Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/January

Publication of a work created much earlier

I have series of complicated questions about U.S. copyright that the Hirtle chart doesn't seem to cover, and I would love it if someone knew the answer. All concern situations where a work was first published by an heir after the creator has died.

1) Suppose I come across a photograph taken by my great-grandfather in 1890, and it has never been published. (Assume that I inherited any copyrights he may hold.) If I publish it today and claim copyright on the photo, as I understand it, that photograph could be copyrighted until 70 years after the death of the creator, my grandfather. So if he died in 1950, I could hold a legal copyright on the image, but if he died in 1940, I could not. Therefore, for old works recently published, if we know the photographer died more than 70 years ago, we can be confident the work is PD. Is my reading correct?

2) Suppose I did the exact same thing between 1978 and 2002. (Assume I duly registered the copyright if I published the photo before 28 February 1989.) I believe the result is the same: the work could be copyrighted 70 years p.m.a. (The precise wording of the Hirtle Chart seems to suggest that the copyright could not expire before 2048 in this instance, but I think it's erroneously assuming that the creator was alive when the work was published.) According to my reading, if a work was first published after 1977, and we know the creator died more than 70 years ago, we can be confident the work is PD. Is my reading correct?

3) Finally, suppose the same situation occurred between 1923 and 1977. According to the Hirtle chart, if all formalities were followed, copyright would last 95 years after publication date. The year of death for the creator does not seem to be taken into account at all. But this leads to nonsensical outcomes. For instance, if I'm the legal heir of a eighteenth-century painter, and I found a painting of his from 1790 that had never before been published, and I first published that painting in 1950, that work from 1790 would still be under copyright until 2045. That can't be right, can it?

Thanks for any insights, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hirtle does cover those situations:

1: Yes, for "recently" = after 2002.

2: If published between 1978 and 1989, 70 years pma is correct. If published between 1989 and 2002, the later of 70 years pma and 2048. If published after 2002, 70 years pma.

3: It sounds right. By publishing before 1978, you benefited from the situation before the limitation to 70 years pma came into force for unpublished works.

-- Asclepias (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I sure hope you're wrong about that. That would mean that arbitrarily old works could still be copyrighted, so long as they were first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977, or between 1989 and 2002. Can anyone confirm? – Quadell ^(talk) 14:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're asking about #3 then yes the situation that works can be in copyright for a very long time does exist see section 5 of this for an example where a document will be almost 300 years old before coming out of copyright. NtheP (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That is the worst thing I've heard all year. Wow. Well anyway, thanks for the link and the feedback. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Confused About Photo Permissions and San Francisco Library Offer of Photo Use

I will soon to create a new article which will involve a historic event which took place in San Francisco near the start of the 20th century. San Francisco's library has a large stock of digitized historic photos, and I thought that it would be great if I could include a few of them in the article. Can you please give me your advice on what the steps are that I need to perform in getting this to happen for my article?

When I emailed the Photo Curator at the San Francisco Public Library with my desire to include some of there digitized photos, this was her response.

You may use images for the Wikipedia article. Please email me a filled out Permission to Publish form listing out the image(s) and the article title. The use fee noted on the form will be waived. You’ll need to use the credit line, SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY. It would be great if the credit line linked back to this page, www.sfpl.org/sfphotos

And this is the legal jargon on the Permission to Publish form, along with web links to the document.

http://sfpl.org/uploads/files/1/3/permissions_worldwide.pdf

http://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=2000017301

I understand that the copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or of other reproductions of copyrighted materials. It is not my intention to publish or otherwise reproduce any of the materials listed on this form which are possibly subject to copyright without first having obtained written permission from (a) the copyright owner, the heirs, or assigns and (b) from San Francisco Public Library, owner of the original materials. Subject to all specifications and conditions stated above, one-time permission to publish the designated materials owned by the San Francisco History Center is granted. Repeat use of these materials is not permitted without written consent. Permission to publish is granted only in so far as the rights of the San Francisco Public Library are concerned. The Library can claim only physical ownership of the material; responsibility for identifying and satisfying copyright holders must be assumed by users wishing to publish this material. The applicant agrees to send the San Francisco History Center one complimentary copy of the work containing the reproduction. The credit line should read. SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY.

Can you please give me your advice on what the steps are that I need to perform in getting this to happen for my article?James Carroll (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• If the images were published prior to 1923 there is no copyright on them. They are, by law, in the public domain. We do not need this library's permission to use them. There has been considerable debate on a similar issue at National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. I'm not going to say I'm the final word on this. However, if you can show the images were published prior to 1923, they can not protect any copyrights on the images as there are none to protect. That they have a digital reproduction of them does not convey new rights in the United States. See 9th paragraph of this. Also see this handy chart at the Cornell Copyright Information Center. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Hammersoft is right on the money here. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Do pictures from Google images violate policy?

I'm wanting to add pictures I get off of Google images to articles on the episodes of the TV show Futurama but I'm really unsure if that would be against Wikipedia's rules or not. Can somebody please help me?

Beastlcharizard13'sdefinitions (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Beastlcharizard13'sdefinitions

The answer to this question depends upon the copyright notices deployed on the sites where the images are found. The most likely answer is that they are not freely licenced for onward use and are thus inadmissible. Fiddle Faddle 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Google does not host their own images they just give you search results for images hosted on other websites. You need to check those website for the copyright status of the images that Google gives you. In most instances the images you find on the internet are copyright to someone, so don't just upload any images unless you can verify they are freely licenced. Google does have an advanced search facility that allows you to restrict your search (under the "Usage right" tab to "free to use, share or modify, even commercially"). All results, even advanced ones need to be checked by you before uploading. If you have a particular image in mind, just ask. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove tag from image

The image named Khawaja Shahudin is not copyrighted and I took this image with my Samsung camera with the permission of the grandson of Khawaja Shahudin. Can you please tell me which license is appropriate for this kind of image. This is not copyrighted image. Looking ahead for your response.

Thanks in anticipation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leotassawer (talk • contribs) 10:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am slightly confused by your introduction. Was the grandfather Khawaja Shahudin alive and you photographed him or did you photograph a photo of him with permission from the grandson? If you took the photo of a living person then you are the copyright holder and can licence that image in any way you like. If you copied a photo you do not own the copyright and if you claim there is no copyright why do you say that? Frequently image creators will use {{PD-self}} or {{Attribution}} but there are other choices any of which must be freely licenced for us to use them here. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It being a photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork, it is ok not to claim a copyright for the making of the photographic reproduction, but the copyright on the original illustration is, or was, owned by the artist who created it. To determine the copyright status of the file, you should document who that illustrator is and when and where the original illustration was first published. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

REDUCED REQUIREMENT FOR NIGERIA ENTERTAINMENT COPYRIGHTED INFOTAB IMAGES

Its high time Wikipedia realises that they need to reduce their copyright requirement for the African entertainment scene. I tried adding an image to a popular Nollywood actor list(Someone I know well and does not mind me publicing his Wiki page) and all I was seeing was some strange forms and feilds that I should fill. Most Nigerian Celebs dont have an active website and are not so IT inclined. And I can state authoritatively that 99% of them dont mind anyone putting a decent picture of them on their page irrespective of where it is gotten from — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darreg (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the copyright laws and Wikipedia's image use policies are about protecting the rights of copyright holders, not the views of the subject. I'm sure most celebs don't mind some additional free publicity but not at the expense of the photographer who took the image and may be trying to make a living from those images. before you upload any image you need to be sure that's it's either copyright free or donated to the public domain by the copyright holder. Nthep (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Public Domain Status but Without Modification Privileges

If I want to place a photograph I have taken into Public Domain for wide access, but do not want others to be able to modify that photograph (but creating thumbnails is OK), how should the Permissions Field's text be worded for the Photo's Summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Carroll (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You can't. Public Domain means no one owns the copyright and thus any derivative works can be made from it. And if it is a photograph that someone else can make and can put into the public domain, we can't use yours. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• You can approach this by using a Creative Commons CC-by-nd licence [1] (Attribution-NoDerivatives). This isn't public domain (and it also requires attribution on use), but it is a robust pre-written licence that forbids derivatives. Note that a -nd licence isn't a "free" licence as WP sees it, so isn't acceptable here.

