.--ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Pevos (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Now it is listed here: Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_March_6#File:Sketches-of-Rawabi-001.jpg. What to do? Where is the place for discussion? Stefan2? --Pevos (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you discuss this on the possibly unfree files page since that is where the admins are going to look when deciding whether the image should be kept or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

promotional picture of band

I want to put a promotional picture of Jupiter One on the Band's page. I dont really how this works with copyright because i have seen this image on plenty of blogs and music websites. I have no idea who the author might be or where it came from.

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1680&bih=920&tbm=isch&tbnid=mK0v-qzyK1sx_M:&imgrefurl=http://kaceeandnate.blogspot.com/2011/01/day-13-your-favorite-musician-and-why.html&docid=0e-QBfWkXpPr3M&imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_zaSP1oSgEUY/TT5WAUX3nbI/AAAAAAAAAeY/Rj_uWeFyreo/s1600/telp10202%252B-%252BCopy.jpg&w=750&h=502&ei=7ZZWT5OnEqTf0QHH8eSPCg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=275&sig=107162122725532733863&page=1&tbnh=109&tbnw=145&start=0&ndsp=45&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0&tx=63&ty=41

this ok to put up on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heavy wave81 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not OK. You would need to find the copyright holder and get the copyright holder to agree to license it under a free licence, but it would be hard to do that if you don't even know where the picture comes from. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright advice (Re: deleted file:Rosela roma 1.jpg)

Dear all, I am having trouble keeping the image/photography up without breaching copyright regulations.
As I have stated on its remarks and on another post on this page (erased), the image has been released by the artist and her manager with the permission of their personal photographer.
I would appreciate your advise on what options to choose on my next upload thereof so that I keep from another (third) deletion.
Thank you, --Namik (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

While the image has already been deleted, you can ask for it to be restored. However, there was no copyright information and unless you can verify the copyright holder, who may not be the artist or the manager, but the photographer, to give a freely licenced permission, we cannot use it. Get them to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT making sure to quote the exact file name. I already provided the same information thee month ago which is archived at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/November#Copyright status of image released by the celebrity for Wikipedia purposes. ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ww2censor for the prompt and very informative reply. Please advise though on the easiest way to have the deleted image restored back. Meanwhile I might upload a second one while the copyright holder confirms permission using the form you advised. Thanks, --Namik (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A RfC that could do with some input or closure from an admin / experienced editor

Are there any admins or experienced editors here willing to take a look at this RfC on what we should do with works from countries with which the US does not have copyright relations. It obviously needs some steering or to be closed but I'm too involved to do so (having started it and made the occasional comment) and Moonriddengirl has been involved in her WMF capacity so isn't available either. Asking here rather than at WP:AN as this would probably benefit from someone with a good knowledge of copyright looking it over. Dpmuk (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How to upload school logo?

Hi, I'd like to upload the following school logo for the wikipedia page for "Tenafly High School"

http://www.tenaflysoccer.com/documents/Tenafly_Schools_Logo.png

Do you know how I can upload this, and where? It appears that many many schools have logos up (e.g. private schools like Phillips Exeter, public schools like Bronx Science), so how are copyright problems avoided for those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpy2101 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The logo looks copyrighted. You would need to use a non-free licence-tag, such as {{Non-free logo}}, combined with a fair use rationale, such as {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. Can be uploaded at Special:Upload. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Led Zeppelin - Coda.jpg

Not only simple typefaces and geometric shapes according to the High Court of Justice [1].

I think this file consists of simple typefaces and geometric shapes. If so, could you transfer it on commons?--95.234.29.189 (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No. The image was made in the United Kingdom. The Edge logo (right) was ruled as not consisting of only simple typefaces and geometric shapes by a British court last year and is thus copyrighted in the United Kingdom. The image you're talking about here looks more complex than the Edge logo. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

photo

I need to add Image for the page: Ram Chandra Poudel

Please guide me and provide me what the file name needs to be .. or how can I add his photograph.

For more details:

Please check www.ramchandrapaudel.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintanp80 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Article proposed for deletion since the text largely appears to be copied from an external source. If you wish to add an image of him, you either need to make sure that he is dead or that the image is licensed under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

See Help:Files for how to upload and use images. —teb728 t c 18:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of files with Questions

For File File:TheDreamGallery.jpg, this is CD cover art for use in a post referencing the recording. I uploaded it with the correct copyright tag, and uploaded a lower resolution image, and yet it has the "has no explanation as to why it is permitted under the policy" tag on it and says it will be deleted on Monday. Please tell me where and what I post as an "explanation" for the fact that it's album art under the album art license?

