Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/November

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

My image keeps getting deleted...I give up

I posted an image I created and for which I own the copyright. I followed all the procedures given THREE TIMES. Each time my image - a rare one of a kind fossil I discovered - was deleted. Each time the message came that the copyright ownership of the photo couldn't be ascertained - but I registered my photo with Wikicommons and verified by email that I own it and that I actually took the photo. I give up. I'm not posting any more photos to Wiki anything. Geez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.177.191 (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

re Laura Wright (singer)

I'm simply uncertain about any copyright status for this: File:Laura wright.wembley.Oct 26 2014.JPG

This is my photograph, a still shot from a television broadcast of the Detroit-Atlanta NFL game of October 26, 2014. If anyone has a copyright to it, it would be the NFL, for its broadcast. But it's not part of the football game, and is merely a single screenshot photo from the four-hour broadcast. Or would it be Laura Wright's, as part of the pregame show?

Fair use? I just do not know. Abuelo jack (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If the image was taken during a TV broadcast then the copyright most likely belongs to the TV production company and they are unlikely to give a free licence for any of their work. Besides which we don't accept fair-use images but instead have a stricter non-free policy and it normally does not allow images of living people. Also there is already a freely licenced image in the Laura Wright (singer) article so this image will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to ask if this logo (http://www.liteferries.com/templates/liteferries/images/logo.png) can be uploaded to Lite Shipping Corporation/Lite Ferries page. I am also not sure about copyright issues for this file. The existing logo on the page was replaced some time ago. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvgabo (talk • contribs) 06:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

To editor Marvgabo: The copyright belongs to the company, but logos are generally allowed on Wikipedia under fair use. I've gone ahead and updated the logo. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Buna–Gona

Have been working on the Battle of Buna–Gona and pretty much have a final draft. Have a question about using a graphic which is copyright free non-commercial use. It is the painting Action at Buna. http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/ART27547/. I believe it may fit the criteria for use but I am uncertain. Following is the proposed caption. I would argue that it is critical in that it conveys the intensity of the fighting in a way that text or the available pictures cannot. Your feedback on this please.

"Action at Buna, a commissioned work by former war artist, Geoffery Mainwaring.[1] This oil on canvas is a montage of scenes from photographs, some of which are included herein. Though perhaps busier than reality, it conveys the intensity of the fighting in the Duropa plantation at Buna. Note the Japanese sniper falling from the tree. AWM ART27547 This image is licensed under CC BY-NC http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/au/

I now see that wiki has a way of tagging copyright material and this would be used.

"Biography: Lieutenant Geoffrey Richard Mainwaring". Australian War Memorial. Unknown parameter |http://www.awm.gov.au/people/P65107/?query= ignored (help);

Cinderella157 (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately Mainwaring only died in 2000, so, according to commons:COM:CRT#Australia, his work is copyright until 2070 per 70 year pma for Australia. It looks like you are out of luck because we don't accept non-commercial licences either except in very limited circumstance which I doubt this image could quality for. Personally I think the non-commercial licence of the Australian War Memorial is not intended for the painting but is related to their digital image of the painting but any derivative image of a painting is determined by the copyright of the painting and not by the licence applied by the organisation which digitised it unless the copyright was released to them. ww2censor (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand that this was a commissioned work and, as such, the copyright would be assigned to the commissioner of the work and that the assignment of copyright status by the AWM should be taken in good faith - particularly given their expertise.
I have read the criteria. My understanding is, that to be accepted, the material must be critical to the understanding (of the reader) and that text or alternative free images are inadequate in conveying the meaning. I make the argument that the 'intensity' of the fighting in this battle is a critical element and that text or other images fail to convey this meaning to an extent comparable with that done by this image. I appreciate that this is a matter of perception and I am looking for a definitive answer or the way by which I would obtain one. Do I just put it in and see what happens?
Cinderella157 (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
As a non-free image it has to comply with the non-free policy which means it must pass all 10 non-free criteria. #1: there were most likely official photgraphers around during this battle so a freely licenced image may exist and it would not have the 70 year limitation. The fact that you cannot find one does not allow you to use a copyright image. #2: use of this image may well fail due to the non-commercial licence of the AWM. #8: likely the most important aspect for which you must ask yourself whether it is possible to inform readers about the importance of the intense fighting without the use of a non-free image. I think it can. There are already many other free images in the draft which together with prose will not significantly decrease readers' understanding of the article topic. I disagree with you on this point. If William Manchester can use prose extremely effectively in such circumstance in Goodbye, Darkness: A Memoir of the Pacific War, then so can you. Besides which this is one artist's interpretation of a battle and probably does not show a particular specific point in time event like a photo would. If you upload this image I would nominate it for deletion and if you add it to the draft it will immediately fail NFCC#9 because non-free image may not be used in non-mainspace pages. Sorry to not give you better news. ww2censor (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
If you don't find a suitable free image, consider asking at WikiProject Military history. Maybe someone there knows a good additional source for free images of that event. GermanJoe (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Are tables of contents/indexes copyrighted?