Note that it's often impossible to "place" media into the public domain (it will happen eventually, but you might not be able to rush this). There are licences like CC-zero that try to offer something equivalent, that you can choose to grant on demand.

Note also that the copyright position on thumbnailing is unclear. There's a view circulating at present that under US law such an action isn't a creative action that creates a new copyright. This makes it impractical to forbid people doing it anyway, and so it's not needed to explicitly state that it's still allowed – but it doesn't hurt to re-state this.

If you want a licence that allows whatever you wish, then just draft one. Or else have your lawyer draft one. Maybe even draft one that's legally robust and doesn't try to achieve the impossible. Certainly "Very loose usage rights, but no modified derivatives" isn't too difficult. However such a licence wouldn't be acceptable for use at WP or Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Free images with specific license requirements

I want to upload an image depicting a historic event (c. 1932) to illustrate an existing article. The image's author is unknown, but the holder of the original image, a photographic negative, as confirmed to me that the image (or digital copies thereof) is not subject to copyright restrictions under New Zealand law. They have authorised the uploading of the image to Wikimedia Commons under a specific Creative Commons license (CC BY-ND NZ) with the appropriate attributions, etc. Therefore, the image would appear to be free (no copyright) but not Public Domain.

Do I still need to provide a rationale for use of the image on Wikipedia? What would be the most appropriate upload form and templates to properly describe the image? Matthew25187 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The -ND-part of the CC-license, makes it incompatible with Common's license policy (see the last bulleted list of that section). If you can't negotiate the -ND away, then I don't see any other options, than using it under fair use, if it falls within the fair use criterias. --Heb (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

From the description, this image would seem to be {{PD-NZ}}. A CC licence can't be applied to a public domain image [2]. January (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are screen grabs from youtube videos ""free use"" or ""copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use""

I want to use several images grabbed from youtube videos showing the different characters the actor and comedian performs to talk about them for a page i'm creating about them. While i assume it would fall into fair use, i don't know whether the youtuber or the company they work for would own the copyright if there was one on it. I'm thinking it might be free use though because anyone could recreate the image because the original content is easily accessible for free. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmistiqo (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Material uploaded to YouTube is frequently done so in breach of copyright - accordingly, you can make no assumptions about its status, and should thus assume (unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary) that the material is copyright. Regarding 'fair use' of screenshots, WP:NFCI states that this may be acceptable - but you'll have to provide more information if you want a specific answer regarding particular material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Biographical Pics of Living Figures

Hi all,

I'm new to Wikipedia, so if someone can explain this issue it would be very much appreciated.

I've noticed on Wikipedia many non-free pictures (typically from news articles) that have been posted as images for living biographical figures, along with a non-free usage qualification. Ergo I assumed that this was common Wikipedia practice.

However, an image for a living person I just uploaded (cropped from an online news article) has been marked for deletion based on the fact that it fails the "No Free Equivalent" standard. This is obviously false in my case however, as the figure was born after 1984 and therefore no free images of him currently exist.

Could someone explain more specifically why my picture in question was marked for deletion?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.137.190 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If we know what file you are referring to we can see what the exact problem was. Generally we do not permit non-free images of living persons, only deceased people. All such files must comply with all 10 non-free content policy criteria. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Peekaboo-marsheaux.jpg

Moved to WP:NFCR § File:Peekaboo-marsheaux.jpg

I'm wondering if this would qualify for {{PD-simple}}. Apart from the shiny gold foil effect, this album cover is just made up of a simple typeface and a monocolour background. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

May I use the css files of Wikipedia?

Hello @all,

I want to create a Wikipedia-browsing-website where I use the Wikipedia API to get the content of the Wikipedia articles. My question is: May I use the css files of wikipedia.org to style my website? Or is it forbidden by copyright? (Of course I would change a few things in the css files, I just would like the wikipedia-css-files as a starting point.)

Thank you very much in advance!

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.248.233.17 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When I look at MediaWiki:Common.css it says at the bottom "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". Thincat (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Jo mora yosemite map thumbnail.jpg

The above-mentioned image page claims that this work is not copyrighted because it is a creation of the Federal government, and cites http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/maps/jo_mora/ as a US govt site. But the picture itself claims to be copyright in 1931 by the artist, Jo Mora (I bought the picture as a jigsaw puzzle from the Yosemite Conservancy; the copyright can easily be read there), and the named web site is clearly commercial, and not governmental.

Jxg2 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems you are partly correct in that it does not appear to be a US govt work but we really need to know when it was published, not when it was created. That determines if it is still protected or not. If it was published before 1963 with the notice, which it has, and the copyright was not renewed, then it is PD, otherwise if it was renewed during that time it is in copyright for 95 years from the publication year per this commons page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Hello,

We believe the following photo violates copyright agreements and we would like it removed: File:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harry_Connick_Jr.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecowilkins (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

More easily clickable link: [3] --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The file was deleted in 2005.[4] There was a file with this name on Commons deleted at 20:55 6 January 2013[5] and that was being displayed in Harry Connick, Jr. until then. The link to the deleted image was removed in this edit. Thincat (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

creative commons tag

I am using a photo given to me by the owner of the image, the photographer who took the picture. i have written consent from him. What tag should I use in labeling my jpeg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisgossettsr (talk • contribs) 04:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, please ask the photographer to select a free license of his choice. Although you may be the uploader, it is always the photographer, i.e. the holder of copyright, who has to decide upon any licenses for his works. He is welcome to choose any license listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses. Then, this license should be mentioned in a letter of consent that is sent by the photographer to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please note that such licenses must include the right of making derivatives of the original image and using it for commercial purposes. So to retain a certain amount of rights, the photographer might want to go with one of the Creative Commons licenses suggested in our list. De728631 (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If it was a work for hire the contractor may now be the copyright holder and not the photographer. Just find out if the photographer is actually the copyright holder and get that person to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Signal Magazine

Hi,

I own several WW2 Signal magazines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(magazine) ) and would like to share the great pictures in them on Wikipedia or commons. At least, if they're not copyrighted anymore... How can I find out if Signal magazine content is still copyrighted?