For File File:Delos-Logo.jpg I have to say, I'm completely confused on the process I need to go through. You say again that I have no explanation, which I have no idea where I'm supposed to give, (the image is a logo for the company that the article is about) and now it says that you want a .PNG or .SVG file instead of a .jpg file. Well, we have .png, but only have .eps versions of a vector image and not a .svg. But, the instructions on how I'm supposed to replace the .jpg with a different file type are extremely confusing. Can I get any help here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DWestThunderFrog (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For the cover I’m sorry but Wikipedia does not accept permission for use of copyrighted art work only on Wikipedia. In order to use the album cover in the discography there would have to be a free license (i.e. one that allows reuse by anyone for anything, including commercial use). If you think the copyright owner would be willing to grant that, see WP:COPYREQ. —teb728 t c 04:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

For the logo: All non-free content must have a non-free use rationale to document why its use is permitted by the Wikipedia non-free content policy. I have provided a rationale with this edit. Don’t worry about the other tags; someone else will take care of them. —teb728 t c 04:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Give Me Love

Does File:63782gml.jpg pass the threshhold of originality? I only see a signature (non-copyrightable in the US), the Om, and simple text with a basic apple logo. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the country of origin, UK or US? Looks way above the threshold of origin of the United Kingdom, but might or might not be below the threshold of origin of the United States. In the US case, I think that the most problematic part is the apple. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to assume UK. Okay, thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Deceased subjects

If a person is deceased, are non-free images allowed to illustrate him/her on the basis that free-images cannot be substituted? If a subject has died 10-20 years back, a time when cameras were certainly pre-dominant all over the world, is it right to say that a free image is not available and that no one would have taken the image when he/she was alive? I find this quite confusing, and I did go through the archives but wasn't able to find a similar case. Apologies if I overlooked one. Regards. Secret of success (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If a person is dead, non-free photos are usually allowed, unless it can be proven that free photos exist. You should still keep in mind that WP:NFCC states that you should limit the number of non-free images in an article, so you might only be able to squeeze in one non-free photo per article. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

But, Wikipedia takes into account only notable subjects. That certainly increases the chances of at least one free-image being available. Celebrities fall under this category. Secret of success (talk) 10:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

image tagging

I am responding to the message in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jnschweitzer&diff=0&oldid=469194607 about the two images I uploaded for the article on Gilbert Bates.

It took me a couple of months of desultory searching in my own files, and then contacting the source of the photos, but I finally have explicit permission from the owner of the photos, the McLean County Museum of History in Bloomington, Illinois, to use the photos for the Wikipedia entry. The photos were taken around 1868.

I looked at the list of image tags and wasn't able to choose the right one, and I would appreciate your help with that.

In addition, assuming that this information permits you to include the photos with the article, do you have those in a place where you can simply reconnect them, or do I need to reload them?

Thank you for your help with this, and for being part of the group that maintains the integrity of an amazing resource.

Nick Schweitzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnschweitzer (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, Wikipedia does not accept permission for use only on Wikipedia. If use relies on permission, the permission must allow reuse by anyone for anything. The fact that they were taken in 1868, however, may indicate that they are in the public domain; do you know when and where they were first published and when the photographer died? —teb728 t c 01:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

free promotional headshot

Please advise copyright tag for this image. It is a free promotional headshot that I have permission to use from the photographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrolondon (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENT for an example of how permission may be requested. It is not entirely clear what "permission to use" means, but the image needs to be licensed under a specific free licence. This licence must be selected by the copyright holder. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Image (logo) added by owners of that image

A couple months ago, a staff member at an institution (Hennepin Technical College) attempted to add the institution's logo for the article on that institution and had it deleted by CommonsDelinker as you can see. They have since gotten the logo (actually a more up-to-day image File:HTC logo vert blue.jpg) successfully added (as far as I can tell) by declaring it in the public domain.