Can we digitize tables of contents / indexes from copyrighted encyclopedias and such? For example, if I have a list of topics from a mondern encyclopedia, can I share it with Wikipedia:Missing articles project? (If anyone replies here, please WP:ECHO me - thanks). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Unless the titles are creative (unlikely for a reference work), the index or contents technically are raw data relating to how the book was printed, and so would be uncopyrightable data, which you could recreate freely. --MASEM (t) 05:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Masem: In the case I am interested, the contents are a list of names (it's a biographical dictionary/encyclopedia). The only question I wonder is if one could argue that the selection of "who is important" can create a copyrighted (creative) list? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that the inclusion in the list is factual and not based on a creative idea, you should be okay. EG: En. Brittanica's list of persons they cover in stand alone articles would be fine. If it was "The 100 most influential people in the world", judged on a creative basis, that would be a copyvio, but this doesn't sound like its the case. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Lists are sometimes creative. For example, let's say that you compile a list of topics which someone thinks are notable. Whether something is notable or not is partially subjective, which means that making a selection of such topics may be creative and thus above the threshold of originality. If there are long headlines, there may be a separate problem that the headlines may be copyrighted as literary works. There was a recent British case where certain headlines were determined to be copyrighted as literary works, but in a similar Australian case, protection was rejected, so it varies a bit from country to country. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I'd say yes, they are copyrightable. There's quite a bit of creative choice going on for who is worthy of mention and who isn't; it's not purely formal. It's pretty thin, and I wouldn't stress about using it "internally" in context, but if you're just talking about copyright, I think it could be problematic if you used in main space.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about The National Map imagery

While looking at The National Map, I discovered an option to show satellite imagery, which combined with the distance measuring tool, could make some nice maps of streams. It seems that the source imagery comes from "partnerships with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency and other cooperating Federal, State, and Local agencies". Does this mean that the state and local agencies actually took some of the pictures (I suppose they couldn't be uploaded to Commons in that case) or that the cooperated in some other way (perhaps they could be uploaded then?). --Jakob (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The FAQ says
Are there any costs or restrictions to usage of data downloaded from The National Map?
Data from The National Map is free and in the public domain. We use the "Cart" and "Checkout" terminology in TNM viewer only as a tracking mechanism to maintain download statistics. There are no restrictions on downloaded data; however, we request that the following statement be used when citing, copying, or reprinting data: "Data available from U.S. Geological Survey, National Geospatial Program."
--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Metrolyrics links

I don't generally listen to current music, so only occasionally do I look up an article on a recent song. On those rare occasions, I sometimes note that we have a MetroLyrics link in the article, and sometimes I note that there's no link. Is this generally a WP:SOFIXIT situation (i.e. no link because nobody's gotten around to adding one), or do we sometimes omit MetroLyrics links for copyright reasons? I know that some MetroLyrics links are not violations of WP:COPYLINK, but I'm not hugely familiar with the site, so I'm left wondering if some of its pages are copyright infringements; I don't want to go around adding MetroLyrics links to articles such as Walks Like Rihanna if it might cause a problem. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Example of why I'm unsure — I see that MetroLyrics pages are all supposed to be properly licensed, but the same is true of pages here and at Commons, and we have to put a ton of effort into getting rid of copyright infringements. I'm left wondering whether the site unintentionally hosts copyright-infringing contents, as we do; if that's the case, I'd assume we'd have to look at its pages one-by-one before we add external links to them, just as a reuser of WP/Commons contents needs to look at each page individually to avoid copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that MetroLyrics is owned by CBS Interactive, that their lyrics pages identify the music publisher (it is easy to imagine an unofficial or fan site or even a site that relies mostly on user-submitted lyrics not doing that) and that there does not seem to be any prominent mechanism for visitors or users to submit lyrics (which could easily lead to unlicensed or infringing sets of lyrics being submitted), it is likely that the MetroLyrics collection is legit. (At the same time, it likely that many other lyrics sites are unlicensed.) --Elegie (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Lifeanddeath.jpg