Greetings, Imperator Caesar Augustus (talk) 12:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If the pictures are anonymous then they would copyright expire in Germany 70 years later, so by 2016 it will have all become public domain, and much has done so already. But thanks to US law it did not Recognise this public domain state and copying to Wikipedia will be illegal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

can you please help me to determine if i can use this image in part or whole as part of business card logo

and/or who i should talk to - thanks

Graeme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.56.166 (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

this is public domain so you can freely copy it. There may be trademark associated though, so be carefully of misrepresentation.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

U.S.-published magazine content copyright

I am wondering, is there a general rule for if/when do images from U.S.-based magazine publication copyright expire? Consider this Jul 20, 1963 edition of Billboard. When does the copyright of the images in that magazine expire? (More specifically, the ones on the back-cover, such as the Dinah Washington marriage photo). There doesn't appear to be any copyright notice or photographer on the images themselves. That edition of the Billboard Magazine was published by Nielsen Business Media, Inc if that makes a difference. Likewise, images from this Sept 11, 1950 LIFE Magazine. Thanks! --CyberXRef^talk 08:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The place to start in determining the copyright status is this - commons:Commons:Hirtle chart. For material published first in the US between 1923 and 1963 there are three scenarios to consider

1. Published without copyright notice - in which case the contents not copyrighted for failing to comply with the required terms
2. Published with copyright notice but the copyright was not renewed - in which case the contents are out of copyright
3. Published with copyright notice and copyright was renewed - in which case contents will be copyrighted until publication plus 95 years.

Copyright notice was given if the requirements outlined on pages 2 and 3 of this US copyright office notice are met. Note that magazines are collective works so one copyright notice will suffice for the entire magazine, excluding advertisments, although individual items can also be copyrighted separately. A quick glance at the two magazines you've linked to doesn't have a copyright notice jumping out at me (disregarding the google watermark), so I'd suggest that these both meet case #1 above and are not copyrighted due to failure to comply with the required formalities; images therefore can be uploaded with the licence {{PD-US-no notice}}. You might want to make a more thorough search first though to check for a copyright notice. Nthep (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ah yea, I forgot to note the Google 'copyright' watermark which is indeed Google's and not the original image. This leads me to a follow-up question. Does it make a difference who uploaded/scanned the material in question? I.E. if an image does meet #1, can I use the version Google scanned or do I have to scan it myself, or does it not matter? (I have noticed that the that edition does have "Copyright 1963 by The Billboard Publishing Company." listed on page 4 so clearly that doesn't apply in this case) CyberXRef^talk 12:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted (I had to blow up to a hell of a magnification to see that), ok so case #1 is out then. So you need to check if copyright was ever renewed? And here it is so it's copyrighted material until 1 January 2059 Nthep (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And this is the renewal for Life. I didn't think to look as far as page 41 of the edition to find the credits and editorial information. Nthep (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

File:XrossMediaBar (logo).svg

Does File:XrossMediaBar (logo).svg qualify as public domain due to lack of originality? It consists of seven white circles, and five uppercase Roman letters in a sans-serif font. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a pd-simple to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the licensing tag. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Recommended Text for Permissions Field in Summary part of Photo Upload for Public Domain Photos

I find a photo on the Internet, and I know for sure that it is before 1923 (i.e. Public Domain). When I Upload the Image, I must fill out the Permissions Field in the Summary structure – so how do I word that Permissions Field so that the image is accepted by Wikipedia?

Also, am I expected to initially show some form of proof that the photo is indeed before 1923? Should I expect to be later challenged for that claim?

Also, what text should I use for the Author Field, for this scenario?

Exactly how would that work? Thanx. James Carroll (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

yes you need to show that the photo was published, also when and where to see which law applies. The permission value can point to your proof. Author should be put in if you know but does matter if you can show it is public domain otherwise. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I'm still looking for concrete examples of sample text of how that would be accomplished. Here are some questions, please help so I can get it right the first time.

1) Supposed the photo is downloaded from a municipal library in the United States, exactly what TEXT am I supposed to write?

2) Do I have to supply a URL-link to the source, or is it enough to just mention the library?

3) Here are some examples of text for that field, please tell me which ones are acceptable"

Text A: "Photo was downloaded from a municipal website in America, and was dated as 1917 on that website, so is Public Domain." ( Acceptable or Unacceptable? )

Text B: "Photo was downloaded from the Chicago Public Library, and was dated as 1917 on that website, so is Public Domain." ( Acceptable or Unacceptable? )

Text C: "Photo was downloaded from a private website in America, but is obviously before 1923, so is Public Domain." ( Acceptable or Unacceptable? )

In all these cases you should be specific and link or mention the actual web site so that others can confirm. Also you are missing the evidence that it was published pre 1923. Old photos can be published for the first time and have their copyright period started freshly in USA. The website may tell where it was published eg book or newspaper or poster. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Here is a possible source for photos. The public library has been scanning actual photos, which may or may not have been published. Below is a link to a photo in their collection. Please tell me how to word the permissions for such a photo.

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/search~S0?/X%22pacific+street%22&SORT=D/X%22pacific+street%22&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBKEY=%22pacific+street%22/1%2C16%2C16%2CB/frameset&FF=X%22pacific+street%22&SORT=D&3%2C3%2C — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Carroll (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a bad link for me. But that aside there are two dates that are important. The first is the earliest (known) publication date - if an image was published prior to 1923 then it's public domain and can be uploaded and tagged with the licence {{PD-US}} to show that's it's a public domain item in the US. You should be able to prove publication as part of this process; for images, in most instances that is going to be proved by showing publication in a newspaper, magazine or book but items like posters are also acceptable as long as copies were made for distribution. If it's a single item like a photo or a painting then public display of that item does not constitute publication. If you can't establish that something was first published before 1923 then it gets a bit more convoluted (see the section below [[#U.S.-published magazine content copyright] that covers publication between 1923 and 1963. Set that aside for the time being as you're asking about obviosuly old images. If you're confident that the images were created prior to 1923 but think they are subsequently unpublshed then you need to know about the author. If you know the identity of the author and are sure the image has never been published then if the author died at leat 70 years ago i.e. before 1 January 1944 the image is PD and can be uploaded with the licence {{PD-old-70}}. If you don't know the identity of the author then you must be able to show that the image was created at least 125 years ago i.e. prior to 1 January 1894, and has to the best of yuor knowledge never been published, in which case you can upload it with the licence {{PD-US-unpublished}}. I know it sounds horrednously complicated but once you understand the order in which the various tests need to be applied it gets a bit easier.

