Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/October
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Use of Facebook logo
The Facebook logo uploaded here claims that it's not copyrighted but it is trademarked. However, does this mean it can be freely used in any article? Facebook itself says no: "Don’t Use the Facebook logo in place of the word “Facebook”. I think Wikipedia might be misusing it here:
Thought I'd get an expert opinion before changing anything. — Brianhe (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- The Facebook logo is considered too simple to be copyrighted (eg it fails the Threshold of Originality test due to being just a text logo), so that is why it is considered free. However, we should still respect trademarks, so to use the logo in a disparagingly way would not be appropriate. But in all the cases you have above, the logo use is far from this: for 2000s and Social media, it's an example; it's a reasonable image on Censorship and fine for a template. Reading their brand guide, they're saying that if we used the phrase "Facebook is a social media site", we should not replace "Facebook" in that sentence with the logo, but in the cases here, its being used to illustrate outside prose, so should be fine. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
How Do I show Email from Jayaguru Nyati by which he authorised my use of photos and logos which he attached to the Email?
I got an Email authorization from the owner of certain images to use on an article on him [Jayaguru Nyati] and his political party [GUNGA-ISIZWE]. How do I show it to you? Nkoko365 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials contains some guidance to help you. If you have questions about what you read there, feel free to come back and ask for clarification. --Jayron32 13:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Wanted posters
A recent example of "FBI most wanted" is Eric Frein. His photo is available at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/eric-matthew-frein and widely distributed in press sources --- nobody, outside Wikipedia, seems to have qualms about reproducing the photo in this case. However, File:EricFrein.jpg was deleted (user didn't specify). A previous case at [1] seemed to get no real definitive response. The FBI/DOJ site itself has a legal notice that is mealy-mouthed. [2] Some other wanted posters have been uploaded though, as government work. [3] Which leaves us in a predicament. I mean, if we go the usual Wikipedia anal-retentive route, then these photos are generally unpublished copyrighted works that we "don't have a right to copy" theoretically. I'm surprised the usual WP:EL fanatics don't block us from linking to Top Ten List entries, because the FBI is violating the shooter's copyright... But is there some loophole written into the law for wanted posters? Or is the whole thing a case of Fair Use? And if it is a case of Fair Use, is it possible that we could write up a boilerplate Fair Use Rationale template that accepts one parameter, the guy's name, and one other parameter, the agency out to get him, and all the rest is pre-filled so the user doesn't have to worry about it? Or something? It's just pathetic when we can't include the images everybody else has without a second thought. Wnt (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- The FBI using a copyrighted photo in fair use is not a copyright violation, and thus not an EL issue. Assuming that the person is notable for their own article, and the person is currently on the run, then yes, for identification of that image, the FBI photo from the most wanted list is allowable under non-free (since we cannot expect to find the person to take a free picture of it). --MASEM (t) 03:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- The "currently on the run" part bothers me. It would probably be faster to wait by the local police station to take a snapshot of Frein if/when he's caught than to try to arrange a paparazzo photo of many celebrities ... especially one meeting up to Wikipedia's "moral" expectations. And on the other hand, I'd think that the event of actually being put on a wanted poster would be worth covering/memorializing itself. The notion of being able to put up information temporarily not only seems offensive to the notion of making a permanent encyclopedia, but is at odds with the fact that news agencies definitely don't remove such photos from their archives of old news. Wnt (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- But we do allow for the NFCC#1 exception for this, because there's no reasonable expectation that one can take a free image at the immediate time, so a non-free is fine. Further, once caught, the booking photo may or may not be free (depends on where booked), and once incarcerated, is definitely out of the ability to get a free image. Of course, if it becomes a situation where a free image is possible - say, for some reason, all charges against a most wanted person are clearly dropped, and thus the person cannot be "on the run" anymore, then yes, we re-evaluate at that point. I would not say that the act of being put on the most wanted list would merit a nonfree image to show that (since that can be documented with text), but the image used for that can be used for the person's infobox photo. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- So, if an actor lives in L.A. and sleeps from midnight to 10 a.m. daily, can we rig up a template that displays a Fair Use image of him for those times each night and put that in an article because we can't expect to take a shot while he's sleeping? There's something cuckoo about the logic here, even before I get into the question of whether you can replace a wanted poster with text and accomplish the same function. No matter whether you're quoting longstanding legal precedent or not, these distinctions are nuts. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- No; we do not want people breaking the law (personal or public) in trying to obtain a free image, so trespassing to get such an image is inane. But, unless the actor is well-established to be completely recluse and never going out in public, we can expect that they will be like any other human, out there such that a free shot can be made; one might have to make conscious effort to be at the right place and the right time (such as a red carpet event for example), but we do assume a free image can be taken here. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not often discussed, but Wikipedia has precedence for using non-free images of living people on a very case-by-case basis for situations where the person is not expected to be a public figure and there is no reasonable expectation that anyone could get a free photo of them despite their nondeadness, we do sometimes make exceptions. In general, it is important to remember that no rule at Wikipedia is so sacrosanct that we refuse to violate it under any circumstances, the NFCC rules included, and there have been specific cases where the community has allowed non-free pictures of living people. Examples from the past include noted recluses like J.D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon (see File:PynchonYearbook.jpg for a clear rationale here) and similar, often sui generis situations. Which is not to say that this usage should also be allowable or not; only discussion and consensus will determine that. But the tone of Wnt seems to imply that the rules here would override consensus, should we eventually decide that this one usage should be allowed. Wikipedia has NEVER had that ethos; the rules reflect general consensus about standard practices, and always allow for individual cases to be adjudicated by open discussion, and always allow for the possibility that what is best for the encyclopedia may not always follow the rules. It is quite fine that Wnt doesn't think this picture should be allowed, and he should be allowed to freely express that opinion, but the notion that opposing opinions are invalid because they don't follow the written rules is wrongheaded and needs to be called out. IAR doesn't mean there are no rules, but IAR does mean that sometimes we will all agree to break the rules, and those situations where we agree to do so doesn't invalidate the otherwise useful rule. --Jayron32 13:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- As a 1953 American yearbook picture, I find it stunningly unlikely that Pynchon photo isn't PD, since I don't know that any