Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/September

File:La Cueva (1920).jpg

This is a 1920s work by Venezuelan painter Armando Reverón, who died in 1954. I am unsure whether the applied PD-US (or PD-Art maybe) actually applies. Can someone confirm? Deadstar (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As long as it was published before 1923, then it's PD-US. It shouldn't be uploaded to Commons since it's still in copyright in its home nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Deadstar (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Rick-Perry.Mug-Shot.81914.jpg

Hello. I nominated this image for speedy deletion on August 27th and I see that it was de-speedied by Tparis, who asserts that since it's an historical photo, it is therefore 'irreplacable'. I'm not one well versed with copyright, I speedied it because I've lurked for a fair while and saw that all fair use images of BLPs would get deleted...but not this one. Is this a valid claim? That we can use non-free content when it's an 'historical' photo even if it's a BLP? Also, there are a good amount of free images for Rick Perry, so this is not the only image we may be able to use. For more on Tparis' rationale, see my talk page, and the talk page of the image itself. Thank you.

"Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases"[1] so, even if at the time you had thought the case was obvious, with hindsight it was not. WP:NFCI #7 tells us images of historical importance are generally appropriate but under the general proviso that unacceptable use images are forbidden. Under unacceptable use it says proscribed images "may not be used outside of the noted exceptions" I suppose this is referring to WP:NFEXMP but it might also extend to #7. But anyway is it a (potentially) proscribed image? Is there a free image that has "the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image"? Also, surely there is subjective judgement over whether the image is "historical", it can't merely be a matter of fact. The solution to all this may be obvious to you but it certainly is not so to me and I suggest if you think this particular image should be deleted you should raise the matter specifically, I think at WP:NFCR. I think your general question of WP policy on the interaction between "acceptable use" and "unacceptable use" is a good one. Thincat (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I would add that the last section of the article has sourced commentary on the mug shot itself. There would be a strong argument for use of the mug shot opposite that section. The argument for use in the infobox is weak, for the mug shot does identify the indictment itself; the use there is hardly more than decorative. —teb728 t c 10:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not "sourced commentary on the mugshot itself". It is a sourced factual statement that the image was used on a fundraising t-shirt, a statement that hardly needs illustration to be properly understood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this clearly fails NFCC#8, #1, and #3. You don't need to see a 2014 mugshot of a living person which we have plenty of other free media for. The photo itself (commentary on it, not its use) would need to be very strong to allow its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

C-Span

• Are images taken from C-Span in the Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, except for House and Senate floor video (which are public domain), C-Span video is licensed for non-commercial use only, and thus not in the public domain. —RP88 ^(talk) 17:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks!--Orygun (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Edible Wild Plants" by Alfred Kinsey

The book "Edible Wild Plants of Eastern North America" by Kinsey and Ferland was first published in 1943 by Idlewild Press and its copyright was not renewed, hovewer it was reissued in 1958 by Courier Dover and 1958 version had its copyright renewed. Can I upload the 1943 version to the Commons? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 12:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Commons, so the question should probably go there. But yes, a renewal on the 1958 edition doesn't affect the 1943 version at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

What Pros said. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will ask on Commons next time. --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 07:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Youtube avatars?

Does anyone know the copyright status of Youtube avatars? I have searched all over Youtube but the only works whose copyright statuses are discussed are the videos. If there are no copyright claims on the site itself or by its users, is it ok to assume that the content is free? I would like to add an image to an article about a Youtube peronality, but I don't know whether or not it's protected. It would be great if I could get an answer. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 23:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no way we would assume the avatars are free unless we know they are a free work to start with (eg if someone used a crop of the Mona Lisa w/o any other modifications). US copyright states that all works are copyrighted to their creator, so YT would need a clear statement that that avatars are free, and I very much doubt that have this. I would also warn about using such avatars as identification images for YT personalities since they can be changed freely at any time by the user. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, Eventhorizon51, anything that doesn't have a copyright notice (or evidence to show that is is very old and in the public domain) is generally copyrighted (refer to using copyrighted work from others).