All of the above is not Wikipedia policy but US copyight law. If you want to say what you know about each image you want to upload based on the above then we'll do our best to advise you what licence applies, if any. Nthep (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

USS Adroit (MSO-509)

USS Adroit (MSO-509) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd like a second opinion of the edits I've just made to this article and the three others mentioned on its talk page. Feel free to undo them if you think I've been too cautious. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – with thanks to CyberXRef (talk · contribs) -- John of Reading (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

List of The Adventures of Tintin characters

Hello. What is your advice in this situation, please? The article is List of The Adventures of Tintin characters and the problem is this article really cannot be illustrated except for the single image in the infobox, yet it should be additionally illustrated for GA standards. Therefore, do you think it may it be illustrated with as many as three additional copyrighted images from the Hergé Foundation? (Three because: One at Main characters section, one at Villains section, and one at Supporting characters section.) Thank-you for your answer. Prhartcom (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a rather gray area. It would clearly be unacceptable to use a non-free image for every character. But in my opinion, it would be acceptable to have a total of four non-free images in an article of that size and level of detail, so long as the content of the images are adequately discussed in sourced commentary. Others may think that four is too many; there are widely divergent opinions on the application of WP:NFCC in this sort of situation. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you Quadell, I can tell you grasp the difficulty here as I do: to find the reasonable balance between the needs of WP:NFCC and the needs of this large article. Perhaps I will proceed with one image for each of the three sections for now, and I hope others will share their thoughts also. Thanks again. Prhartcom (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

One for protagonist and one for villains is reasonable as long as we're talking cast groups like the current image on that page. I'm not sure if you need one for the supporting cast, though it likely depends on what images you are proposing to use. If you get one that captures a good # of them, sure, but if you can only do like 3-4 of that list, it's probably not appropriate. Do you have links to the proposed images you'd like to use? --MASEM (t) 20:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for your thoughts Masem and Quadell; Masem, I hear what you are saying. I have uploaded to my own server the following images for your consideration: [6] [7] [8]

(Main characters, Villains, Supporting characters). I think I need to write some encyclopedic prose at the start of each of the three sections that refers to the actions taking place in the images. Prhartcom (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, can you use that current image in any fashion? For example, that looks to capture many of the protagonists (caution: my understanding of Tintin is primarily from the Spielberg movie and its passing in pop culture so) with a few recurring, so that would seem to be unnecessary to include [9] which (as I believe) has 5 of those all pictured in the main cast. The other two seem reasonable, and understanding that like other serial works, you're likely not getting all the villains or supporting cast to appear in common shots but any promo material that might do this would be good. If you can't, those last two are fair to include. --MASEM (t) 02:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear editors, thank-you; I appreciate your helpful comments. I have completed adding three new images to the article List of The Adventures of Tintin characters; there will never be a need to add any additional illustrations. Prhartcom (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC) Please stop by to take a look and let me know if you like what you see. Prhartcom (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem and reuploading file

Hi there, I recently uploaded File:Portrait of Thomas Phifer.jpg and did not provide adequate permissions within 7 days, so the file was deleted (F11: No evidence of permission for more than 7 days). I have since compiled all permission and licensing data, but can't re-upload the file since it was deleted. How can I reupload the file with the correct permissions? Thanks for your help in advance. Rosecarter915 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Has an email been sent as per OTRS confirming the permission? If so, once that is processed the image can be undeleted. Nthep (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've undeleted it, but I've also re-tagged it with {{npd}}; this way Rosecarter must act before too much time passes. See my message at Rosecarter's talk page. Nyttend (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Images that are both free based on expired Crown copyright but subject to FOP in France

What's the view on uploading images to wikipedia that are free under Crown copyright (and US) but are subject to FoP in France. We are faced with the case of numerous images of of WWI and WWII memorials in France being considered copyright infringement. Thoughts.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a template {{Do not move to Commons}} that may be suitable for such situations when files may not be acceptable on the commons but are acceptable here. ww2censor (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A free image that pictures a work that is in the public domain in the United States or a copyrighted work that is freely licensed or that can be freely pictured in the U.S. per the Copyright Act (e.g. a photo of a recent building) may be uploaded to the English-language Wikipedia as an image that is free in the U.S. The objection to the tagging of such images as being free in the U.S. is not their copyright status anywhere outside the U.S. A possible objection is their status as works that may be under copyright in the United States. To be tagged as free, it must be documented that the illustrative work is free and that the pictured work is freely licensed or is in the public domain in the U.S. or can be freely pictured per the Copyright Act of the U.S. If the illustrative work is free and the pictured work was published before 1922 or is a building per the U.S. jurisprudential definition, it's probably ok for Wikipedia. However, most war memorials are probably not buildings under that definition and some war memorials were built after 1922. The U.S. copyright status of a non-building work may depend on facts and definitions such as: is it considered published or unpublished, per the U.S. jurisprudential definition; if published, in what country and during what year was it first published; if considered first published in the U.S. after 1922, did it have a copyright notice; if considered first published outside the U.S. after 1922 without the U.S. copyright formalities, does it meet the URAA-related provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act (e.g. if first published in France, did its authors die before 1937); etc.

-- Asclepias (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Labattblueboy, please check the "Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law" section of Commons:COM:L. Public domain/freely-licensed status is required only for the US (because of our servers) and for the country in which the work was first published; the exceptions basically cover images of 2D artwork that's PD in its home country (not particularly applicable here) and images taken from third-party websites (again, not particularly applicable). Since the "work" in question is the image that's been uploaded to Commons, check the country of origin of the uploader; if you can demonstrate that it was uploaded by someone who resides in a country in which the pictured object is not under copyright, the image is acceptable under Commons policy as long as the pictured object isn't copyrighted in the US. Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just referred to this discussion. I want to note for the help of anyone else who refers to it that the assumption above that a Crown Copyright existed for these works requires two unlikely things to be true. First, that the creators executed work for hire agreements at a time when those were not at all common, and, second, that, as a legal matter, works created by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission had a Crown Copyright. Since the Commission is an inter-governmental organization of six governments, only four which recognize the Crown, I am not at all sure that its works would have a Crown Copyright.. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Third-party components of PD-US-not renewed works

Imagine that you have a {{PD-US-not renewed}} work that includes works by other parties, published with their permission. Are these components in the public domain (because they were published with owners' permission in something that didn't renew), or are they potentially still under copyright (because failure to renew wasn't the fault of the components' owners), or is it somehow a different situation? The Cincinnati Guide, a part of the American Guide Series published by a non-federal entity, includes plenty of images marked as "Photo by courtesy of [owner]". These are the only bits whose status is unclear, since the original work doesn't appear in the Stanford renewal database. I'm guessing that the book's copyright status also covers the images, due to the copyright status of images such as File:Bill Gates Letter to Hobbyists.jpg, but I'm not certain enough to rely on that guess. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the section Contributions to collective works p.3 here - all contributions are covered by the same copyright notice, so I'd suggest that unless individually copyrighted and renewed then none of the contributions were renewed if the main work's copyright wasn't renewed. Nthep (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Civilization IV example gameplay units.jpg

Don't know if this is the right place to ask, but I need help from someone who is familiar with image editing tools. The above-linked file needs to be scaled down to a lower resolution to match the copyright tag and needs to have the watermark removed. I'm not that great with any image editing programs out there, so if someone could help it'd be appreciated. Thanks, TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi This is a screeshot which taken from film Nil Akasher Niche released in 1969, directed by Narayan Ghosh Mita, produced by Imdad Ali. Thank you Kind Regards Anwar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwarhs (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about this image: File:Actor Razzak.jpg. You have provided no information about the source movie, so we cannot tell if it is still in copyright or who owns the copyright to the movie it came from. If it still copyright the copyright holder could release the image under a free licence. Without those details we have to presume it is still in copyright and it will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Lorde Pure Heroine.png

Is this file actually free? The text has detail (most visible in the final 'E'). If it fails to meet the threshold of originality, then what is the file's "home country" - it was probably released first on the internet - likely here, on a US domain. Adabow (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The fade-out is enough to cross the threshold for copyright, in my opinion, although the artistic originality is less than impressive. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

CC 4.0

Reading this article from Duke University was my first (and only, so far) exposure to the concept of a CC 4.0 license. Has there been any discussion (either here or Commons) about using 4.0 licenses? Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There has at Commons with concern expressed that it applies to all versions of the same work e.g. both high and low res versions, you can read the whole thread at commons:Commons:Village Pump/Copyright#File:Trabalhos.jpg. There's link to FAQ at creative commons as well. I think the attitude at Commons at the moment is to keep CC 3.0 as the default licence and not move to 4.0 yet. Of course that doesn't stop anyone licencing their work under a cc 4.0 licence should they wish to. Other than a brief thread on Jimbo's talk page I haven't seen anything on WP so far. Nthep (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Fire Department Pages

Hello, I am working on updating a lot of page for fire departments. I have been told by multiple different agencies that since their images are in the public domain, I am more than welcome to use them. Is there any criteria in WP:NONFREE that these fall under that would except me from having to use WP:CONSENT?