yearbook got renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: I didn't think I was being that confusing here, but I was actually looking for/expecting a statement that wanted posters would be usable, at least as a Fair Use, indefinitely as they are by news media. I was unsatisfied with the response because it seems wrong to arse around writing up a special six-part Fair Use rationale for each image, then have it on the block for deletion the second whoever it is gets caught. Wnt (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was confused by the fact that someone told you it was usable, and then you started to disagree with them. Generally, when you seek confirmation of something, and then someone confirms what you wanted them to confirm, you say thank you and the conversation ends. When you then disagree with the person who confirmed your initial question, it DOES get confusing. --Jayron32 12:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: I didn't think I was being that confusing here, but I was actually looking for/expecting a statement that wanted posters would be usable, at least as a Fair Use, indefinitely as they are by news media. I was unsatisfied with the response because it seems wrong to arse around writing up a special six-part Fair Use rationale for each image, then have it on the block for deletion the second whoever it is gets caught. Wnt (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- As a 1953 American yearbook picture, I find it stunningly unlikely that Pynchon photo isn't PD, since I don't know that any yearbook got renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not often discussed, but Wikipedia has precedence for using non-free images of living people on a very case-by-case basis for situations where the person is not expected to be a public figure and there is no reasonable expectation that anyone could get a free photo of them despite their nondeadness, we do sometimes make exceptions. In general, it is important to remember that no rule at Wikipedia is so sacrosanct that we refuse to violate it under any circumstances, the NFCC rules included, and there have been specific cases where the community has allowed non-free pictures of living people. Examples from the past include noted recluses like J.D. Salinger and Thomas Pynchon (see File:PynchonYearbook.jpg for a clear rationale here) and similar, often sui generis situations. Which is not to say that this usage should also be allowable or not; only discussion and consensus will determine that. But the tone of Wnt seems to imply that the rules here would override consensus, should we eventually decide that this one usage should be allowed. Wikipedia has NEVER had that ethos; the rules reflect general consensus about standard practices, and always allow for individual cases to be adjudicated by open discussion, and always allow for the possibility that what is best for the encyclopedia may not always follow the rules. It is quite fine that Wnt doesn't think this picture should be allowed, and he should be allowed to freely express that opinion, but the notion that opposing opinions are invalid because they don't follow the written rules is wrongheaded and needs to be called out. IAR doesn't mean there are no rules, but IAR does mean that sometimes we will all agree to break the rules, and those situations where we agree to do so doesn't invalidate the otherwise useful rule. --Jayron32 13:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- No; we do not want people breaking the law (personal or public) in trying to obtain a free image, so trespassing to get such an image is inane. But, unless the actor is well-established to be completely recluse and never going out in public, we can expect that they will be like any other human, out there such that a free shot can be made; one might have to make conscious effort to be at the right place and the right time (such as a red carpet event for example), but we do assume a free image can be taken here. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- So, if an actor lives in L.A. and sleeps from midnight to 10 a.m. daily, can we rig up a template that displays a Fair Use image of him for those times each night and put that in an article because we can't expect to take a shot while he's sleeping? There's something cuckoo about the logic here, even before I get into the question of whether you can replace a wanted poster with text and accomplish the same function. No matter whether you're quoting longstanding legal precedent or not, these distinctions are nuts. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- But we do allow for the NFCC#1 exception for this, because there's no reasonable expectation that one can take a free image at the immediate time, so a non-free is fine. Further, once caught, the booking photo may or may not be free (depends on where booked), and once incarcerated, is definitely out of the ability to get a free image. Of course, if it becomes a situation where a free image is possible - say, for some reason, all charges against a most wanted person are clearly dropped, and thus the person cannot be "on the run" anymore, then yes, we re-evaluate at that point. I would not say that the act of being put on the most wanted list would merit a nonfree image to show that (since that can be documented with text), but the image used for that can be used for the person's infobox photo. --MASEM (t) 05:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- The "currently on the run" part bothers me. It would probably be faster to wait by the local police station to take a snapshot of Frein if/when he's caught than to try to arrange a paparazzo photo of many celebrities ... especially one meeting up to Wikipedia's "moral" expectations. And on the other hand, I'd think that the event of actually being put on a wanted poster would be worth covering/memorializing itself. The notion of being able to put up information temporarily not only seems offensive to the notion of making a permanent encyclopedia, but is at odds with the fact that news agencies definitely don't remove such photos from their archives of old news. Wnt (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Need assistance to get page corrected
Hello All;
I need your assistance to get this page corrected. This is my page: Mobilization Augmentation Command (MAC). Please check to let me know if there is an issue with the references or if more needs to be added. Also, how do I get the question mark message down at the top concerning the inline references? I have created additional references, however, the message remains.
Images: For the images, I will send you all a statement signed by each person on the image that states it is Okay to use their picture at the MAC wiki site and also I will send the copyright template to the email indicated with the images included in the email. Would this be sufficient to keep the images on the MAC wiki site?
Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. V/r, Piper Pipercubusa (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like you're referring to the files deleted at Wikimedia Commons in this discussion. Generally, we do not necessarily need permission from the persons depicted in a photograph but first of all we need permission from the photographer to use their work. For official US military photos this is simple because they are in the public domain by law.
- So If you are a member of the MAC or any other US armed forces unit and those photos were taken by you or any other soldier on duty, please feel free to re-upload them with a licence {{PD-USGov-Military}} or similar. But please note the following: If the images have been published before on an official US military page it is sufficient to include a weblink to the relevant website in each file's description (not just army.mil but the page where the image appears). This is also the standard way if you're not the original photographer and just found those photos somewhere online.
- If the images have not yet been published, please do send an email as described at Commons:OTRS. This should come from a .mil account where you confirm that you or any another military person took those photos while being on duty.
- Concerning the Wikipedia article, the question mark messages and other such tags do not disappear automatically but they can be removed by editing the very first part of the page like this. De728631 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
proper template to include?