(after edit conflict) You could try to find a freely-licensed photo of the user at a public event, if you're looking for an image. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I want to use the image on the article because the image is in fact a photo of the person (it just happens to also be the avatar). If there is no claim on youtube itself, then how can I know for sure whether or not such images are free? Also, if the picture does end up being protected by copyright, then is there a way to upload it under fair use? Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 00:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If the person is an active YT user, that means they are alive, and we do not allow non-frees of living persons (as a free image is possible for such persons), so this would not be allowed. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Eventhorizon51, you ask If there is no claim on youtube itself, then how can I know for sure whether or not such images are free? The images would be free if they've released it somewhere else with a specific free license that is acceptable on Wikipedia. However, I don't think that's likely for avatars.

You could try contacting Rosanna Pansino and asking if she's willing to release a photo from her website; you can find example requests here. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a few images of Rosanna Pansino on Flickr but they are not free. However, sometimes a copyright holder is prepared to change the licence if you ask politely. ww2censor (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Steven Sotloff execution image

This Fair Use image was just uploaded: File:Hostage Steven Sotloff held by executioner.jpg

I see two problems

• 1. Steven Sotloff is not officially dead. He probably is, but official sources have not confirmed the video is authentic (unlike James Foley where they have confirmed).
• 2. It seems extremely distasteful to use an image from his execution video. An image like this seems more representative as a primary means of identification.

-- GreenC 04:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts - not a nice image to use in any case, and since we don't know it's him and it's not a free image, basically anything else would be better. 59.41.210.222 (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we definitely do know it's him. His family and the world's press would soon have told us if it wasn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Assuming his death is confirmed, we can use a non-free portrait. We should not display propaganda images issued by his murderers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - once the video is confirmed to be have been released by ISIS media outlets it will become public domain as per current consensus regarding images coming out of this unrecognized state. It doesn't show the actual beheading, which would be distasteful, and is a moving image that captures the essence of the article. WP is not censored and has a neutral point of view. ~Technophant (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the orange jumpsuit image in the infobox. This leads to WP:BLP1E issues, and it would be better to find a more neutral image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Great point Technophant. I'd agree that yes, under normal circumstances, the execution image being the only freely available one would have to suffice for the article. Certainly not wrong, and policy does state that fair use can only be argued for an image when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose cannot be reasonably obtained. But I'm going to argue that the current image does not do a proper job of appropriately representing the subject, and does not serve the same purpose as the typical biographical shot that we include in biographies. In this case, I would justify the use of another image under fair use for the main representative picture for Sotloff. Perhaps a stretch of the rules on my part that I'm sure will be countered, particularly by the point that Wikipedia does not censor, but I think my assessment is fair. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you support allowing this image to be displayed until either this discussion is closed or another free image is found? If this image is found to be in public domain and other images are only available as non-free what then? I think the only reason to hold this back right now is to wait until it's confirmed to be the subject. ~Technophant (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with SuperHamster and have removed the image from the article. His death has not been confirmed and so a non-free image is not now appropriate. This is a vile propaganda image, we exercise editorial judgment, and BLP policy (which covers the recently deceased and their relatives) requires us to be sensitive. His biography should have a normal portrait photo in my view. The fact that Wikipedia is not censored does not require us to publish terrorist propaganda photos. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Technophant: In regards to the current situation, I'm siding with the first two editors above, since (a) no official confirmation that it's the subject, for which we'll assume is a BLP for now and (b) if we're going to use a fair use (for now) image, it should be one that's confirmed and more tasteful. I suppose the discussion about the public domain issue can be saved for later? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

this is essentially a WP:BLP1E of an otherwise non-notable person. Perhaps the article should be moved to Execution of.. ~Technophant (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW while the US would not recognize the image from an unrecognized state, Jimmy Wales has asked us to respect such copyrights, so we would not treat this as wholly PD (eg it would not be allowed at Commons). --MASEM (t) 07:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Steven Sotloff looks to be directly comparable with James Foley (journalist)? But his article was not moved to "Execution of.. " ? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please get consensus before making such move. The articles are written as biographies, not events. Anyway this forum isn't the place to determine. -- GreenC 13:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment' This image of Sotloff isn't from his execution video, it's from the end of the James Foley (journalist) video, which is a confirmed video. It has been replaced by the image suggested above and is now orphaned. ~Technophant (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Images for Wikipedia from a Company