Additionally can someone help me understand the process for getting WP:CONSENT? If I send an email to someone containing one of the examples shown here: WP:ERP and they reply "That is okay with us. Go ahead and use them." (or something to that affect) is that enough for me to forward on permissions-enwikimedia.org or do I need to have them actually fill out the WP:CONSENT form? Thanks in advance for any help! --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If these images are public domain then evidence of that is needed. If, for example, they are used elsewhere on the internet and the author of the images is identified and a specific statement that they are PD and why, that would suffice. Otherwise the process at WP:CONSENT needs to be followed. You can either recite the content to them and they reply ok or preferably the email comes direct from the copyright holder with the example words used in WP:CONSENT. Nthep (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Usage of the Template:Bsr

Ok, Stefan2 is on some sort of misguided mission regarding usage of the Template:Bsr and now is making a misguided assertion that if an image does not comply with the wording of that template, that a non-free image cannot be used. There is nothing to support this template represents any sort of policy or guideline, which was raised years ago on the talkpage by another user. Further, if you click on the link in the template that purports to support what the template is stating, it does not take you to a place that supports the usage of the template.

More importantly, I do not think that template (even if supported by policy/guidelines) should be used on non-free images. The fact we are saying this is a copyrighted image means we do not need to really determine the copyright status, as the status is copyrighted. As in, the very fact it is uploaded as non-free means it is asserted it is copyrighted. In other words, it is reasonable to request more than a bare-url for free images so others can determine if the image is actually properly licensed for free usage on Wikipedia, but not so in the other direction. For instance, a link to the page with the licensing info for those asserted as free is needed, but not when we know it is not-free.

This then takes us to the deletion nomination of this image based upon "fails WP:NFCC#10a: source is {{bsr}}, so no WP:NFCC#2 assessment can be made." Interesting and creative way to make a point, and I do say point because the bsr template was added first and the image was not nominated for deletion on this purported criteria until after I removed the bsr template (as in if you thought it was a copyvio issue you knew to nominate it first and not do it to try and make a point). The reason this assertion is incorrect is #2 is "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material." The FUR template already has a a field to address this called "Low resolution" which will better inform you of the respect for commercial opportunities. The key determination for #2 is whether or not the image uploaded to Wikipedia will impact the commercial opportunities of the original image, and all you really need for that is to look at the image on Wikipedia. If a picture is of a small size, then it is going to pass. This is why there is another bot or user that goes around tagging images that are too large. Keep in mind, almost all cameras take rather large pictures (same for both digital and film cameras), and if all that is uploaded to Wikipedia is less than a few hundred pixels in width or height, then it is by definition low resolution. Of course, of importance for this discussion, is that a link directly to the image does in fact provide all that is needed to make the determination for #2. As in, a bare url is more than enough to make the #2 determination as you can view the image. If we are worried about link rot, that's a different issue, to which the template at issue should address.

Lastly, the image at issue should not be listed as a CSD. CSD is for policy-back quick deletions, not custom criteria. As in there is a reason Non-free content review exists, and this would be one of those reasons. As in we should have a discussion in which third-party voices can be heard, otherwise Stefan2 is simply going to keep tagging for deletion until the FUR is exactly as he requires. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that the use of {{bsr}} is misguided? The template tells that a file with that template has a source which links to a generic base URL or directly to the image, and the source you gave does indeed link directly to the image. Also, per WP:NFCC#10a, you are required to specify a correct full source – and an incomplete source is not a full source. Without a full source it is, for example, not possible to assess whether the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2 or WP:NFCC#4. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It is all explained above. I think it is misguided because it should not be used on non-free images and because their is no policy to support it. If there is, please point to the policy, as explained several times now, the purported link to any sort of rationale for using this template does not work. As to NFCC 10a, did you read that: "Identification of the source of the original copyrighted material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder, and year of copyright;" (emphasis added). Ergo, when "supplemented where possible" is used, that means what is there sort of meets the criteria. As in, a bare URL or here a URL with the name of the organization meets the criteria. Ergo, the template is crap. Would more info be better, yes, but not a reason to tag a file let alone attempt to delete an image. For the specific image it is highly doubtful the original image was taken by the newspaper, it was likely a campaign photo or one taken by the legislature. Regardless, none of that information was in the newspaper when it was published, so none of that is available to supplement. Further, can you explain exactly how this nonexistent could help you with #4? Seriously, there is a URL link clearly demonstrating it was and still is publicly displayed outside of Wikipedia. As to #2, again explain how more information will allow you to make the determination? As explained above, there is a different field in the FUR that addresses it properly, this field would not, but feel free to explain your rationale, versus just saying it does. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You will have to prove that the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2 (for example WP:NFC#UUI §7). As it is not known where the image comes from, it isn't possible to tell whether WP:NFC#UUI §7 is satisfied. You also have to prove that it satisfies WP:NFCC#4. That it exists elsewhere on the Internet isn't evidence of this; someone might have uploaded the image to a server without linking to it, and then the public doesn't know of its presence there, de facto meaning that it hasn't been publicly shown. Without accurate sources, it is impossible to write a fair use rationale which correctly addresses these points in a verifiable way. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK then. I've updated it, but for all involved, take a look at the link to where it most recently published. Note the tag line matches exactly what the FUR had prior to you tagging it. So, did we really gain anything? As to prior publication, you must not be thinking this through. Yes, someone could have just uploaded, but 1) since I found it, it sort of proves the public does know of its presence there, and 2) the other source added still would not prove it anymore unless you can pull up their page view stats to see how many people saw it (not to mention it is not the number of views or even if others know of the presence, but it is generally considered the intent as to if something is published if you care to review the case law and since a news organization posted it to their website then the intent was publication and that was amply demonstrated by the original source info). Which leaves the last order of business: this was not a CSD situation. Please refrain from doing so in the future. CSD is not to be used as a tool in an editor dispute. CSD can be used when it is a clear copyright violation, not something such as this. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Image uploads by Phish1013