I'm the editor of the Massachusetts Review, and I recently changed the cover image on our Wikipedia site, in order to update it to our current issue cover. I'm a real novice at this, so I don't know proper procedures, or which template to add. We hold the copyright to the cover image, though of course covers are also subject to fair use. I'm not sure what template I'm supposed to add, but I'd like to learn, since I plan to keep updating our site as new issues come out (four times a year). Thanks, Jim Hicks P.S. Here's a link to the image:
210px|Fall 2014 cover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzimhiks (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've taken a look at your article and the cover image and it all seems to check out. When the need arises in the future for you to upload another cover, the file upload wizard, should be able to guide you in selecting the proper copyright notice. Hope this helped.Tinss (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyright on an image with co-authors
I would like to upload this image for use on wikipedia. However, it has two authors. One is from the USGS, whose content it produces falls in the public domain; so far so good. Problem is, the other author is from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a private organization whose copyright statement is a lot more restrictive. In this case, which institution's copyright applies?Tinss (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- To editor Tinss: If it combines work from both sources, then both copyrights apply, and permission must be granted from both parties. Permission from USGS is not a problem, but because WHOI's copyright permission forbids commercial usage, this image is considered non-free and so must meet the criteria for non-free content. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Ping Tinss
Can I use this image?
The following image is of the three living recipients of the Param Vir Chakra, whose official photographs were taken down. For entire discussion, please refer to WP:NFR for entire discussion and to Yogendra Singh Yadav, Sanjay Kumar and Bana Singh for the articles in question.
I have found the following image posted by a journalist named Shiv Aroor. This is an image of Shiv Aroor with the three PVC awardees [4] posted on his twitter page. Here is a link on his blog [5] where he states, "Use of photographs by me is permitted without prior approval, but needs to be carried always with a credit and backlink."
Does this satisfy Wikipedia's requirements? Myopia123 (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Also note that this author is a noted defence journalist with significant Military and Journalistic connections, which is why he was able to get into a room with all three of them. In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that such a good opportunity will ever present itself to obtain images of these war heroes, which satisfy Wikipedia policy in my opinion, again. Myopia123 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- No. This turns on precisely the same issue as Masem pointed out to you at the NFCR discussion you refer to above. Permission to reuse is not sufficient without permission to modify, or without permission to create derivative works. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are making it impossible to create a proper article. Ordinary civilians do not have easy access to these individuals. While it is theoretically possible to obtain free images of them, it is not practically possible and these rules you hold so dear have been violated in the past, using WP:IGNORE. Such as J.D. Salinger's article. Myopia123 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- And I still have not been given a specific example of what kind of release you require so badly. I would be more than happy to email this journalist and ask him for permission but I do not want to run the risk of incurring wrath from The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) again - Myopia123 (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why is it "not practically possible"? If it is just because they are in India and not where you are, that's not a reason - we have English speaking editors that live there that also may be able to help. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure if he agrees by email through WP:ERFP then the matter is closed. Honestly, sometimes you guys really turn being an editor into an extreme hassle. You guys are extremely unhelpful and behave like bullies to someone who is only seeking to improve wikipedia and the articles within it.Myopia123 (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are making it impossible to create a proper article. Ordinary civilians do not have easy access to these individuals. While it is theoretically possible to obtain free images of them, it is not practically possible and these rules you hold so dear have been violated in the past, using WP:IGNORE. Such as J.D. Salinger's article. Myopia123 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually it really is quite simple and we don't try to make life especially difficult for you but copyright is a serious concern to us, so you need to follow the policy. So, to put it simply, the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer and not the person in the picture, must verify their permission for us to use their image under a free licence. You must also note that the blog specifically states that some of the material is not theirs but copyright to other people. The copyright holder can verify their permission by following the procedured found at WP:CONSENT. If they are not prepared to release their image as freely licenced, then unfortunately you are out of luck but remember that it is not necessary to have an image of an individual to have a good article about that person. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- So Shiv Aroor from Live Fist Defence recently emailed his OTRS permission to use this image [6] to the permissions email account on commons. The image is to be used on the pages of the three living PVC recipients. However, the images I uploaded on commons have all just been deleted. What now? Do I need to reupload it with the ticket number or what? Myopia123 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Assuming the OTRS email has the image names then the OTRS team will restore the images and attach an OTRS ticket to each image when they are happy with the permission. Please be aware that the OTRS team are often very busy and it can, on occasions, take up to a month to process some emails especially if they have to do some back and forth emails to clarify matters. Good luck and be patiently. ww2censor (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
How can I add this image to an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadman Sakibzz (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Image question
I have a photograph that I purchased off eBay. It was taken in 1921 by the Keystone View Co. I want to upload it to Wikipedia, but I am unsure which copyright permission to use. I am now the owner of this photo, and it does have historical significance. Please advise, thank you. Jim Cardoza (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- But was it published in 1921? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
ricky wilson photo needs © line
Sorry to disturb, the Wikipedia page for the B-52's has this image: Rickywilsontimecapsule.jpg without my copyright notice ©George-DuBose.com
It is my solely owned photograph that I licensed to Warner Bros. for only use in a cd package. I would appreciate if someone would help me add a © line to that image.
Thanks,
George DuBose boss@george-dubose.com www.george-dubose.com George DuBose (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- As a first step I googled some background info and added the necessary copyright information to the image information page (see File:Rickywilsontimecapsule.jpg) - thank you for pointing out that error. However, images on Wikipedia usually don't have an in-image copyright notice or other watermarks. Please check, if the added information is satisfactory. I also removed the image from a second article, where no valid "fair-use rationale" per Wikipedia's policy was provided. It is now only used in Ricky Wilson (American musician), where it should meet "fair-use" requirements to identify the musician. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Talkpage and WP:LINKVIO?