My question: Did they have to do that, i.e. declare the logo public domain? It would seem if the owners of an image say it's OK for that image to be used by wikipedia, (which is what they implicitly doing by adding that image to an article in wikipedia), then there would be no copyright issue ... since it is only the owners who would/could have grounds to complain about copyright infringement.
Or am I missing something here?
Is there some way an institution (business, whatever) can give wikipedia permission to use an image they own without either A) declaring the use of the image "fair use" or B) making it "public domain"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The image is hosted on Wikimedia Commons which does not allow fair use. Images on Wikimedia Commons must be licensed under a free licence. Logos can be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as fair use by going to Special:Upload, adding {{non-free logo}} and filling in {{non-free use rationale logo}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO it's too simple for copyright protection so I have tagged it with {{PD-textlogo}} and removed the "requires permission" notice.--ukexpat (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture up for deletion for copyright issues-did I fix it?

I uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Msu_head_logo.svg.png a while ago, and didn't do anything with the copyright stuff. I added the non-free fair use tag in the article, but I have no idea if this is what I needed to do to solve the problem. Is that all that I need to do? Or is there more? I really have no experience with this and am not sure what to do. SpartanGrammar (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to fill in {{non-free use rationale logo}}. And it might have been better if you had uploaded the original SVG file instead of converting it to PNG... --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Cme-group-logo.PNG

Does this image pass threshold of originality or have no copyright protection? --George Ho (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. In uncertain cases it is safer to assume that an image is copyrighted, since it means taking no legal risks. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Being composed of only simple geometric shapes and plain text I would say that {{PD-textlogo}} applies. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Temporary upload of copyright image onto userspace for the purpose of moving a content dispute forward.

I seem to remember someone saying it is permissible to upload copyrighted material onto userspace temporarily in order to move a talk page discussion forward (i.e. not for inclusion in the article). I have looked through the policies and cannot find any mention of this.

Basically I just want to upload a couple of maps (for a short period) from an RS I have so that other editors can compare them to the un-copyrighted options we have for the article. Thanks Dlv999 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-commercial vs. Wikipedia:Non-free content

Hello! As I get it, I can use a CC-BY-NC-SA image with fair use rationale. My questions are:

Do the Wikipedia:Non-free content limitations (downscaling, etc.) apply to such images?
Can I use such image for userbox? (There is no copyright violation in doing so.)

Thanks in advance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-SA fall under regular non-free media requirements (since there's limitations on its distribution and reuse) so yes, NFC does apply, and no, you can't use it within a user page box. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And what about scaling? Should I convert it from SVG to low-resolution PNG? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If the work itself is an SVG to start with - generally meaning the collection of shapes and lines making up the work qualify for copyright even if they are simple shapes to start, it doesn't make sense to convert to a raster image just to meet resolution issues. So the low-resolution issue with SVGs is a non-existent thing here. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me: in the sense of Non-free content policy SVGs are the images with extremely high resolution, that should be converted to low-resolution raster images to qualify for fair use, aren't they? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It probably depends on the image. See the advice at the start of Category:Fair use images that should be in SVG format. --MASEM (t) 18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Finding the right copyright tag

Hi I found this picture File:2face_idibia.jpg I think the right tag is {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} because this site where found this picture already has other uploaded files on wikipedia referenced like that. A I correct? Thanks?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesmerix1 (talk • contribs)

http://www.bellanaija.com/2009/01/15/new-video-2face-releases-enter-the-place/ bears a clear copyright notice, so that template is not appropriate IMHO. It will require permission from the copyright owner per WP:CONSENT.--ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Lucrezia Lante Della Rovere image

I have uploaded a picture of actress Lucrezia Lante Della Rovere to put in her article

source is: ^[1] Malamore: Lucrezia Lante della Rovere porta in scena un testo di Concita de Gregorio a Finalborgo www.mentelocale.it, website's copyright policy is CC BY-NC-ND 2.5

but I do not know who has the copyright of the picture that is taken for what I understand by a poster to advertise the play, so what tag could I indicate? for me is good also to cancel the picture but I do not know how

can you help me?

thanks

Listerbulow (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-ND is not free enough because it doesn't allow commercial use or derivative works. I have nominated the photo for speedy deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

/* Michael Graziano, speedy deletion nomination */

Hi, Eeekster referred me here (see below)

I think I may have inadvertently run afoul of some copyright policies. But in order to move forward, I have to figure out *which* policy(s).

Michael Graziano created and owns the image File:Action map in monkey motor cortex.jpg. I manage his wikipedia page for him, and am uploading it according to my understanding of U.S. copyright law. Created and published since 1993, so he can re-publish, right?

Did I miss something?(quite likely) Or maybe we chose the wrong classification when we uploaded the image?