Yesterday I found some images that were uploaded as non-free fair use of a living person. Today in a followup, I went back and looked at other images uploaded by the same user and that raised some questions. 5 Sep 2009 Phish1013 uploaded File:Mike-head-shot.jpg and claimed it as their own work and stated the author was Mike Gordon, the subject of the image. A couple of weeks later Phish1013 uploaded File:Mikegordon portland091009.jpg, once again claiming it as their own work, but this time saying the photographer was Julia Mordaunt. This makes it appear that either one or both of these are not licensed correctly. GB fan 11:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged them both as lacking permission, seeing as the source is different for the author. An OTRS verification would satisfy us. It appears the uploader may have a conflict of interest because the majority of their editing has been to the same article. ww2censor (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Help with: "All rights reserved" but, at the same time, "Reproduced by permission of"

Dear all, I need your advice. On a website I found the following statement: "All rights reserved. These texts [...] can be reproduced free of charge with [...] the following [...] credits: Reproduced by permission of". How should I treat those texts according to Wikipedia regulations? Nelidarocca (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Nelidarocca (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the webpage you partly quoted. From the few bits quoted above, it seems not free and thus unusable on Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Asclepias Thank you for your kind answer! I just checked it out and it's not a website (my mistake, sorry), but a printed flyer: it's basically a biography. Despite the copyright sign, it clearly states that "These texts [...] can be reproduced free of charge with [...] the following [...] credits: Reproduced by permission of". Isn't that enough? Please, let me know. Nelidarocca (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because it allows only simple reproduction, not alteration, editing, derivative works, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Thank you so much for you answer! But then, under what kind of license should a text be in order to be used for a Wikipedia article? Please, let me know, because I'm totally lost! A derivative works is NOT a copyright violation in any way. Otherwise, paraphrasing would be impossible in academic articles, for example. What, then? Nelidarocca (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Public domain is one. I believe that anything produced by the US Federal government or its employees in the course of their employment is in the public domainso it can be used verbatim. This is usually acknowledged near the bottom of the page on WP. CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence and the GFDL is what all WP is licenced under.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, thank you again for your reply! I will be sure to check all what you kindly linked for me! Nelidarocca (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That bit above (public domain etc) was actually part of my reply, not from Hullabaloo. :-) 220 of ^Borg 10:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm no expert in this area, so you'll need to look at those pages, the last 2 of which also appear at the bottom of the page when you are editing.
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright may answer all your queries. 220 of ^Borg 06:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Borg Thank you for your comments and links! Nelidarocca (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You can also import text with a Creative Commons licence that allows for commercial re-use and derivative works. In short: Don't use any Creative Commons with "nc" or "nd" included. This should then be attributed on the article page with {{CC-notice}}. De728631 (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

De728631, thanks a lot for your comment! It was just what I needed! Nelidarocca (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that the text you want to import doesn't appear to be covered by a CC licence. You can't import text that isn't freely licenced and assign it a free licence on WP. Perhaps if you told us the site you want to refer to and how you want to use it, we can work out what the best solution, if any, is. Nthep (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Felicia Barton Image

Hi, I have been working on the Wikipedia page for singer-songwriter Felicia Barton. The article obviously needs a picture in the infobox, and I need help identifying a picture that would be okay to use on Wikipedia! If you Google her name, a bunch of pics will come up, but I was thinking this recent one is a good picture: http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/avatar/feliciabarton_1313794874_78.jpg

Thank you! TDI19 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Because she is still living, we can only use an image that has been licensed under a free license (like CC-BY-3.0) or offered in the public domain. Unfortunately, you will not be able to tell this just by Google searching. I checked at Flickr (which does report image licenses) but didn't see anything there. --MASEM (t) 01:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for checking! TDI19 (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Song Lyrics

The recently created article En mi viejo San Juan contains the full lyrics of the song the article is about.

The article is still under development, and does not mention when the song was composed. But it seems its author, Noel Estrada, lived from June 4, 1918 to 1979. That would probably make the copyrights of the lyrics to be still valid.

But also, the article says that one city, San Juan, Puerto Rico, adopted the song as its official city anthem. Are all anthems public domain?

So, is it ok to keep the full lyrics within the article? --damiens.rf 14:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The lyrics would still be copyrighted. You may be able to use some under fair use, but the whole lot would be too much to be fair. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How do we know they are the full lyrics. Do you have a WP:RS link for comparison? Mercy11 (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have no idea. Never heard this song. I'm just trusting the article, but it actually lack sources for that. Are you familiar with that song? The article points that it's very famous in Puerto Rico. Can you say if the lyrics are complete? --damiens.rf 14:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read some of the footnote citations in the article. The very first footnote (The Hispanic Heritage citation) contains the following:

"Written during World War II by Noel Estrada, "En mi Viejo San Juan" is one of the most famous ballads of Puerto Rico. The song captures the longing of Puerto Rican emigrants and soldiers for their distant homeland. For many Puerto Ricans, it remains today a kind of second national anthem, and it was adopted as the official city anthem of San Juan."

If a song is the official city anthem of San Juan, then it is clearly being transcribed and performed in public forums, and public places, hundreds of times a year (thousands of times, throughout the entire island). This broad public usage supplants your concern about copyright. The song is written, sung, performed, by everyone all over the island of Puerto Rico. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"This broad public usage supplants your concern about copyright" - No, it doesn't. Sorry. Happy Birthday to You is performed way more than En mi Viejo San Juan and it's still copyright protected. --damiens.rf 19:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider these questions:

• Why are we saying the En mi Viejo San Juan article was "recently created"? - It wasn't.
• Do we know the article is showing the "full lyrics" as you claim? - No, we don't.
• How do we know Happy Birthday is performed "way more than" En mi Viejo San Juan? - We don't.
• How do we know the song "is copyright protected" if it was written for his at-war brother and his soldier friends? - We don't.
• Why are we saying Happy Birthday to You is "copyright protected"? - It isn't (until it is).

Only the Courts can decide if Happy Birthday to You is copyright protected or PD. Until the Courts rule, we won't know, and so for now and as of today we don't know.

• Does performing Happy Birthday to You "way more than En mi Viejo San Juan" (even if it was the case) have any bearance on copyright? - No, it doesn't.

Performances, such as family birthday gatherings and public city performances, are not covered by someone else's copyright as they are themselves "creative" works, and also because they are not officially-recorded live on-stage touring hall performances for sale and profit. Only the lyrics can be copyrighted, and we still don't know that they were.

-- My 2¢. Mercy11 (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Photographs digitised from paper copies of uncertain origin

My problem arises from the following: the group to which I belong, the South Wales Geologists' Association has a number of paper photographs in its possession, the origin as well the copyright (if any exists) of which is often unclear. Some of these photographs have subsequently been digitised, e.g. in the list of group chairmen 1959-1992, p.24 of the publication GEOLOGISTS’ ASSOCIATION, SOUTH WALES GROUP - A GEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE 1960-1992.

What is the copyright situation of this type of picture ? For all intents and purposes I would consider them the property of the person who is in possession of the paper copy as long as there are no competing claims, and as such if this person then digitised the paper copy he or she would become the copyright owner of the digitised picture, or could then claim copyright in the name of the South Wales Geologists' Association.

What I would like to know is the following : what is the stance of Wikipedia for publication of this type of image in Wikimedia Commons ? MarnixR (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Digitising the copies doesn't create a new copyright, with all of these images the copyright will rest with the original photographer and if this booklet was the first publication of them then they will be in copyright until either 70 years after the death of the copyright holder or 2088 if author not known (publication plus 95 years). This is the situation under US copyright law which governs uploads to Commons. Under UK law then assuming continued lack of ownership then they will be copyright until 2063 (publication plus 70 years). Nthep (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Further question: what if the paper photograph was just taken without publication in mind (e.g. from a private family photo album) ? Is it then still subject to copyright ?