WP can make me so confused. Is it really a violation of WP:LINKVIO to link to copyrighted image on a talkpage just to make a comparison of locations? Is it really such a big violation that all other points made are blank and void and doesn't matter at all? I do know the show and the image is copyrighted, but it was the first image I found doing a quick search. And the only reason I added it was to make an attempt at making the other person see the obvious similarities in locations. Would it had been a non-violation if I had spent more time and found the same picture on the producer's or distributor's or similar homepage? Could someone please explain this to me in a way that won't get me too annoyed at WP bureaucracy and pedantry. -Hekseuret (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, that's not linking violations to a point they need to be removed/fixed. A screencap could be used in a fair use manner so that's not a copyright violation (on the other hand, if it were a link to the full copyrighted video not from a source that owns/licenses the copyright, that would be differernt). --MASEM (t) 17:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hekseuret is being rather ambiguous. What he has done is linked to an unverified Twitter account that contains a screenshot from a TV episode. Since the TV series is copyrighted, the image is copyrighted too, and there is no fair-use claim on the tweet. That's not the real problem though. He has compared that image, which contains CGI elements, to photos of a real location and decided that the real location is the place shown in the CGI shot, and then added that to an article. It's classic original research that he hasn't backed up with citations from a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- So are you saying it is a LINKVIO because it was from a twitter tweet, or because there was no fair use statement under the image, or because the show itself is copyrighted? Or all of the above? As for the rest, I disagree as I already wrote on the talk page. -Hekseuret (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not commenting on the OR aspect (which I agree that is a problem), however, given that using a single frame from a full episode is going to be considered as fair use for nearly all purposes, that's fine to link to. On the other hand, linking to a page that is a gallery of stills from a single episode might be a problem. I would not worry about the linkvio issue here. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- The image gallery is the image userpage of the person that took the pictures. There is a disclaimer text (in Norwegian) that says how to contact him through various channels (if you want to use the images). -Hekseuret (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- If the pictures are from the TV show and the user is not the copyright holder, the gallery page would be considered a copyvio here. However, a single tweet from that user that uses one image would be fine per our copyvio rules to link in a talk page discussion to talk about the image under a claim of fair use. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Just to clarify. There are two links. The first link was to a tweet with 1 single image from the TV-show. The second link was to a gallery of real life aerial photos of the same location (which User:AussieLegend among other things disagrees on since they are in summer, daylight, and not graphically enhanced so not 100 % similar) taken by the person that image-user-page belongs to. -Hekseuret (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- If the pictures are from the TV show and the user is not the copyright holder, the gallery page would be considered a copyvio here. However, a single tweet from that user that uses one image would be fine per our copyvio rules to link in a talk page discussion to talk about the image under a claim of fair use. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- The image gallery is the image userpage of the person that took the pictures. There is a disclaimer text (in Norwegian) that says how to contact him through various channels (if you want to use the images). -Hekseuret (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hekseuret is being rather ambiguous. What he has done is linked to an unverified Twitter account that contains a screenshot from a TV episode. Since the TV series is copyrighted, the image is copyrighted too, and there is no fair-use claim on the tweet. That's not the real problem though. He has compared that image, which contains CGI elements, to photos of a real location and decided that the real location is the place shown in the CGI shot, and then added that to an article. It's classic original research that he hasn't backed up with citations from a reliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Stephen of Hungary...
I'd value a fourth-opinion at Talk:Stephen I of Hungary#Licence parameter problems, where the licensing of images in the article such as File:Istvan-ChroniconPictum.jpg are being discussed. I am trying to explain to another editor about how PD-Art works, and would appreciate additional views (or being corrected, if I've got it all wrong...!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
doing a research paper and i need to know about my sorces because my paper is asking for them.
i am doing a paper on diet and diabetes and i can choose 6 sources and it ask for information on my sources I need to know as follows who is the author of wikipedia and also if the author is a sponsoring agency. I really like wikipedia and want to use it as my source. please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.182.12.135 (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- There are many authors of many pages, check the history and you'll see the writers' nom-de-gurres. However I doubt your academic tutor would accept you using Wikipedia as a source. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Gaining author permission for photos and content
To whomever it may concern,
I would like to upload a picture from a composer's website. I have his permission, however, I am uncertain how I can have wikipedia recognize it. I would really appreciate some direction on this matter so that I do not improperly upload another photo and have my account get deleted from wikipedia. Thanks for all the guidance.
All the best,
David J. Nolan Wikipedia Enthusiast — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davenolan014 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- If the original creator has given you the permission for his or her images to be used on Wikipedia under Wikipedia's file policies then it is allowed once the creator has verified and provided a statement allowing the use of the media, should the creator send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, once the permission(s) has been sent, volunteers will approve or disapprove the permission(s) thereafter will archive the permission(s) to the OTRS volunteer system. Also you don't have to worry because Wikipedia accounts doesn't get deleted. ///EuroCarGT 01:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- A detailed description of all steps can be found at WP:PERMISSION. GermanJoe (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Remember, though, that the original creator of a photograph is the photographer, not the subject. Unless the photo is a selfie, it is the photographer's license we need to obtain. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyrights on Nazi-produced photos/publications
Recently, User:Rjensen modified the licensing on File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg to indicate that the image was in the public domain in the United States as "All Nazi publications are owned by the US Government and are public domain in the USA."[7] This seemed provably false to me (regarding ownership), so I reverted [8] and initiated a discussion on his talk page regarding the issue. An interesting point has been raised regarding copyright of Nazi images in general. Please see User_talk:Rjensen#File:Dachau_cold_water_immersion.jpg. Comments? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure what reliable sources Hammersoft is using but here are mine: I refer to US law because that is operative for Wikipedia. The British medical journal cannot copyright in the USA a photo taken in Germany which is in the publioc domain in the US. The medical journal did NOT claim any copyright. Copyright expert Peter Hirtle says: "[US law] 104A(a)(2) was passed in part to make sure that Nazi publications do not receive copyright protection in the U.S." That is reflected in federal court rulings cited at Wiki Commons US Courts hold: " On June 25, 1951, the Attorney General, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. § 1-33, vested in himself all rights in the photographs and photographic images “to be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.” source Note that US law explictly states that the copyright to Nazi materials (= any work once controlled by the Alien Property Custodian) is NOT restored to the original German owners. cite p 1044 column 2 paragraph 3 So in US law there is zero German copyright -- as Professor Hirtle points out. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I believe Rjensen is right, as this appears to be firmly established in the 1994 URAA copyright revision act that set up the reciprocal rights. [9], while [10] gives a specific example of a work Triumph of the Will that was done as a work for the Nazi party and following the war fell into the Germany gov't via the Alien Property Custodian, where in that country it had restored copyright. But as it was created at a time where the US did not have reciprical rights for the prevailing government, the renewed copyright is not recognized in the US. Do note that the state "all Nazi works are owned by the US Government" is patently false, but I would agree that all works are, for purposes of the US and en.wiki, PD. (But don't transfer them to commons, they aren't necessarily PD everywhere). --MASEM (t) 22:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- ( Re: US "ownership" : "In 1962, Congress returned most of the remaining seized copyrights to the copyright owners in their countries of origin, although the United States retained the right ‘‘to reproduce, for its own use, or exhibit any divested copyrighted motion picture films.’’ Pub. L. No. 87–846 (1962). " from [11]. The rest of the analysis appears correct still. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Congress did return MOST of the German copyrights but NOT those of the Nazi government. The US law is at US CODE p 1044 see column 2 the third short paragraph for the exception Rjensen (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Be aware that book is from 1944, and we're talking about an event in 1962 and documented in 1994, which is going to possibly supercede the law; the example I linked above is a Nazi work that went back to the German gov't so it is not true all Nazi works were no returned. I do note that per my link there is a way you can check on line which works were taken by the Alien Property Custodian (about 300k ) and search through them. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Congress did return MOST of the German copyrights but NOT those of the Nazi government. The US law is at US CODE p 1044 see column 2 the third short paragraph for the exception Rjensen (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- ( Re: US "ownership" : "In 1962, Congress returned most of the remaining seized copyrights to the copyright owners in their countries of origin, although the United States retained the right ‘‘to reproduce, for its own use, or exhibit any divested copyrighted motion picture films.’’ Pub. L. No. 87–846 (1962). " from [11]. The rest of the analysis appears correct still. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- My cite to the US code is current (not 1944), and Hittle (2014) makes the same point at his footnote 14 The Nazi era copyrights were explicitly not restored and remain (as far as US law and Wikipedia are concerned) in the control of the US government. Hittle says they are "Not protected by US copyright law" (see his text linked to note 14)-- ie there is no copyright issue for Wikipedia because we follow US law.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)
- My link above is straight out of footnote 14 on the Cornell copyright page that you're linking, and says nothing affirmative that Nazi works remain held by the US. It does call out certain films as being held but not all work. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hittle says items are "Not protected by US copyright law" if they are "Works whose copyright was once owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian, and whose copyright, if restored, would as of January 1, 1996, be owned by a government^14" -- that applies to Luftwaffe WW2 materials. Rjensen (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing that US does not consider the copyright restored despite having giving the work back - eg I agree this specific image should be public domain. I'm just saying you cannot say "All Nazi works are owned by the US Gov't" because that is not supported by this document; some may be, but not all. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- we disagree on the minor issue of ownership of the copyright (as opposed to ownership of the photograph itself). The basic point we agree on: there is no US copyright in Luftwaffe WW2 materials and therefore Wikipedia can always publish them, which is the issue here. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing that US does not consider the copyright restored despite having giving the work back - eg I agree this specific image should be public domain. I'm just saying you cannot say "All Nazi works are owned by the US Gov't" because that is not supported by this document; some may be, but not all. --MASEM (t) 04:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hittle says items are "Not protected by US copyright law" if they are "Works whose copyright was once owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian, and whose copyright, if restored, would as of January 1, 1996, be owned by a government^14" -- that applies to Luftwaffe WW2 materials. Rjensen (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- My link above is straight out of footnote 14 on the Cornell copyright page that you're linking, and says nothing affirmative that Nazi works remain held by the US. It does call out certain films as being held but not all work. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I believe Rjensen is right, as this appears to be firmly established in the 1994 URAA copyright revision act that set up the reciprocal rights. [9], while [10] gives a specific example of a work Triumph of the Will that was done as a work for the Nazi party and following the war fell into the Germany gov't via the Alien Property Custodian, where in that country it had restored copyright. But as it was created at a time where the US did not have reciprical rights for the prevailing government, the renewed copyright is not recognized in the US. Do note that the state "all Nazi works are owned by the US Government" is patently false, but I would agree that all works are, for purposes of the US and en.wiki, PD. (But don't transfer them to commons, they aren't necessarily PD everywhere). --MASEM (t) 22:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Permission from author??
I gained permission from author, is that enough to put it on wikipedia and what would it class under? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopper1010 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Permission to use on Wikipedia does not mean it is free license. We require images to be either free license, or used under terms of our non-free content criteria. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:RICHARD CALDER.jpg
I have recieved the above message from editor Kelly. The image is a photograph of Richard Calder which he took of himself with a timer. He sent the picture to me expressly for the purpose of upload. Can any deletion please be avoided? User:S.tollyfield — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.tollyfield (talk • contribs) 11:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at the image page you will see that an OTRS ticket has been opened but as yet satisfactory verification has not been received. Wait and see if Calder gives the appropriate permission and then all will be well. If he does not freely licence the image it will be deleted. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Richard Calder has given this permission, but the threat of deletion remains. Can it now be removed? S.tollyfield (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Notice of copyright
Recently, I noticed a photo uploaded to an article on my watchlist using the template {{PD-US-no notice}}. It seems to indicate that, in the case of a standalone photo published prior to 1977, unless a copyright notice appears somewhere on the photo itself, it is in the public domain. Is this a correct understanding? I'm asking because, in looking through some digital archives, I ran across this image of a federal judge that Wikipedia currently has no image of. There is clearly no copyright notice on the face of the photo, and no indication that one appears on the back. Is it safe to conclude that this photo – and similar ones – are in the public domain? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is quite definitely not correct. It is sufficient that the original publication carry an appropriate copyright notice, which does not have to appear on the photograph itself. A pre-1977 magazine cover photo, for exampke would not be free of copyright merely because the magazine copyright notice appeared on an interior page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see I have not been clear. I referenced a "standalone photo" specifically to exclude cases like you describe. I certainly understand that the copyright notice could be anywhere in the work, but what about a simple photograph, as the image I linked above appears to be. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I hate to add to your woes here but the next question then becomes, what evidence of publication to do you have to say the image was published prior to 1977? It's one of the annoying features of US copyright law that date of publication rather than date of creation is the ruling factor so although this image was probably created prior to 1977 and probably doesn't carry a copyright notice, can you establish that is was published then? The definition of publication is here. Nthep (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, believe me, I understand the bit about created vs. published. Got caught up in that once before already. The image's details page says the publication date (not creation date) was 1926. I don't know how they determined that, but I was assuming that would be enough. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Assume Good Faith?