I would be grateful for any clarification you can offer.

thanks in advance Brodmann1 Brodmann1 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please ask your questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Eeekster (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodmann1 (talk • contribs)

The actual creator of the file must send a permission statement to permissions at enwikimedia.org (insert the @ sign where I've put " at "); you can't do it for him. The permission must fit one of the categories outlined at WP:ICTIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Snapshot from a video

Hello everyone This might be a dumb question but I want to be sure. If I take a snapshot of a music video available in youtube for instance. Am I the owner of the snapshot? Hence can I license it free to use by anyone for any purpose? Thanks. Mesmerix1 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You are not the owner. You need to ask for permission from the copyright holder of the music video in order to license it under a free licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Harbaville Triptych

Is there copyright on the use of the photo of the Harbaville Triptych — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobsen'sOdyssey (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What photo? Where? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are asking about the several photos on Harbaville Triptych. On one of them the uploader asserts that they took the photos themself and licensed it under free licenses; so on that one yes. On all the others the uploader asserts that they took the photos themself and released the photos into the public domain; so for those no. To tell which is which, click on the photo and check the licensing tag on the description page. —teb728 t c 19:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just one non-free image of earlier appearance of Spandau Ballet?

I don't think earlier images of the band are free at this time and do not have Creative Commons license with(out) OTRS. Which one is better and which section? [2] [3] --George Ho (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What would be so special about either of these older non-free images of the band that would justify using either of them in the article? There is already a freely licenced image in the article infobox to identify the band. We would require sourced critical commentary about the image itself to justify its use. ww2censor (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Their hairstyle? Their suits? 1983? Either is ineqivalent to the current image. ~~--George Ho (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)~~ Moreover, they both meet "Content" criteria. --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I presume you have some WP:RS for that? In that case it would likely be justifiable. ww2censor (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Care to elaborate the "reliable source" for an image or its caption? I don't think general readers recognize the whole band at their more recent appearances as much as general readers could recognize either Martin Kemp as Steve Owen of EastEnders or their 1980s style. I was planning to use one of images for the identification of 1983 appearances, suitable in either "International Fame" or "Early Fame". --George Ho (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There should be some commentary that justifies the use of the image, such as the clothing or hairstyles of the band. Perhaps there is enough commentary in this Guardian article, which is a WP:RS or this too another. How about this book reference which has good detail. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To imply, I must add the details first in the article, correct? Then add the photo as long as the article mentions hairstyle and clothes. Or I could simply add the photo without the need to add those details in the article, correct? --George Ho (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Question concerning whether or not news article counts as copyviolation

The film Cry Baby Lane aired only once on Nickelodeon and was considered to be somewhat of a lost film given that no one could find anything about it. A decade after it was aired, someone on Reddit found a copy and uploaded it onto the internet. This got quite a bit of buzz on the internet.

This information was later attributed to in an article by The Daily seen here. It gives a brief history of the film as well as interviewing the director. This article is already cited in the article for other information.

User:George Ho removed the mention that it was found on Reddit as it "may violate copyrights" [4].

It's now being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Cry_Baby_Lane and while I admittedly don't understand everything that's going on, my guess is that George's problem (correct me if I'm wrong) is that "the secondary source is TheDaily.com; primary sources are illegitimate copies" and that the "secondary source does not verify them as illegitimate copies".

I'm not an expert on Wiki policy so if someone could clarify what the rules are in situations like this I would appreciate it. As my understanding goes, I don't think writing about something that would constitute as a copyright violation (someone finding a lost film and uploading it online) would count as being a copyright violation in and out of itself.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem was that at some time there used to be footnotes in the Wikipedia article linking to an illegal broadcast of that film on either youtube or some other platform. Such publications would of course be copyright violations and we cannot use them as a source. However, writing about the event is ok as long as you don't copy and paste your text from somewhere else. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Just wanted to be sure.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

drawing from another's photo

When is it appropriate to make a drawing from another's photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.154.186 (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A case where it might be appropriate would be when you do it for your own personal notes. And a case where it certainly would be inappropriate would be if you are going to upload it to Wikipedia in an attempt to circumvent copyright. —teb728 t c 09:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, another case where it would be appropriate would be if the photo is licensed under a license that permits derivative works. That's assuming of course that you comply with the other terms of the license like attribution and licensing the drawing under a compatible license. —teb728 t c 09:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