The uploader of this image, User:Capmango, claims to be Glenn Wichman, who, from what one understands, worked at The Software Toolworks, the publisher of the game Life & Death. Even so, it is not clear that the uploader is the copyright holder of the cover art shown in the image (if they produced the art as part of their employment, the employer would likely be the copyright holder) and there is no indication of permission being confirmed via OTRS. At the same time, another option might be to treat the image as non-free content (which might be possible with the Life & Death article) with a {{Non-free video game cover}} licensing tag and a non-free use rationale. Thoughts? --Elegie (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a related PUF discussion in 2008 about another file uploaded by Capmango. It resulted in a keep when he declared that it was a screenshot of a game that he had programmed all by himself. So we could take that as a proof that Capmango is Glenn Wichmann. On the other hand I'm wondering if the OTRS system existed back then. De728631 (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Another issue: Assuming that Capmango really is Glenn Wichmann and that he produced the depicted cover art for the Life & Death packaging, is he the copyright holder or would the copyright holder be the publisher of Life & Death, The Software Toolworks, as a work-for-hire copyright situation? (From what one understands, Life & Death was sold commercially and was not shareware or freeware.) --Elegie (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point. Given that at the moment there are more questions than answers I think we should turn this into fair use until further evidence is provided by Capmango. De728631 (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This image is my own work. I put that into the Wizard. Why is it being questioned?

````Please help. I have uploaded this image, File:Fairview -- Parlor.jpg to Wikipedia, it formed a page, and now I'd like to move it to my Article...which is "Galusha House." I'm trying to learn how to do that....and now there is a question about it with a threat of removal. All I need is clear instructions. I took the photo, I was the owner of the house. It has never been published or used before. I don't care who wants to use it...I just want it into the article I've worked on. ?????? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueridge12 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a file of that name has been uploaded here at all but I see you have uploaded File:Fairview Parlor.jpg to Commons. Is that the file you mean? I'm puzzled because that file is being used in Galusha House so maybe you have sorted out the problem. Thincat (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Blueridge12 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks. That's what I'm doing. Sorry, I thought I filled out the forms completely for the first one. From now on, I see why uploading to Commons is almost always the best idea for newbies like me.

@Blueridge12: You uploaded File:Galusha House Parlor.jpg to Wikipedia at 22:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC) and File:Fairview Parlor.jpg (a copy of the same photo) to Commons five hours later at 03:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC). The Commons file is fine and it is the one in use. The Wikipedia copy is the one with no license tag and it is the one with the warning on your user talk page. I suspect that you remember identifying the photo as your own work in the Commons wizard but forgot that you didn’t provide a license tag for the Wikipedia copy. The simplest thing for you to do now is to do nothing and allow the Wikipedia copy to be deleted; it is not the copy you are using. —teb728 t c 09:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

picture tags

Dear sir/madame,

are tags now ok? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steven_Z._Pavletic.png

Best regards, Darko Kerić — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darko1983 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Darko1983: Did you create the work? You list the file as being your own work, yet the author is listed as José Garcia. Unless you created the work yourself, you don't have the right to release the work under a free license. Please let us know. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Brittany Maynard

I assume File:Brittany Maynard.jpg on Brittany Maynard fails FUR. Choor monster (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? Because you think a free image of her exists? Or because you don't realize she is dead? —teb728 t c 10:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I assume it fails FUR because I have read policy: WP:NFCI #10 allows for Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. The idea that there is only one picture of her, and this picture is it, seems a bit of a stretch to me. It also seems likely, for the time being, to blatantly disrespect forthcoming commercial uses. Choor monster (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We generally allow non-free images of deceased people if no free alternative exists. When a person is dead, we do expect people to try to find free licensed content. In cases like this, using a non-free image is acceptable if such a search has turned up nothing suitable. Subsequent to this, if a free license image were found, we most certainly would use it over this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct procedure for photo permission?

I posted a photo, TarikFreitekh.jpg, with the OTRS code. The photo subject and owner, Mr. Tarik Freitekh, had said he would give permission for the photo to be used by Wikipedia under a CC license. I instructed him to send the following email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and to attach a copy of the photo file. TarikFreitekh.jpg has since been removed. Before I repost the photo and ask Mr. Freitekh to resend his permission email, can you confirm I'm advising him with the correct procedure?