File:DanParent-27 final web.jpg was uploaded by a new user and it looks like professional work. The user has no other uploads and this image is claimed as original. I'm a bit unsure, can we keep the image assuming it's legit or ? --Muhammad(talk) 00:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- EXIF (metadata) data states copyrighted to Rob Penner, I found many links that includes this image. ///EuroCarGT 02:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I sent a mail to Rob, he says he hasnt submitted it under the CC license --Muhammad(talk) 13:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- @EuroCarGT: If you have a source link available (couldn't find the exact image myself), please nominate the image for deletion. Should be the easiest way. GermanJoe (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- it's on Commons, so you need to nominate there. Most of the deletion methods are links in the toolbox on the left hand side. Nthep (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- [12], www
.ottawacomiccon .com /en /our-guests /89-dan-parent /, indulge .newindianexpress .com /writing-with-art /bangalore /16983, hal-con .com /dan-parent /, www .ahmedabadmirror .com /others /sunday-read /A-little-bit-of-Riverdale /articleshow /42400266 .cms, all contain the image. ///EuroCarGT 20:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- [12], www
- it's on Commons, so you need to nominate there. Most of the deletion methods are links in the toolbox on the left hand side. Nthep (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Threshold of Originality
Hello fellow Wikipedians. I came from Teahouse and I'm wondering if this picture fits the "threshold of originality" and if I could put it in to this article. Also, where would I upload it? Commons? Cheers! Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 01:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the Dirty Jobs logo, which is non-free. I'll try to see other related images. ///EuroCarGT 02:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
question about copyright
My question is whether if i contribute an article of my own invention, how iam gonna receive copyrights for that? , do i get any certification from wikipedia for my article or i myself have to get copyrights first and then to contribute wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.215.191 (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- We've got an entire page with lots of information about that, which is at Wikipedia:Copyrights. In short, there are three main considerations:
- If you contribute your own text directly to Wikipedia your text is automatically copyrighted to you, but by publishing it at Wikipedia you also license it to the public for reuse under the CC BY-SA and GFDL licences. I.e. anyone can reuse and edit your text. The page history that logs your edits is proof of your contribution and copyright.
- If your text has been published before you may only republish it here if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC BY-SA licence, and you may have to verify that (see also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for details).
- You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death). De728631 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Judge Alonzo Conant jpg deletion by Ronhjones
Dear Sirs; My name is Ellen Conant Krohn, my deceased father's name is Alonzo Conant. I uploaded a family photo to the Wikipedia page: Alonzo Conant, Sept, 2013. It is a necessary and complimentary photo of him for the page. Now, Ronhjones has deleted his photo. I am 67years old. I am NOT trying to do anything tawdry or illegal or underhanded. I only want this photo which is owned by me as the sole owner to be re-posted to the article as it has been for the last year. I have given all of the information requested of me and I can assure you and Wikipedia that you will never be legally in debt regarding my photo. Please, I only want to do what is requested of me by you to get his photo re-posted. I anxiously await your reply. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Ellen Conant Krohn (Econantkrohn47 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)) daughter of Judge Alonzo Conant,deceased 1962.
- Ellen, you say you're the owner of the photo - that's not in dispute - but being the owner of the image does not necessarily make you the owner of the copyright. The copyright belongs to the photographer, so permission is needed from that person. If you can tell us who took the image we can advise you on how best to proceed. Nthep (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Exif datas don't match the CC
Hi, It seems that those files are not what they clame to be.
File:Andreea_Banica6.jpg & File:Andreea_Banica3.jpg
82.126.14.142 (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Image Tagging
I uploaded a photo of myself, taken by me in my home, for inclusion in a biographical article I am submitting to Wikipedia. I am uncertain which tag should be used. I certainly wish to grant Wikipedia to use the photo in connection with the article, but do not wish to declare it "free to the public" to use any way anyone choses. How should I tag it? Thanks for your advice. Jaylloyd5 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- The only options we allow for self pictures like this are public domain, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. It sounds like you definitely don't want PD, but you'll have to see which of the CC options you'd like (CC-BY means they have to attribute you for the image, CC-BY-SA means that any derivative works must also be CC-BY-SA). Assuming you can accept one of those, you can tag your image upload via the Upload Wizard (see "Upload file" on the left menu), marking it as your own work, and using either of the CC license. If you wanted a stronger copyright, we would not be able to use that image because we do require people to be able use and modify the image downstream. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Ned lagin 2011.png and wikipedia lack of clarity as to directions
File:Ned lagin 2011.png i find the directions in the comment below to be confusing. rather than stating clearly exactly where to put in my responses, the comment just points to more templates and places within templates that are not labeled.
can someone explain clearly and succinctly exactly where my replies to this comment should be placed?
extremely frustrated with wikipedia bureaucracy,
I-) ihor
(rm content from {{Di-replaceable fair use-notice}}) see that template for the language)
- I'm sorry you've had difficulty working with the templates indicated in the instructions at the above linked template. I do see that you did manage to figure it out despite the problems. As to the image being replaceable; Ned Lagin is alive. Per terms of Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#Policy #1, the use of a non-free image where a free image could be created to serve the same purpose is not allowed. Since he is alive, it is possible to do this. Therefore, we can't use this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think this file is a copyright violation and do not contain sufficient license info or source. Does it should be in wikipedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-senetor (talk • contribs) 09:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Both poster images are apparently legitimate. I strongly advise you to stop the blatant edit war you are engaged in on the Twenty:20 (film) article and discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Attempting to force your preferred image onto the article via edit warring is a complete non-starter. You have already violated WP:3RR. Continuance of the edit war is likely to lead to a block. I'm placing 3RR warnings on your talk page and that of the person you are in the edit war with. This needs to stop. Now. To your question; no, it is not a copyright violation. It is properly used (or would be, if you hadn't edit warred it off the page) under terms of our non-free content criteria. It has sufficient licensing information. The source could be fleshed out, but it's obviously from the original creators of the film, and is even available on the source you attributed in the image you're attempting to force onto the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyrights and Pictures
Questions Concerning File:William J. Byron at the University of Scranton's 1982 Commencement.jpg
Underneath the picture, there is a pop-up that says that this file is not allowed to be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons, but no reason has been given why. As the user who uploaded this file, I want to make sure that it doesn't get taken down and is following all of Wikipedia's guidelines. So, I have a few questions: How can I provide the reason why this cannot be uploaded to the Commons? I thought that I did so by the licensing and attributes on the page, but it does not register that. What is the best way to cite where the photo came from and show its copyright? I used the method of attribution and included the University's statement on licensing but is there a better way?