File:DireStraitsTunnelOfLove7InchSingleCover.jpg

This file consists of simple typefaces. Could you transfer on commons?--95.239.184.19 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No. It's British. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Romana (singer).jpg

This is an image of living female musician. As it cannot remain here because: “illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information”. My question is how to find that specific image in free version? A: Impossible, because every magazines' website has Copyrights. Specifically, in this case, I downloaded an image from her official website, where there is not any indication of copyright status. (That's dubious, but better than All rights reserved.) Nowadays, she has no upcoming concerts, TV spots, or public performances. So, there is no chance to obtain a free-licensed image of Romana, we should keep this one as an illustration for the subject. --Alex^{discussion ★} 18:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this is a standard situation, and the case of this singer is no different than that of any other living performing artist. It's not a matter of getting a freely licensed version of this image; it's a matter of getting some free image. There are multiple options: (a) write to her or her manager and ask for a free release of some photograph. (b) Wait until somebody gets a good snapshot of her in concert and posts it freely licensed on Flickr. (c) Find somebody who already has a good snapshot of her in concert and ask them to release that under a free license. (d) Go to her next concert and take a snapshot of her yourself. (e) Wait until she appears somewhere in public on some other occasion and take a photograph there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's true. Thank you for large, comprehensive and useful answer. Cheers! :) Alex^{discussion ★} 21:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Artificial language

I do not understand the notice that File:AUI_symbols,_A_Time.jpg is orphaned and/or deleted. I had uploaded and inserted into my article aUI (artificial language) AUI_(artificial_language)#Background.2FHistory *all* the 31 aUI symbols, but then decided that a chart of them, which I scanned and uploaded, looked better (partly because I was unable to reduce the single symbols' size). So does that mean I need to delete all the uploaded, stored, but unused aUI symbols? (Not just A, Time?) Also I need help changing the title to: aUI (constructed language). thank you! Andrea Weilgart Patten (it is my father, who is the originator of this language, and it is I who arranged the symbol chart) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweilgart (talk • contribs) 03:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Because you replaced the various single symbols with a full chart in one image the other files will have to be deleted. You can't do that yourself but it will be done by an administrator. There's a policy that we must not host copyrighted, unfree images without presenting them in an article, even if there's a fair use rationale for them. As to changing the title of the article, there's an eays way to do that: click on the "move" tab on top of that page and you'll be able to insert a new page name and move the article and its associated history of edits to that new name. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:AUI symbols, A Time.jpg is just a circle, so it would appear to be ineligible to copyright, at least as long as it is not British. The chart, File:AUI symbols, aUI chart.jpg, might be copyrightable (not sure) and would be replaceable because someone could make a free chart, so maybe the chart should be deleted per WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Licensing when CC license is expired/obsolete

How would one license screenshots from this very old soap opera, Hawkins Falls, which has an expired or obsolete Creative Commons license? Thanks, We hope (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not an obsolete CC license. It is an obsolete CC declaration tag that someone used there to indicate that he thought this episode was in the public domain for some reason. That tag is not useful here because it doesn't tell a reason. Ignore that tag. Find the relevant facts about the work and determine its copyright status, applying the rules of the Copyright Act about the duration of copyright. Then, use the proper and specific Wikipedia (or Commons) tag to describe the conclusion you reach about the copyright status. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thought the next step was a search but wanted to make sure I was going in the right direction-thanks! We hope (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Images of technetium and polonium

There has been a discussion about the copyright status of File:Tc,43.jpg, File:43 Technetium.jpg, File:Technetium.jpg and File:Polonium.jpg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Pictures#Copyright issues. Could someone confirm the copyright status of these pictures? Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tc,43.jpg, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 21#File:43 Technetium.jpg and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 21#File:Technetium.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

uploading images from books in the public domain

Hi! I'm working on editing the article on jewelled bookbinding, and I was wondering if an illustration from a book that is in the public domain would be considered also in the public domain if I wanted to upload that illustration as an image for use in the article? For example, on page 5 of this book on Google books (which is in the public domain) has a nice illustration: http://books.google.com/books?id=WrnPAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Would using that image fall under public domain and not violate copyright?