And if the original copyright holder has died, do his/her descendants have the right to relinquish the copyright to the public domain in the name of the deceased ?

It seems rather strange that something is assumed to be under copyright for an inordinately long period (well beyond my own expected lifespan) when there's no-one alive to enforce or release the perceived copyright. MarnixR (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright is created at the moment of creation of the image regardless of any intention to publish or not, it's just that under US law first publication date is prime in determining how long that copyright lasts (there is a special case for unpublished images). Heirs can release items into the public domain before the expiry of the copyright. Nthep (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Do these restrictions hold for all of Wikipedia, or just for Wikimedia Commons ? MarnixR (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

They're copyright rules so they apply to all WMF sites. Nthep (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Advice on scanned and modified map of Gottingen Cemetery

Dear All, When I visited the town cemetery in Gottingen, Germany (the most Nobel laureates buried in one place), I picked up a free paper brochure with a map that shows the grave locations of the Nobel laureates.

I've scanned this map and I've extensively modified the scanned image by adding the grave locations of other significant scientists who were not awarded Nobels, an index listing the scientists' names and connecting them with the numbers marking the graves, and some directions orienting the map to Gottingen town center.

This map image will be useful for visitors to locate graves in this large cemetery. Is this image usable in Wikipedia?

Thanks for advice, TBond (talk) 1:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The map is most likely copy-written by the town, the cemetery, or another party, so would not be usable especially if you've made derivative work of it. --AdmrBoltz 01:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you draw a completely new map with the added details, not just a derivative map, then you can release that under a free licence. Or you could ask for some help from the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. ww2censor (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Panoramio photos

I want to upload a panoramio photo onto a wikipedia page. It says '© All Rights Reserved' on the photo details. Am I allowed to do it? It seems like a minefield in the world of copyright!

Richadlam (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

© All rights reserved means exactly that. The copyright owner has not given away any of his copyright so we cannot use it. We require that images are freely licenced and you can see the list of acceptable free licences here. All other licences have some restrictions we don't accept. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. You could try asking the panoramio uploader if they are prepared to release the image under a licence we accept; sometime that works. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Image of Living Person from Website

I would like to use this imageof Mark C. Zauderer on his Wiki page. I've been contact with Mr. Zauderer and he says the photo was taken a long time ago and he has no way of contacting the photographer. He said he paid to have the photograph taken and he's used it for other publications and he considers himself the owner of the photo. What do I need to do at this point to get this photo accepted on his page? Would an e-mail from him suffice? Stellany (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Work for hire can be a problem area unless it is clear that the ownership of the copyright by the photographer was included in the contract. Mere ownership of a photo does not confer any rights to the person possessing the photo. Mr. Zauderer could follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT and the OTRS team may well accept his confirmation. Without knowledge as to who actually owns the copyright, which Mr. Zauderer may be able to confirm, right now we cannot be sure. It may be Mr. Zauderer, the non-contactable photographer or the heirs of the photographer if he is deceased. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I will relay this information to him, thanks for info.Stellany (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Accidentally uploaded a non-free image -- can it be deleted?

I had an image deleted from a page by an admin with the rationale that a non-free image wasn't justified, so went looking for a free version of the same subject. I searched Google Images with the 'commercial use' filter on as instructed, and uploaded what I thought was a free image as a result: Horrible Histories cast at the 2010 British Comedy Awards.jpg .
Unfortunately, it was only after I'd done so that I saw the metadata and realised that I'd actually uploaded a pointedly and thoroughly copyrighted image. Basically, I've accidentally stuck the project with an image that can't be used and am really sorry for the mistake, could it be speedily deleted please and thanks? Shoebox2 talk 13:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I assume it is File:Horrible Histories cast at the 2010 British Comedy Awards.jpg? --AdmrBoltz 13:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the one (couldn't figure out how to format a link, sorry). Thanks much for the quick response. Shoebox2 talk 13:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've deleted it. January (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

2 photos in the Karen Olson article

Both of these photographs were taken years ago by private individuals for Karen Olson, Founder of Family Promise. They were not commercial in nature--these were supporters of Family Promise who accompanied Karen to these two events and took pictures of her, for her. The photographer who took the black and white photo of Olson in NYC died 6 years ago. I believe the person who photographed Olson when she was receiving her Points of Light Award was a friend of Karen's. Karen has been in possession of these 2 photos for many years. Is it going to be possible to keep them in the article? Cakaul (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright belongs to the photographer or their heirs. So the permissions to be freely released has to come from them, not their subject. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Album covers

[10] [11] Do these U.S. covers exceed the threshold of originality? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 12:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

IMHO the first one does, but the second one does not. --AdmrBoltz 14:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Normandy Invasion, June 1944.jpg

Can I use this picture for my article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.120.241 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the photo is free of copyright restrictions. --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 13:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

From the information about this photo at the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/94505434/), it is a photo from the U.S. Maritime Commission. Therefore there are no copyright restrictions if you want to publish it inside the United States. But it is different if you want to publish it in another country. So, it depends where you want to publish your article. If you mean an article published in Wikipedia or elsewhere in the United States, it's ok. If you want to publish it outside Wikipedia in a country other than the United States, the official position of the U.S. government, which you can read at http://www.usa.gov/copyright.shtml, is that "the work may be protected under the copyright laws of other jurisdictions when used in these jurisdictions. The U.S. government may assert copyright outside of the United States for U.S. government works." -- Asclepias (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Tank man Picture

Some people says the famous Tank man picture could not be used on Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 with "An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" or "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." But like File:Soldiers Western Wall 1967.jpg could be use on Western Wall, David Rubinger and Six-Day War. So Tank man Picture could be used on Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? (I am sorry for my poor English)--KOKUYO (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

William Alexander Young - deleted media

Stefan2 has listed the following files for deletion despite the fact that the copyright holder, Nicholas Jones, has already sent permission for these files to be used and his email accepted File:William Alexander Young.jpg File:Mobile laboratory designed by WA Young.jpeg File:Memorial fountain to Noguchi and Young.jpg within the article William Alexander Young Please reinstate them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethbs (talk • contribs) 16:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bethbs:, two of those file names have never existed, looking at your contributions list I think I can work out which images they are. It's not helped by you having uploaded some of these files, more than once. Please just upload a file once and if there are problems asking for help in sorting the one file out rather than uploading the image again. Nthep (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. I re-uploaded them because I got a message to say they had not been properly uploaded. I also noticed I had attributed authorship of the memorial fountain to WA Young, rather than his wife, Olive Young, so corrected this. In any case copyright holder in all three cases is the sole descendant of WA and Olive Young, Nicholas Jones, who has confirmed permission to Wikipedia. How should I proceed please?