Also, I have a few questions about what would happen if I were to upload the file to the Commons: What does uploading a file to the Commons contain and what does it mean for the file, its copyright, and its use by the public? Will the University lose its rights to the picture if the file is uploaded to Commons? Is there any way that it can be uploaded to the Commons and the University still maintains its copyright with releasing it to free use by the public? Will I still be allowed to use the file in an article even if I do not upload it to Wikipedia Commons? Will more people look at the photo if I upload it to the Commons?
WLMStud (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WLMStud (talk • contribs)
- This isn't a free license image. The image's licensing requirements make it clear it may be used only for educational purposes. This is not compliant with our policies on non-fee images. It may qualify for use under our non-free content criteria, but it is most certainly NOT available for commercial purposes, as claimed by the licensing tag. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
copyright name holder
I found out how to do the license information, but I don't get what your supposed to put for holder. Do I use my username or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carryon123 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there @Carryon123: The copyright holder is the name of the person (or other entity) that owns the copyirght (or the right to copy) the photo. Did you take the photo yourself, or get it from another source? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Settela steinbach.jpg
File:Settela steinbach.jpg Shouldn't this image copyright information be changed soon to {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-1996|NL|1996|reason}}, given that the author died in 1944 and the work is in the possession of Dutch government archives, and, I assume, in PD since right after the end of II world war? Carlotm (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Dutch copyright law follows that of many EU countries and images become PD at the end of the 70th year after the author's death so this image will be PD in Holland on 1 Jan 2015. Its US status depends on when it was first published and if any copyright was claimed at the time of that first publication. {{PD-1996}} isn't applicable as this image wasn't PD in the Netherlands or Germany in 1996. Nthep (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Image from Graces Guide says it has no copyright
Its from Graces Guide which says it has no copyright but Graces much be mentioned . I am not sure what to tag it is.
Here is it's location on Graces Guide : http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/File:Im19210223MoTr-Wols.jpg
Here is Graces Guide Copyright directions : Copyright. You may copy and use any of the content of this site provided you make a clear link on your web site or printed matter to Grace's Guide as the source of that information. We endeavour to ensure the information is free of other copyrights but it is essential that you check for yourself before using.
The image was taken on Feb 17th 1921 but it's title indicates Feb 23rd 1921 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCor (talk • contribs) 21:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- The website itself operates under a GNU 1.2 license, see its footer line and here. Theoretically this could be tagged with template:GFDL with parameter "migration=redundant". Note: It's not completely clear from the website, if such old images are also covered by the same license (unlikely) or just the document text. Maybe some other editor with more GNU-experience can check the situation and add further advice. GermanJoe (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed the image from the page until i know how to tag it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMcCor (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- To editor RichardMcCor: The Graces guide page is a wiki so the copyright to this image definitely doesn't belong to that site. This image is obviously lifted from a UK newspaper so the best option is to try and find which paper and see if the image in it's original publication can be seen. This will confirm two things - 1) the original date of publication and 2) the identity of the photographer (if given). On the balance of probabilities and what we currently know I'd say this image is both PD in the US and the UK. The US because it appears to have been published prior to 1 January 1923 and the UK because the photographer isn't known (and is unlikely to be known) and 70 years have elapsed since publication. However balance of probabilities isn't enough so some detective work is needed to see if the paper can be found. Nthep (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- The caption states the event was organised by Wolesley to celebrate the award of an honour to A J McCormack. According to our articles (which are referenced for these points) McCormack received two honours, the latter a CBE in 1920 and he resigned from Wolesley in November 1923. Therefore, the event and date of the photograph cannot have been later than this. However, that doesn't date the publication of the photograph (theoretically if improbably it could have been published much later). Unfortunately I can't find anything online or in JSTOR to conclusively date the dinner or picture. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it's very probable that publication was prior to 1923 and the 1921 date is right but very probable isn't enough. Nthep (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect the original publication of the image was Flight International, Volume 13, page 162 (published 3 March 1921) as this contains an article with the text "On February 17 the senior staff of the Wolesley Co were entertained at dinner by the directors..." then goes on to discuss McCormack. This matches the caption which also states "the function is referred to on this page." Unfortunately the image is available in the digitised copy I can see. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not Flight but you set me thinking and I had a look at the contributions of the person who uploaded it onto Grace's Guide and from the naming convention used I'm pretty certain it's from The Motor Trader & Review for February 23, 1921 (compare with this image of the cover). What a pity the images uploaded to Grace's have been trimmed so much. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable conclusion. Looking at the original uploader's history, s/he apparently used the filename (...MoTr... in this case) to indicate the source journal. Wols is the Wolseley Company apparently. See here for the relevant part of the original upload history from February 2011. GermanJoe (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good analysis! QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- @RichardMcCor: I have added the researched information and some templates for formatting, the file should be reasonably safe to keep now. Two quick points: I would keep the image on en-Wiki, as the UK-situation could not be completely clarified. Also, if you want to use the file in an article, I would crop the complete caption (you can just overwrite the cropped file on the same filename as new version). GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good analysis! QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seems like a reasonable conclusion. Looking at the original uploader's history, s/he apparently used the filename (...MoTr... in this case) to indicate the source journal. Wols is the Wolseley Company apparently. See here for the relevant part of the original upload history from February 2011. GermanJoe (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's not Flight but you set me thinking and I had a look at the contributions of the person who uploaded it onto Grace's Guide and from the naming convention used I'm pretty certain it's from The Motor Trader & Review for February 23, 1921 (compare with this image of the cover). What a pity the images uploaded to Grace's have been trimmed so much. Nthep (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect the original publication of the image was Flight International, Volume 13, page 162 (published 3 March 1921) as this contains an article with the text "On February 17 the senior staff of the Wolesley Co were entertained at dinner by the directors..." then goes on to discuss McCormack. This matches the caption which also states "the function is referred to on this page." Unfortunately the image is available in the digitised copy I can see. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it's very probable that publication was prior to 1923 and the 1921 date is right but very probable isn't enough. Nthep (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- The caption states the event was organised by Wolesley to celebrate the award of an honour to A J McCormack. According to our articles (which are referenced for these points) McCormack received two honours, the latter a CBE in 1920 and he resigned from Wolesley in November 1923. Therefore, the event and date of the photograph cannot have been later than this. However, that doesn't date the publication of the photograph (theoretically if improbably it could have been published much later). Unfortunately I can't find anything online or in JSTOR to conclusively date the dinner or picture. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Could anyone transfer this file on Commons? It only consists of simple geometric shapes and text.--95.239.27.208 (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sholam_weiss_from_FBI_wanted_poster.JPG){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ADachau_cold_water_immersion.jpg&diff=629496146&oldid=597759639){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dachau_cold_water_immersion.jpg&diff=next&oldid=629496146){kind=link}
picture of fossils recreation that I have physically bought.