I hereby affirm that I, Tarik Freitekh, am the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached work, which is posted on my Facebook page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarik_Freitekh), and which is currently uploaded to Wikipedia at the following page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TarikFreitekh.jpg

I agree to publish this work under the free license, "Creative Commons Attribution 1.0."

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

Binx2smooth (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If the copyright holder sent his permission email to the OTRS Team and gave the name of the image, then, as it has already been deleted, they will restore it when they are satisfied the licence is verified. There is no need to reupload the image but the OTRS Team can be rather backlogged, so please be patient. ww2censor (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
If you have further questions or the image isn't restored in a few weeks, you can post your inquiry at WP:OTRS noticeboard for more specific assistance. GermanJoe (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that the permission text proposed by Binx2smooth is questionable. Owning a physical or digital copy of a photograph does not automatically make you the copyright holder. Copyright is usually held by the photographer so we would need proof of permission from the photographer in the first place. De728631 (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

If a person uploads a fair-use file, uses it (in compliance with WP:NFCC) on a Wikipedia article, but didn't or forgot to add a rationale, can I add it for them? Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. We're a collaborative project! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the green light! :D Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 15:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair use of image?

I'm really not sure how this works, but today someone uploaded a screnshot from the videogame Minacraft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_(video_gaming) . I figured I'd let someone know, as copyright really isn't my strong suit and I have no idea what is or isn't allowed. Maplestrip (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

As the article isn't about Minecraft I don't think a Fair Use claim can be made - there are plenty of free images that could replace it. To deal with this, the image needs to be tagged for deletion as a copyright violation (or disputed Fair Use if that has been claimed). Unfortunately I can't do this as I am work and we can't view images over HTTPS - so I can't see the image or apply the tag! QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I was just looking into how to add a speedy deletion tag only to see it was already done. Again, thanks! Maplestrip (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Maplestrip. This and some other similar images in the Minecraft category are actually hosted on Commons. I have tagged them over there for deletion. GermanJoe (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Using Free Avalible music in my free game

hi guys, is it legal to use free music in my free game like timesplitters: http://timesplitters.wikia.com/wiki/Music

i dont' plan for mony, i will write the copywrite of musics in my game (thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonknight99 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 19 November 2014

While we cannot offer you any legal advise, it depends on what you consider "free music". There are several different licences and some prohibit, commercial use or modification, some need attribution, etc. Music claimed to be in the public domain media should be acceptable but you need to verify the licence. For you own security you really should consult with an intellectual property lawyer. ww2censor (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

External image

Hello there! I just noticed that the Sophie Hunter page has an external image which is outdated. The photo from IMDB was from 2011 but there's a newly uploaded photo that is more suitable, taken just this month. This one http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1259206656/tt2084970 or this one http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1275983872/tt2084970. I hope you can help in changing it (or removing it altogether as I don't think it's necessary to the page at all). Thank you very much!41.203.190.30 (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, images for living people must be free under the terms of our copyright policies. Some articles allow fair use, but if there is a possibility of somebody taking a photograph of Sophie Hunter and releasing it under an appropriate free licence, we cannot allow this. This is why the image on Paul Gascoigne (a good article with over half a million annual views) is by far from the best one available - it's the only appropriate free one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the first time I see the External Image stuff. Is this at all common? Is there any discussion/policy/guidelines about this? IMO we shouldn't do this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
We don't. WP:ELPOINTS specifically discourages external links in the body. I had assumed they wanted to use the picture in the infobox. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I also noticed the External Images notation in the infobox and wondered if it was something new. I'm glad to get clarification here. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Linking to website slideshows