Thanks! Jkords (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If the illustration was made for the book, then maybe yes. If not, it could still be public domain if it has been more than 70 years since the death of the illustrator. If the book is more than 70 years old then probably all of it, even the pictures are in the public domain. But since I live in the Philippines, whose copyright law is different from America's, I'm not exactly sure. It seems to have been published in 1898, it is very likely that any pictures in it are also public domain, so it would be very safe to use it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Being a British publication, {{PD-UK-unknown}} applies and should be uploaded to the commons, unless you can determine the author of the image in which case the 70 years pma rule applies. ww2censor (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have that book and there doesn't seem to be any way to read it on the Google web site. Appears to be British: a London address is given on the Google page. If the illustrator died at least 70 years ago, upload at Commons:Special:Upload using {{PD-1923}}+{{PD-old-70}}. If the illustrator is unknown, upload at Commons:Special:Upload using {{PD-1923}}+{{PD-UK-unknown}}. If the illustrator is known and died less than 70 years ago (in 1942 or later), upload at Special:Upload using {{PD-US-1923-abroad|year}} where the year is the year in which the work enters the public domain in the United Kingdom (70 years after the illustrator's death). --Stefan2 (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Brady house mission impossible.jpg

I know this image is non-free, but someone uploaded it as "own" work. I notified the uploader about it, but I have brought this image into your attention to be sure if this template should be tagged as "PUF" or "di-no permission". --George Ho (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If an image appears to be unfree and you are unsure which tag to use, I suggest that you use "PUF" and explain the problem with the image. That way, your report is more visible for other people who can then express their opinion about the image. That said, I see that someone already has deleted the file as F9. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

deleting notice

Concerning this notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andiweilgart&diff=0&oldid=482471861 I do not understand the gibberish of this notice. I have sent a notice asking whether I need to delete the uploaded individual aUI symbols because I ended up not using them (couldn't get their size reduced). Now the notice about the whole chart -- which I actually put together from my father's language (W. John Weilgart). So I own the copyright --- insofar as you can even copyright a language (which I think is disputable). My (deceased) father's book is referenced and I have inherited these rights. Andrea Weilgart Patten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweilgart (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It means that if you don't want the file deleted, you should join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 21#File:AUI symbols, aUI chart.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you own the copyright on this table are you willing to grant a free license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0 so it can be reused? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the Wi-Fi logo copyrightable?

Is the Wi-Fi logo copyrightable, or just geometric shapes and typefaces? --damiens.rf 19:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Some Wi-Fi logo, possibly the same one, has been deleted on Commons twice: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wi-fi-logo.png & Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wi-fi-logo.svg. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo Marked for Speedy Deletion

Hello,

I uploaded this image that is from a document published with the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. When I first uploaded the image the link I provided to the webpage that the document was published on did not work and therefore the image got tagged for speedy deletion for not providing evidence of the licensing status. I have fixed the link issue and I was wondering what I need to do to have the speedy deletion removed. I would greatly appreciate it if someone would take a look at the image and make sure I have adequately supported the licensing status and tell me if there is anything else I need to do.

Thank you, --K. Beabout (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done. A source has been provided informing that the licence is valid and someone else has removed the "no permission" tag because of that. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist Group Copyrights?

I'm trying to get clarification on whether or not US-designated terrorist groups have a copyright on their material. Specifically for File:NickBergandFiveMen.JPG and File:Iraq shooting down.gif. If not, are they considered fair use or public domain? My reason for asking is I'd like to replace the picture "File:Iraq shooting down.gif" with the actual video if possible. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no special rules for copyright belonging to terrorist groups as far as I know, so they are presumably subject to the standard rules. Iraq has no copyright relations with the United States, so images matching all of the following criteria are in the public domain in the United States (and possibly in all countries except for Iraq):

Made by a citizen of Iraq (or Iran, Afghanistan or a handful of other countries).
Made by a resident of Iraq (or Iran, Afghanistan or a handful of other countries).
First published in Iraq (or Iran, Afghanistan or a handful of other countries) and not printed elsewhere within 30 days. Note that publications only count as publications if approved by the photographer. Unpublished material is copyrighted.