I a buy plastic copy of a 1 millions years old fossils from a company that produce thousand of them, do I have the right to take a picture of it and put in on wiki?
Example www.boneclones.com section fossils hominids of the left. tx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Mer (talk • contribs) 03:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- This depends on whether it is a 3d work of art, such as a plastic toy dinosaur (the answer is no) or a cast of a real fossil. I would still be cautious and say that the reproduction is some kind of creative work that should not be copied though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would say these 3D reproduction are just a 'slavish copies' and not deserving of copyright under copyright law. For better advice consider up loading it to Wikimedia Commons. They have a Copyright help desk here:[13] The uploaded image(s) can then be used on Wikipedia. Whilst, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons do not allow advertising, it would be both polite and just, to mention that a Bone Clones copy provided the 'source' for your image. Together with a link to their website. That is not advertising (IMHO) but providing a provenance for any said fossil. Thus, if a palaeontologist upon seeing your image on Wikipedia decides s/he would really love to examine the real thing, then they can go direct to Bone Clones.--Aspro (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
File:The Singing Dogs.jpg and Danish copyright law
File:The Singing Dogs.jpg The picture is a collage of photos published in the December 19, 1955 Life magazine, currently used in the article for The Singing Dogs with a fair use rationale. In the issue's masthead, those images are credited to "Mogens Amsnaes for Billedblatet, Copenhagen", so I assume they would fall under Danish copyright law. Can anyone familiar with those laws shed some light on their legal status, whether they are in the public domain already (or when they would enter it)? I was wondering if the image (or a higher-res version of it) can be copied to Commons. Don Cuan (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Per Danish copyright law, all non-artistic photos (i.e. snapshots, etc.) created before 1970 are public domain, but in this case I'd say the images are original enough to be "photographic works". Those in turn would be protected for 70 years past Mr. Amsnæs' death. So to sum it up the singing dogs are most likely not yet free of copyright. De728631 (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Could File:Revell_Logo.png be replaced with an SVG version from de-wiki?
The File:Revell_Logo.png image is currently used on the English Wikipedia under a non-free logo rationale but is in a raster format. On the German Wikipedia, there is an SVG (i.e. vector) version of the same logo. The question is, could the SVG version from the German Wikipedia be copied to the English Wikipedia and used along with a non-free logo rationale in place of the current PNG version of the logo? (As a side note, if using the logo itself falls within fair use, does the SVG rendering have a copyright of its own or would that also fall within the English Wikipedia non-free content criteria?) --Elegie (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- To editor Elegie: I would actually argue that it's
{{PD-logo}}, that is, too simple to be copyrighted. - But if we assume that it is non-free, then an SVG version could be used under fair use ({{SVG-Logo}} would be useful in this case).
- Whether vectorization creates new copyright is unclear. If it does, though, it would fail NFCC#1|NFCC #1, as someone else could make a vector version. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I used a photo from a bands facebook page. I asked the band for permission to use it and it was approved. What else do i need to do and what sort of copyright tags/formatting do I need to include? SKFB (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)SKFB
- To editor SKFB: We would need the band to send permission by e-mail according to the instructions here. It needs to be from an e-mail address that we can recognize as belonging to the band (either ending with @sawthis.it or listed on the website). After that, we can take care of the tags. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Informed input applying ToO and copyrightability of facts principles sought
Please pay a visit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#Copyright and comment there. Although the image was challenged and kept on commons, it's being kept out of article space pending clarification of lingering copyright concerns; the article instead is linking to UNICEF's copy from article space in a rather weird way. Seeking informed input. --04:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
This photo was taken by Matt's dad at a speedway before one of his races. He posted it on Facebook. There is really no copyright, unless you want me to credit Facebook. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchristman (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Carlton Cuse Wiki Photo
I obtained the photo, Carlton Cuse Head Shot from his assistant, as I indicated. What do I need to do to make this photo acceptable? I have Cuse's permission. What should they do at their end? I'm afraid I don't quite understand all this.
Gregg Sutter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpsutter (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, Gregg, sorry if it seems confusing. The person who took the photo (I assume it's the assistant?) needs to send an e-mail according to the instructions on this page. We need a greater permission than just to be able to use it on Wikipedia, and the e-mail form on that page makes sure that the owner understands what the permission really means. Please read over the page I linked, and reply below if you have any more questions. Thank you. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Removal of Image
I have added an image to test how it would look but did not intend to use the image after all on my article, how do I go about deleting the image, as I accidentally forgot to add the description / license. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayVekaria (talk • contribs) 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Tag it with the template {{Db-g7}} (User requested deletion), and one of the CSD cleaner admins will tackle it. --MASEM (t) 16:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Already done! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyright issue with donate picture of a living person
Hey All,
I've recently been working on the wiki entry for Mike Boich. Throught another person (Guy Kawasaki), Mike was requested to put up an image of himself for public comsuption. In turn, Mike Boich has sent me an image for the public domain. Before posting this I want to find out, if anyone see some limitations. If not, does anyone have any advice.
FYI: I have donate my own images, but have not donate images from other to Wikipedia.
TIA Jesse
- Ji Jesse, if Boich would like to donate an image, the best thing to do, to prevent deletion, is to have him send the form at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries from an officialish email address (one that demonstrates he is in fact Mike Boich). Further instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Martijn, I can certainly request that, but I already have his permission in email. I will also read the links you suggested. However, I don't see any reason to repeat the process. I have his permission in writing and the address appears authoratative. Any suggestions?? meatclerk (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- ----
- Martijn, I see the process for my particular image. It is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries#Email_address
- I'll take it from here. Thanks for all your help. meatclerk (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)