Is it acceptable for articles to link to website slideshows? The article 14th Combat Support Hospital has four external links linking to website slideshows. Three of these are located within the article body, apparently intended to be some kind of inline citation. The fourth is located in the "External links" section. I'm pretty sure the links in the articles are not acceptable per both WP:ELPOINTS and WP:CS#Avoid embedded links, but I'm not sure if they are also considered copyright violations per WP:ELNEVER. I have tagged each of them with {{copyvio link}} and posted my reasons for doing so at Talk:14th Combat Support Hospital#External links, etc.. The slideshows are from www.fortbenningphotos.com, but there is no copyright information provided. The page's description says "This site is run by the Fort Benning and Maneuver Center of Excellence Public Affairs Office to showcase the training, missions, Soldiers and families of Fort Benning." and gives a contact number, but i'm not sure if that is relevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I may be completely wrong on this which is I why I'm asking for here for clarification. If, by chance, I am in the wrong place, then I'd appreciate a gentle push in the right direction. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears legit. the 14th Combat Support Hospital is presently based at Ft. Benning, and if you go to the official site, the fortbenningphotos.com site is linked from it's page, so it does appear legit. Now, I'm not sure about what the inline links are doing and that's an issue beyong MCQ, but linking to the site is just fine at worst as an external link. --MASEM (t) 05:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
As always, thanks for the help Masem. Does it make a difference who took the actual photos or is it fair to assume they are OK to use simply because they have been posted on a government(?) website? In particular, I am wondering if any of the "Please note that not all such material is in the public domain, though:" conditions of WP:PD#US government works are relevant here. Not sure if any of that matters because these are just external links to the photos and not uploads of the actual photos. Finally, I'm also not sure if the photos can be considered to be acceptable as inline citations/reliable sources of what is written. I'll ask at WP:RSN about that. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming we're only talking about using the links and not the photos, and the fact the site is officially (as best we can tell) associated with Ft. Benning, then is doesn't matter on the nature of the copyrights of the photos on the site, we can reasonably be assured they are likely taken by members of the base or persons associated with them (family/etc.) It would be a concern if the site was not officially connected and stored a lot of images that likely were not by their copyright, that would be an ELNO due to the copyvio on the external link. But that's very unlikely here. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Thanks again.   - Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Using an image from flickr

I would like to know what steps need to be taken to use this image from flickr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/108033873@N02/15210399116/in/photolist-ffubaG-ooUGnc-mntY2H-nEc2i8-pb6gJC

As it stands this image can't be used as it lacks an appropriate licence. If you want to contact the copyright holder and ask if they will modify the licence on Flickr to an acceptable Creative Commons licence, either CC or CC-by, and the copright holder agress and does so then it can be used. Nthep (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you meant to write "CC-by or CC-by-sa" :) -- Asclepias (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
If you are trying to contact the uploader (f.e. on their home website), I'd recommend to ask for a clarification of the image source as well (EXIF-data is incomplete and the linked Facebook page states "Found on feedly.com"). In general, you need to look after 2 aspects: source and author should be as clear as possible, and the image must be released under a free license, as mentioned above. GermanJoe (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that the copyright owner is not that flickr user, who copies images from various other sources. So asking that user for a license is not the thing to do. If you search on other websites, you will find that the source of this image is mentioned to be Doris Taylor, of the Texas Heart Institute. Taylor is the director of the department, so that may be the reason she is credited as the source, but the photographer may be someone else and the copyright is possibly owned by the Institute, as one might guess from this marked version of the image. In any case, you should contact someone at the Institute if you want to try to obtain a license for this image. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of reproductions of 3D images on the Library of Congress website

I was looking at a very nice photograph of a Japanese flute on the LOC website, but for some reason there's no information about the copyright of the photograph. Is anyone aware of the terms for reusing photographs of 3D objects from the LOC? As a US government entity, photographs they take should be free... but it's not clear if the photographs are made by them, or what. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

At the top you can see a link "Rights and Reproductions", which implies the photograph is copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Their page about the making of the photographs seems to imply that the photographs were made by employees of the LoC. There is no indication that they are copyrighted. If the photographs had been made by other people, one would expect that it would be mentioned. So, I think you are correct that if they were created by federal government employees they should be in the public domain in the United States. As for the flute, this other page seems to say that the LoC considers that there is no known copyright on it. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It can't hurt to email and ask them - they have a link about copyright questions on the Rights and Reproduction page. Keep in mind we're looking at the photograph's copyright - the flute, if an early 20th century work, is likely out of copyright (and probably uncopyrightable since it is someone of utility (to make music) and not of creative of expression) --MASEM (t) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I still have rights over my (CC-BY-SA) images, and there are non-copyright rights, so that header title is not necessarily proof of a restrictive copyright. Thanks for the link to the page on how this was made... looking at the high level of noise in the image, I'm fairly sure that it was not a professional photographer who took these images (supporting the conjecture that it was digitized by LOC staff). I'll send them an email. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