That said, there is an ongoing RfC on the topic at WT:C#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations? and the outcome might be that material from these countries aren't allowed on Wikipedia despite being in the public domain in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! That'll work for now! Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Skatie.jpg in Katie Peretti

Does use of this image in "Katie Peretti" article meet standards of WP:NFCC? --George Ho (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Just like the Spandau Ballet question above, there is no critical commentary that would justify the use of this non-free image so it fails WP:NFCC#8. There is already one non-free image to identify the subject so it fails WP:NFCC#3a. ww2censor (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The person who added, not uploaded, supercouples photos in Katie Peretti, Holden Snyder, and Lily Walsh Snyder was Casanova88. I wonder if anybody here can contact that person. --George Ho (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Permanently deleting original-resolution non-free screenshots

Hello,
if I recall correctly, there was a bot in en-wiki earlier that deleted disused historical versions of non-free images. My understanding has been that we generally only accept reduded-resolution uploads of non-free software screenshots, which is why I halved the resolution of File:Belle shot.jpg (the screenshot image for Symbian) back in January. Since then, the original image has resurfaced and the reduced-resolution copy been replaced on a few occasions, latest here. So I am writing to ask for a sysop to remove the original-resolution version from the file history of File:Belle shot.jpg altogether to avoid future problems.

Note that some people seem to believe that because the Symbian kernel has been open-sourced, the mobile phone screenshots are also freely licensed. However, this is not the case, as the look&feel of all Symbian UI layers is proprietary and copyrighted under the relevant laws. --hydrox (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

After reducing a file, remember to tag it with {{subst:furd}}. An admin will normally delete the old version a week after that tag has been added. Instead of reducing an image yourself, you can use {{non-free reduce}}. In that case, a bot will reduce the image for you and tag with {{subst:furd}}, normally saving you some time. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the info! --hydrox (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

what is your name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momo18nit (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The First Colored Senator and Representatives

This image [5] has enormous historial potential for the project. It appears to be a work of Currier and Ives. If this is the case it should be in the public domain. Is it? Thanks, – Lionel ^(talk) 11:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a webpage with the link to that? It'd be nice if we had something more than the filename to confirm who made it, and any more information we could find would be very useful. I don't really see that there's much concern about it being public domain, though; it's clearly contemporaneous with the first black senators and representatives, the last of whom left office by 1901, making it clearly PD in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is used about half way down the page here. —teb728 t c 08:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wandering Songstress

This article consists of lyrics that are still copyrighted in People's Republic of China. According to wikisource:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010) and wikisource:Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (1990), lyrics have 50 p.m.a. Writer died in 1968. URAA restored copyrights of this song in 1996 when it was still copyrighted in China. Are lyrics allowed there? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is still in copyright till 2018 in PRC, even without the ridiculous 1996 US extension. So it should not be in Wikisource, unless a copyright holder has released a free license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay... what about the article itself? Shall I remove the lyrics from the article? --George Ho (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

2009 Belgium Commemorative coin use in Louis Braille article

Would it be acceptable to use an image of a Belgium Commemorative coin created in 2009 in the Honors and Tributes section of the Louis Braille article. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 17:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Agencies

How do we cite graphs and data tables from intergovernmental agencies and non-profits, including the World Health Organization and World Bank? Lbockhorn (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

Well you would cite the publication or web page that they appeared on, perhaps giving a page number or figure number. Icannot see a copyright question here. The copyright applies for the country it was first published in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So publications from the WHO would be cited as what? they were all taken down with proper citations because they did not have a copyright tag. Lbockhorn (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)lbockhorn

World Health Organisation. Publications from these organisations should not be loaded here unless they ahve become public domain for some reason. The lack of a copyright tag does not mean no copyright applies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

STOP ERA

Is the "STOP ERA" stop sign here in the public domain? It appears to be too simple to copyright. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a derivative work of a standard STOP traffic sign. STOP signs are probably in the public domain because they are old, ineligible for copyright and in some countries also because they are government works. I would say that the extra information added to the sign is very simple, so I am inclined to say that this is ineligible for copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me, thanks!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 14:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Media copyright questions. You have new messages at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:STOP ERA.gif.
You can remove this notice at any time.

– Lionel ^(talk) 03:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

are data considered text?

I would like to use the numbers in a table that appears in Simpson's paradox in Wikipedia in a textbook that I'm trying to write. Would I need to ask permission? Or would these data be considered to be regular text (and therefore free for use under the sharing license)? Moshepollak (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The text on Wikipedia is already granted with permission to use subject to some requirements. You can publish the table as an item with appropriate attribution, of which the simplest would be a link to the Wikipedia article it is in and the license (CC-BY-SA-3.0). The data itself is just data from real world examples and you can publish this in some other presentation, eg text, a different style of table with different ordering or columns of different width or colour schemes, so there are creative choices made, that you could use other choices in your own publication if you want to avoid attribution and license requirements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield in popular culture