File:Dr WIlliam Alexander Young.jpg

File:Mobile laboratory designed by WA Young.jpeg

File:Memorial fountain to Noguchi and Young.jpeg

File:Memorial to Dr Hideyo Noguchi and Dr WA Young.jpeg

Bethbs (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)bethbs

Beth, I appreciate the notices might be confusing but like articles, image files can be edited to and the errors corrected, rather than uploading the images again. I've deleted the duplicates and added the OTRS confirmation to the remaining three images. Nthep (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Osmonds Pictures for Wiki Page

Hello. I'm a new member that's joined Wikipedia. I'm wondering if there could be any new photos added to The Osmonds wiki page like more photos of their 50th anniversary tour and Final Tour and also the hit single for One Bad Apple. The album cover is missing from the details page. However I am very concerned about copyright and since I only just joined, I wouldn't know how to edit properly or in case a file gets uploaded and then deleted if it violates the guidelines. I would be very grateful if further detail is classified on how to edit without violating the rules on Wikipedia.

Many thanks, Snowydream80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowydream80 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Any image you would want to add must normally be freely licenced. Album cover are normally only used to identify the specific album in that article about that album and not in the artist's own article per WP:NFCI #1. Such instance are covered by our non-free image policy which is quite strict. Many such uses have been removed or deleted. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page which tells you why certain images are not not acceptable. Have you any specific images in mind? In that case, just post the URL here, in this discussion (if it has not been archived) and we will assist. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Copy rights to 76 year old engineering drawing

Background: Recently I created an short article concerning an obscure diesel engine, which contained an engineering drawing of the machine. The only reference to this machine (and the drawing) that I have managed to find so far, has been in book published in 1938. The publisher has ceased to exist (since about 2003) and copy rights were not addressed by any mention in the opening pages of the book.I have since written to Dutch companies in the hope that an older engineer might remember enough about the engine to provide further leads, which, of course might also enable me to track down the drawings draftsman or his employer. I doubt either he or his company still exist 76 years later but I shall keep trying. This could be a long process. I have addressed the issue of copyright in a tag on the image but it seems this is not sufficiently "watertight". Question: What further steps must be taken to ensure copy right no longer exists over this image? File:Sectional drawing of Hulsebos-Hesselman engine.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dundonald1947 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Although the image is PD in the UK (anonymous drawing 70+ years after publication) it isn't PD in the US (and won't be until 2034) so would need a fair use rationale attaching. That the publishing company is no longer in existence isn't relevant to this discussion, it's the same position as if a known author had died, the copyright doesn't die with their death. Nthep (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sweat of the brow

I uploaded File:Sir Orfeo, first page, Auchinleck.jpg, from a scan of a 1340-ish manuscript, taken from the owning library's website. I gave it the Template:PD-anon-1923 for licensing. However, the description given by the template is not quite accurate. "Sweat of the brow" is recognized as contributory towards copyright in the UK (the source country), but not in the US. As such, the template correctly says the work is US-PD, but it says baldly that it is UK-PD. The underlying text is UK-PD, and the same would apply for any facsimile version. But the actual scan, which was certainly done very carefully, both for quality and to protect the manuscript, certainly has some non-trivial "sweat of the brow". I have no idea if this blocks UK-PD. I assume one page for a relevant purpose is "fair dealing".

I removed the forward to Commons tag, and I put a brief explanation under the PD-license. I presume this situation will occur again. Suggestions? I foresee either a wordier template message, a template with a "sweat=" parameter , or a separate "sweat" template.

It's also entirely possible that the EU Courts have mooted the question and overruled the UK. It's also entirely possible that the UK law only applies to works that had copyright in the first place. The manuscript pre-dates copyright law entirely.

For this particular case, it may well be that the library would be co-operative. Perhaps not, they made the image slightly difficult to download. Choor monster (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A 2D image of a 2D work that was scanned would be considered a slavish reproduction (you're doing a reasonably exact match via a mechanical means) and thus there's no new copyright there. Alternatively, if you made an SVG based on that underlying image (which requires effort), that would be a sweat of the brow and you would be eligible to copyright on that work. The issue of getting scan right (the right angle, color-matching, etc.) is not considered for this. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about something UK courts have ruled on or the like? If not, I have no idea what your point is. As it is, the original was several PNG files, and after enlarging, I made screen captures of the top and bottom half and then edited them together. But as an American in the US, I get no ownership rights off that. Choor monster (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You did nothing originally artistic, and as per commons:Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag#UK, it is highly unlikely that all the photo stitching you had to do is considered originally artistic despite that it was "work", hence the scan is PD UK as well as US. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link. (The original version was to a blank page, and that didn't help. Thanks for catching it in time.) I wasn't implying any ownership rights on my part. I was just trying to give as complete an account of what the image I uploaded was. Choor monster (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're all good - the mess of copyright law around the world makes it better to check appropriately :) --MASEM (t) 23:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Vatican works

While I was in Rome a while back, I went to the Vatican Museums, which has a nice exhibit (among many other things of far greater artistic worth) of the plaster models for coinage designs. Naturally, I took photographs, which I am thinking of uploading here or at Commons. I couldn't find anything specific on the copyright, though, and I saw nothing obvious here or on Commons. Vatican euro coins has had its images deleted, but that seems to be as some greater purge of euro coin images. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

1. About the copyright situation. The original work, i.e. the design embodied into the plaster, is not free. Your own added photographic work can be free, assuming you offer it as such. The resulting image is not free, because it incorporates the non-free original work of design with your free work of photography. Some such non-free images may be used in Wikipedia, if they meet all the requirements of Wikimedia's and Wikipedia's non-free content policies. If you upload such an image, make sure you specify the informations about the original work and about its author and you clearly distinguish and specify the respective copyright statuses A) of the original design and B) of your photographic work. For those purposes, a comprehensive template such as Commons' Template:Art Photo could be useful but I don't find an equivalent template on Wikipedia. Anyway, you can aim for a similar result, for example with a combined use of the Template:Information, plus the Template:Non-free 3D art, plus a non-free use rationale for the non-free design, plus the template for the free license of your photographic work. Or any other form of explanation and combination of relevant templates, as long as the result is clear.

2. About the non-free content policies. Yes, the non-free images of Vatican coins were removed and deleted circa May 2011 as part of broader discussions/applications of the non-free content policies on Wikipedia as applied in particular to images related to numismatics. You can see for example this edit and similar edits removing images on other pages, with, for what it's worth, the rationale "overuse of non-free content", and after being removed from the articles, the images were deleted, as in this example. Images of euro coins that currently subsist on Wikipedia are listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Non-free_currency-EU_coin_national (there may also be a few more files if they do not have that template). The difficulty is determining what might be the proper number of non-free images that might constitute an acceptable sample to illustrate non-free works. You can get an idea of the discussions on this issue at this discussion from mid-2011: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy?. I don't know if there were substantial more recent discussions. Perhaps you could search about it.

Concretely, about your photos of the plasters, IMO, it would be interesting to have at least one of them on Wikipedia. Make sure you find a proper context for it in an article, with text about that work and/or about the artist(s) (designer, engraver). How many of those photos might be acceptable on Wikipedia? You can try to make your own idea from the previous discussions and/or from the suggestions you will get here in this thread.

-- Asclepias (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you know they are copyrighted? Apparently the Vatican Copyright law says that except if contradicted by various things, they follow Italian law, and at least some Italian government works are PD.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Vatican_City_.28Holy_See.29 - does follow Italian Law - so 70 years post death of creator becomes copyright free.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As some Italian government works are PD, then I would expect that some Vatican works are PD.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)