I work for a company that just got a Wikipedia page. There are images online at the company website, but my understanding is that these are copywritten content and can not be used on Wikipedia. I would like to upload images for this company. I have permission from my boss at the company to upload images that we possess. I found the Commons:Email template and will have my boss fill that out.

My question is how do I present the images I want to have on the page? Do I attach the images to the email (permissions-commons@wikimedia) directly? Or do I upload them to {{OTRS pending}} template first before sending the copyright consent email? I am confused about this process.

Mtabencki (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)— Mtabencki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Mtabencki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"There are images online at the company website, but my understanding is that these are copywritten content and can not be used on Wikipedia."

Actually, they can be used in Wikipedia under certain conditions, just not in the Wikimedia Commons.

Although I know that Wikipedia is stricter about that content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.191.123 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Mtabencki. Generally, you should upload them first and then send the e-mail; that way you can identify the uploaded files in the e-mail. To upload them, make sure you use the old upload form (do not use the Upload Wizard, because it doesn't handle this properly, as far as I can tell). Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, is there a way to indicate when I upload the images that they are pending approval? Otherwise the images will be taken down, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtabencki (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — Mtabencki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, tag each image with {{OTRS pending}} and then have a company representative follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT specifying the titles of the images you uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Baby Esther Imgage file

Hi I obtained this image from Flickr of Baby Esther who lived in the 1900's-1934 I used PD-Pre1964 to tag the image. The image was tagged with a no copyright holder tag by the image tagging bot. How do I properly tag this image?

link to Flickr image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/52151526@N04/5164465752/in/photolist-4MfR2t-8SneJY/

This same image is used on the Betty Boop wikia. Link to Betty Boop wiki: http://bettyboop.wikia.com/wiki/Baby_Esther

Nisha1636 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

there's a number of problems, you haven't added any information about who took the photo or why you think that information isn't discoverable. Also US copyright duration is based on date of publication not date of creation so while this is undoubtedly an image from the era you quote, you need to demonstrate that it was published then or at least prior to 1964 to be anywhere near to meeting the licence you have used. Nthep (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Pic of a 1967 vinyl record sleeve

Am I breaching copyright if I upload a photo I've taken of a 1967 Columbia LP "Manitas et les seins"? I'd like to use it to illustrate the article on Manitas de Plata. Thanks... Tony Holkham (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not stricly breaching copyright, but under our nonfree image policy we generally don't allow under-copyright album covers in the performer's article -- just in the article on the album itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair Use Licensing Issue

Hello, I just recently used Wikimedia and Wikipedia to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons about Paul Frank. When I was uploading the image it was properly licensed as Creative Commons however I didn't realize that it went against the "Fair Use" regulations. I was wondering if I should remove the image. Please let me know what to do, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arios21 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 Respondents: This concerns File:Paul Frank Monkeys - Cupcake Toppers (5433825419).jpg. Previous discussion took place at the help desk. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This would be considered a derivative work of the copyrighted art on the toppers, irregardless of what the photographer may have licensed it is (unless the photographer is the copyholder holder of the toppers themselves which doesn't appear to be the case.) It would not be allowed at Commons, and to be used here, would need to be used within non-free content allowances. --MASEM (t) 04:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The current usage in Paul Frank doesn't meet our NFCC-criteria (imo). It should be either deleted or more details about the design, its history and background would need to be added to create a valid fair-use rationale. GermanJoe (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright question: 1915 Swedish painting / 1938 "fair use" Swedish painting

A discussion had started at Talk:Einar Jolin#Works of art by Jolin, would you please comment on the questions. I'm a little confused about a 1915 Swedish painting and 1938 "fair use" Swedish painting. Thanks much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Textile scans: date of publication?