File:CMFLOGO.jpg

Does this meet {{PD-logo}}? czar ♔ 16:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in the US but possibly not in the UK however, neither the US nor UK organisations appear to use this logo, so it seems to be a redundant image. Whose logo is it? ww2censor (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Compassionate Mind Foundation—was recently deleted and recreated as redirect czar ⨹ 18:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
It's some text and a bunch of circles. It's a bit more than just a standard text based logo, but probably not enough to meet the threshold of originality. I would say it's a marginal case. If nobody is using it, there probably isn't too much harm in taking it to FFD and see what consensus is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Telegraph Avenue (novel) song list

In the article there is a section Music Referenced in Novel that consists of a song list taken from an article, explicitly cited, here. That webpage consists of a short discussion, a longer Spotify playlist, then the abbreviated list which was cut-and-paste to the article, with some cosmetic editing.

I know raw data and sweat-of-the-brow is not US copyrightable, but I am concerned that because the abridged list involved some decision making on the part of the original webpage author (though no reasons were given) the same abbreviated list may involve copyright violation. Choor monster (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia article Tijuana Cross-border Terminal

I supplied most of the images in the Tijuana cross-border terminal article, which I both own and created as part of the 18 years I worked on promoting this project. There is one image I would still like to add, it is the cover of the Tijuana cross-border terminal brochure that was created while I worked for GAP as the cross-border project manager. I was the author of the brochure which was created to explain the concept and project to U.S. and Mexican officials. Could I include the brochure cover under fair use strictly for the Tijuana cross-border terminal article??? I do not want to upload an image and have it taken down because I failed to meet your requirements. I made that mistake when I first wrote the Tijuana cross-border terminal article, I corrected the problem by ONLY using images I created and then loaded them onto Wikipedia commons, but I did not create the brochure cover, but I was the author of its contents, meaning all the written information and a major portion of the pictures used within the brochure were mine and not the property of GAP. BUT I did not create the cover but I mention and make reference of the brochure in the article and by showing the image of the brochure cover it would help in telling the story of the evolution of Tijuana cross-border terminal over the 18 year period. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Rnieders (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because you did not create the brochure cover, you don't have rights over it. Only the copyright holder, who may be the author or the organisation that commissioned it, can give a free licence. In most instances books and other publication covers that are copyright can only be used in the article about that specific publication. For instance, author's books are not shown in the author's article but only in the book's own article, or music album covers are not shown in the band's article but only in the album's own article. Likewise in this instance, so I'm sorry to tell you using it under our non-free policy, which is stricter then fair-use, would most likely fail because non-free images must comply with all 10 criteria of our non-free policy. Having given the article a quick look I doubt it is necessary to include such a brochure image because it would most likley not significantly increase the reader understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and reviewing the article, your explanation was very clear and I finally understand the parameters of fair use. Your examples cleared everything up. Again, thank you for your time and effort. Rnieders (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Karen 2012b.jpg

This file claims to have permission from the original copyright holder per WP:FDL, but I'm not sure if that means that the file uploader and the copyright holder are the same person. I did a reverse google image search [1] and the image appears to be currently used multiple times on blogs, YouTube as well as some other pages. Is the copyright rationale being used proper or should this be treated as WP:NFC? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The copyright holder and the uploader may be the same but because ths image has been published elsewhere prior to the upload to WP we can't be sure and a request to the uploader to follow the process at WP:CONSENT would be advisable. Nthep (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Nthep. The uploader changed the photo to File:Karen E. Quinones Miller in full white suit.jpg on their own. This one too, however, appears to be being used on multiple websites according to a reverse image check including this one here. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The latter image is a direct copy from Miller's website. I have tagged both files for missing evidence of permission and informed the uploader that they need to send an email to OTRS. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, a third image (File:Karen E. Quinones at 2012 launch party.jpg) is on her facebook page: [2], [3]. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint, I've now tagged this too. De728631 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with UK potentially PD-old