Non-free images were incorrectly removed in my opinion. I would like the opinion of others. Could some of you please comment on the talk page section Talk:Jayne Mansfield in popular culture#Images removed? Thank you. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Mike branson.jpg

Non-free photos of people who are still alive are almost never allowed, see WP:NFC#UUI §1 and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy#Resolution §3, if the purpose of the image is to tell what the person looks like. I would usually tag such images as "replaceable fair use," typically resulting in deletion after 48 hours. The article doesn't tell if the man is alive or not. I also checked all of the listed sources and couldn't find any information except that he hasn't been active since 2002. If he is no longer alive, the image might be acceptable. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at User talk:‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#‎Removing non-free image from Mike Branson. Does he have a point about this, or is his rationale of removing this image too thin, vague, and flimsy to constitute removal? --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Hullaballoo is right. You and I have previously discussed using a photo of a child actor where the individual later retired from an acting career, and is now only visually known as the child actor. That article explained that the image showed how he looked when he was working as an actor. This is just a photo of the guy looking toned - for all we know, he still looks like that, and you could get a photo of him in his backyard looking like that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To this logic, non-free image of a child actor may pass. However, image of a toned man fails. If this image fails, then File:Kip Knoll Kip Noll.jpg fails, as well, correct? --George Ho (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless he is dead or looks completely different now. He was active much longer ago, so the probability that he is dead by now is higher, although we would need a source for that. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two factors in play - the length of time (the longer ago, the more likely he doesn't look like this any more) and the degree to which it represents what he was known for looking like. Your child star was in a soap opera, so naturally looked the same in each episode. Is the same true of this chap? There's also the added thought that unfortunately with older porn stars the more likely it is he is dead, as they seem to have a higher tendency to die young. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well... image of Kip Noll was created in the 1980s by Falcon Studios. There is no way that his hair is the same or he looks the same today as he was in the 1980s. There is no way either that he is different. Either way, that image is nearly 30 years old. Look at infobox picture of Jack Wrangler. --George Ho (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. The longer the gap between the photo and now, the more "this is him when he was famous" comes into play. If he always looked much like that in films, that helps too. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Little Dancer of Fourteen Years.jpg

Is this image copyrighted, even though the 3d artwork is out of copyright already? --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The sculpture is in PD, but a photograph of a 3-D work is subject to copyright because of creative choices like lighting and viewing angle. —teb728 t c 08:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

This is why the uploader has added {{GFDL-self}} to license his copyright in the photo.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Still, there is no proof that the uploader himself is the photographer of this image, unless I missed something. We still have OTRS. --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this is {{di-no permission}}. The original uploader used {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}. タチコマ robot later changed it to {{GFDL}}, MGA73bot changed it to {{GFDL|migration=relicense}}, George Ho changed it to {{GFDL-user|Treysheik|migration=relicense}} and MGA73bot finally changed it to the current {{GFDL-self|migration=relicense}}. Since the "self" part wasn't added by the uploader, we don't know whether the photographer and the uploader are the same. I've now removed the "self" part from the licence tag since we have no evidence that it is correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unhelpful bots. And it doesn't look as if the original uploader is still editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Wendy Richard MBE Medal 2000.jpg

George, the problem isn't that it shows her with her gong. It's that the image belongs to an image bureau (Getty, Associated Press, Press Association, those kinds of folks) who make a living out of selling images to people. You should never use an image from this kind of source in the infobox, only in the body of the article with sourced commentary on the image. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the article mentions her MBE title in one or two sentences, I removed the image and then brought back the previous revision. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Images from press associations are almost never OK even if a non-free image would be allowed in an article, see WP:NFCC#2. Press association images are only allowed in a few exceptional cases, for example Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, where the image is the subject of the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the image itself (not the subject or occasion) has to be the subject of sourced commentary making it hard to achieve compliance. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Nachiket Dighe.jpg

Hi this is regarding File:Nachiket Dighe.jpg.

How/what do I change to update the proper license?

this photo was published in the news paper and I have taken it from its online page Weblink:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/hogwarts-in-hindi/204825/2

Nadude (talk)

The copyright statement at indianexpress.com says, "© 2012 The Indian Express Limited. All rights reserved". If that applies to the photo, Wikipedia has no right to use the photo. Most photos that you find in newspapers or on webpages is unusable. —teb728 t c 07:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

^ http://www.mentelocale.it/vig/lucrezia-lante-g.jpg

[1] ttp://www.mentelocale.it/vig/lucrezia-lante-g.jpg

[1]