I'm looking at the Google Art scans of some textiles (https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/asset-viewer/endek-cloth/FQFc4d_pT_tyag?hl=en&projectId=art-project for instance) and was wondering if, since these are museum specimens, we would assume a PD status in terms of age of publication. There's previously been consensus that carpets and the like are 2D for copyright purposes, so I'm just wondering about the age. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not everything in museums is old enough to be PD. (Consider the Museum of Modern Art...) I see no information about the age of the textile specimen; perhaps there's information in the description that makes it obvious to someone familiar with such works that the work is so old that, say, {{PD-old-70}} applies? Without that, it doesn't seem to be evident that it's PD. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 22:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• The patterns themselves are old ones (evident in both the description and [for those familiar with, say, batik] the motifs), but also still produced. I doubt they would be really modern specimens (i.e. after the 1940s), but the precautionary principle wins out. Thanks. Shame, then. Only one of the 15 or so textiles was even tentatively dated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Checking if this image would be okay

Hi,

I just wish to use an image from this page - https://www.crediblemeds.org/files/3913/6973/9557/pgx-brochure2011.pdf.

I'm uncertain if I can.

Most of my images come from peer-reviewed journals. Am I allowed to utilize those, granted I of course provide source information?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarslan (talk • contribs) 02:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We take copyright status very seriously and that document is clearly marked as copyright on the last page, so unless you get the permission from the copyright holder, you cannot use the image here. Other images from journals are also most likely copyright and they too reqire permisssion unless they are clearly marked or known to be in the public domain as are most images you find on the internet or in publications. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

who owns the copyright

If I submit work that has been published elsewhere but I still own the copyright will I still keep the copyright if accepted by wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.68.217 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Contributors retain the copyright of material they submit, However contributions are only accepted under the conditions of a license which allows copying, distribution and/or modification of such text on Wikipedia and elsewhere, under a Creative Commons license - you effectively lose control of potential reuse of the text. In practice though It is unlikely that most material published elsewhere will be suitable for Wikipedia - it needs to be written in an appropriate encyclopaedic manner, to meet our requirements regarding citations, a neutral point of view etc. It will of course also be potentially subject to later editing by other Wikipedia contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Aware of any new info regarding PD-NJGov legalities?

Anyone aware of any new info regarding PD-NJGov legalities? since the TfD of a year and a half ago (or the DR of 13 months ago)? (I still think it's clear that in "anyone may view, copy or distribute State information found here without obligation to the State," the "without obligation" verbiage is a blanket permission for all uses, and hence makes the content PD.) I'm at a loss as to how to identify what the ambiguity in "without obligation" is, in order to "thrash it out".--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 21:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

NJ's terms are missing the allowance to modify "without obligation" (read: without the need to get permission) so we can't treat it as free. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We disagree. I think your language comprehension is lacking. You're just rehashing a point that's been argued over, at the links above. I'm asking for new info.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 22:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless there's been a change in NJ's law on public records, then there's going to be no new information. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 05:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ukiyo-e.org > Utagawa Kuniyoshi Suikoden Image Copyrights

Hi,

After scouting through the Internet regarding public domain usage of Utagawa Kuniyoshi Suikoden Japanese Wooden Block Printing Series images, I found out that the web link http://ukiyo-e.org/search?q=suikoden&start=600 has matching images I would download and then upload for Wikipedia usage. For instance, I would like to use the image http://ukiyo-e.org/image/bm/AN00587022_001_l (http://data.ukiyo-e.org/bm/images/AN00587022_001_l.jpg) in the Wiki article https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%E1%BB%AD_Ti%E1%BA%BFn since it is the portrait of the character.