File:Hardie elect.jpg is marked with "do not move to Commons" because of potential nonfree status in its country of origin. Is there any chance that this is still the case? Published 1895, it's a simple election poster, and advertisements aren't attributed to specific people, so this is clearly an anonymous work; if I remember rightly, the UK has something about "PD after X number of years for anonymous works", but I don't want to assume that I'm right. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

For people who are intent on deleting files, it is easy to show that it is logically possible that the image is conceivably still under copyright in the UK. For example in this case we do not know whether the communication of the photograph to the public was done with the photographer's permission. If was not authorised by the photographer then no account is taken of it in starting the copyright clock. If it remained unpublised copyright would have expired after 70 years. But suppose it was lawfully first communicated to the public in 1960, that is when the 70 year clock would have started ticking.[4][5][6] Now, I am not a laywer so what I say may be rubbish but it is possible that my analysis is correct so there is a legal risk in using the image. And by the way URAA restoration may make the image copyright even in the US. Thincat (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that an elcetion poster for 1895 was used in 1895, so it can be considered as published in that year. Per Copyright rules by territory, per Thincat, 70 years is the important number to remember whether the author is known or not. 1895 plus 70 = 1965. So, in my mind, there is no doubt this is freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Also per {{PD-UK-unknown}} anonymous photographs that have been published in the UK before 1944 are PD too. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thincat, I agree with you opening sentence but disagree with the rest. Under s9 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry (s9(5)) - a poster which is a compilation of an image and text would appear to have at least two authors, the text and the image. If there is no identifying labels on the poster then there aren't too many further reasonable inquiries that could be made to ascertain the identities of these two people. The absence in the UK of a copyright repository is either a help or a hinderence here depending on your viewpoint but UK law only requires reasonable inquiry to have been made, not absolute proof one way or the other.
If an identity is discovered then s9(5) then goes on to make it clear that the act must apply as for a work of known authorship i.e. you can't claim continued use of the anonymous provisions because they once applied. So for the example regarding the photographer's permission I would argue that to establish a breach you must be able to identify the photographer first and then establish their copyright has been breached not the other way round due to explicit lack of permission being available.
Section 12(3) covers the duration of copyright for anonymous works and it 70 years following creation, if unpublished; or 70 years following first being made available to the public whichever is the latter expiry date. As this particular image cannot be newer than 1910 (the last election Hardie stood in) then the first leg of s12(3) is going to have been met. There is a debatable point over whether it was published or not but again I would put someone who wished to argue that to establish that the poster was not used during one of Hardie's election campaigns and is only an unpublished master for a poster that was never used. Election posters by their very nature are very transitory and their lifespan very short so I don't think it unreasonable to assume that it was published in which case the second leg of s12(3) is met and the poster is now out of copyright. Publication in UK law is different to US law and being displayed in public meets the definition of s12(5)(b) of what being made available to the public means. This could be as minimal as one copy posted on a noticeboard in a public place as the act makes no definition of how widespread this publication has to be.
If the point about publication is accepted then URAA restoration is not applicable here as one of the preliminary tests is that anything published anywhere in the world prior to 1 January 1923 is not copyright in the US and this absolute and unchanged by URAA restoration.
I am not a lawyer either and I do not think that your opinions are rubbish but I do not think that there is a legal risk here and that this image can be licenced with the UK licence {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Should someone by enquiry manage to establish the identity of someone involved in the creation of poster or that it was never published then that licence would cease to be valid and re-examination take place and a different conclusion reached. Nthep (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't clear enough. I do not accept my argument for one moment. I suggested it as the sort of argument that is used to get images deleted. A crucial aspect of the argument was that we do not know whether whoever stuck up the poster in 1895 was committing a copyright violation. If it was established that they were (a logical possibility) then the the poster was not published in 1895 for purposes of establishing copyright at law. "... but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act".[7] Thincat (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you but at the deletionist's argument. The last words of s12(5) that you quote about unauthorised acts is very germane and the point is that the unauthorised act has to be shown to have happened and the assumption is not to show that one hasn't. Nthep (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about image on my userpage

I have an image on my user page of Basil Hallward, from whence I derive my username. I asked a question about it at Johnuniq's userpage and NeilN referred me here. The image says it was found on MSNBC, but I seem to remember it from an old edition of The Picture of Dorian Gray. Neil said this was the place to bring up the fact that I think this might be a very old image that might now be in the public domain, so I'm doing so with this post. Hallward's Ghost (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The question is whether File:Doriangray.jpg if allowed on a user page. If the "This work is copyrighted..." box is correct, the answer is no per WP:Non-free content criteria. I do not know if the box is correct, but they usually are. I put a similar reply at my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The source [8] does mention that it is from the book, but it does not mention what edition or the name of the illustrator. Corbis claims a copyright on it for some unexplained reason. But other sources can be found easily that document the illustration as from the first illustrated edition, published in 1910 in Paris, and credit it to Paul Thiriat, artist, and Eugène Dété, engraver (examples: [9], [10]). The date printed in the book is 1908, but it was actually published in 1910 [11]. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking--early 1900s. Doesn't that make it public domain now? Any copyright claim from a modern source like Corbis would seem to be nonsense. Hallward's Ghost (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia would probably accept it with the templates PD-US-1923-abroad and if necessary PD-art-US. You could also try to find a reproduction from the book from another source. If you find the years of the deaths of the authors and find that they are before 1937, you could probably also transfer the image to Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Eugène Dété died 1922, according to several reliable-looking Google hits. No idea about Paul Thiriat though. He was still active in 1917 as "Special Artist with the French Army, for The Graphic Newspaper", depicting WWI scenes, but after that I found no further info. GermanJoe (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't really know much about how to put a new version of the image on here. Do you think one of you guys could help get that done? I'd really like to be able to keep it on my userpage, as my username is sort of incomprehensible without it. Also, it irks me that Corbis is claiming a copyright on an image that should be free. Thanks, Hallward's Ghost (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I can do it in a few hours, if Asclepias or someone else isn't faster ;). It can simply be re-uploaded as "new version" under the same filename. Of course license tags and info needs to be corrected too. I would use the image from [12] and keep it on en-Wiki only, as the French copyright is not 100% clear. But it's PD in the US and OK for en-Wiki, as mentioned above. GermanJoe (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help, everyone--it's amazing to see how quickly Wikipedia responds to stuff like this. Hallward's Ghost (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
OK done - see changes at File:Doriangray.jpg. GermanJoe (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Joe. When Neil told me that someone was claiming copyright on that picture, it didn't sound right. He pointed me over here, and you guys have been fantastic in getting it worked out--thanks again! Hallward's Ghost (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Using copyrighted image in several articles?

Hi,

I recently uploaded two images I had extracted from a journal paper (Sana'a1 Stanford '07 recto.jpg and Sana'a1 Stanford '07 recto lowertext image.jpg) and used them in the article "Sana'a Manuscript." I wanted to use them in the French & Arabic versions of the same article, too, but apparently this is not allowed. Is there anyway around this? If it helps, the author has himself uploaded the images to a webpage (http://ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/quranleaf), so they are accessible to the public anyway.

Did I make a mistake in saying that the image is copyrighted?

Prima meditationes (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Prima Meditationes

As far as I know the French and Arabic Wikipedia do not allow fair use of copyrighted images. This is possible though at the English Wikipedia whose servers are located in the United States. So you were right to indicate that the X-ray image and the transcription chart are copyrighted and need a fair use rationale.
I think though that this image is not copyrightable because it is a faithful scan or photography of a work that was never copyrighted (written before 671 AD). Such cases are in the public domain and should be tagged with {{PD-art}}. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I have now transferred File:Sana'a1 Stanford '07 recto.jpg to Wikimedia Commons. De728631 (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File: B Kaulbach circa 1930.jpg.

Hello, Please help me with the copyright of this image. The original photo was provided (via a scan) by a grand daughter of B Kaulbach (she is also a relative of mine). We don't know who took the photo. Would she be the copyright holder ? or is it out of copyright because of it's age? Do I have to state her name and address as it's in her possession?

Thanks Glou784 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As it is a family photograph, I assume that the photograph is unpublished. The copyright term in the United States for unpublished photographs is 120 years from creation, which means that the copyright term expires circa 2050.
This seems to be an Austrian photograph. This probably means that the photographer usually is the copyright holder. As the picture is from 1930, the photographer is likely dead, so the copyright holder would be the photographer's heir. Unless the unknown photographer's unknown heir follows the procedure at WP:CONSENT, it seems that the file can't be uploaded to Wikipedia until circa 2050. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2014/November&oldid=1075707822"