Now, regarding the image copyrights, according to http://projects.metafilter.com/3841/Japanese-Woodblock-Print-Database#8527, the author of http://ukiyo-e.org web site suggested that all images in his web site should technically be under public domain, citing Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.).

If this is the case, am I breaching any copyright laws to download and upload the Suikoden images from http://ukiyo-e.org for Wikipedia usage?

Please advise

Thanks

Hienz Quynh Hienzquynh (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that, whether or not the people who created the images hold a copyright in some jurisdiction, Commons (and I think by analogy Wikipedia) is willing to host images of public domain two-dimensional artwork. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Thincat (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Right, with the note that "Created the image" means "made a faithful scan of" the 2D image. Modifications (say, giving the Mona Lisa a wicked unibrow and buckteeth) would have their own copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Is there a reason why you would want to make a copy of a copy from that website instead of making a copy of the image at the original source at the website of the museum? If not, the closer you stay to the original source, the better. Also, you can use preferably the "artwork" template, filling the fields with the information from the museum's page. Please preserve or link to copyright statements that might be valid somewhere. While Wikimedia accepts that reproductions of public domain 2-D works do not generate a distinct copyright in the United States, potential reusers have a right to be informed of anything that might affect the image in their country, and Wikimedia is not into the business of concealing information. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thincat / Crisco / Asclepias - Thank you so much for your prompt replies and advices. I do not want to sound ungrateful but I am still a bit undecided since I am not clear what the best direction I should take in this case. Since I am new to Wikipedia, can you or someone recommend me what the best direction is for me to do in this case? Should I just upload the images with due credit / link / copyright statement? Or put them in Wiki Commons? Or fill in as individual "artwork" templates? Since the articles are written about characters in the famous Chinese novel - Water Margin and they are written in various languages (such as Chinese / English / Japanese / Korean / Vietnamese), I would assume these images will sooner or later be replicated in these associated articles. Please advise me the best course of actions to save time and efficiency since there are 108 characters to edit / write in each language. Thanks. -- Hienzquynh (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The site where to upload the files would be Wikimedia Commons. For the description of the relevant informations about this type of images, the template "artwork" is better suited than the general-purpose "information" template. The fields should be filled with at least the usual necessary informations (source, etc.) and ideally also the other fields, using the informations available from the sources. Descriptive templates like those are only tools to help format the informations. You still must indicate the copyright status. For that, you can use one of the many variants of the PD-Art template, as hinted above, which you will parameter with at least one other template stating why the original artwork is in the public domain. If the makers of the reproduction (e.g. the museum) states a copyright claim on the reproduction, you can link to their relevant copyright webpage, unless it's already obvious in the webpage linked as the source of the image. Although you probably already checked the Commons:Category:Utagawa Kuniyoshi and its relevant subcategories, it goes without saying that it will save you time to not duplicate images that may already be available on Commons, unless better versions can be uploaded. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

copyright

If I photograph a painting created in 1938 and hanging in a museum then publish the photograph am I violating copyright?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvritzenfrit (talk • contribs) 18:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

While we cannot offer you legal intellectual copyright advise, it depends on the country of origin and when the author died. ww2censor (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC

Country of origin is U.S. Painter died in 1942

In that case it depends on when the painting was first published and if that was done with a copyright notice or a formal registration. Renewal of copyright might also have happened, so without knowing the name of the artist and the work there's nothing specific we could tell you. This chart may help you though. De728631 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible weird attribution issue?

So I came across John Cigarini and took a look at its initial revision. Figured I'd do a copyvio check. I came across File:Wikipedia entry.pdf, dated a few days before the article was created. What do we do with this? Keeping the file at Commons is probably not the right answer, but there might be some attribution issue. The file was uploaded by User:John ‎Cigarini (no visible contribs), while the article was created by User:‎Cigarini (I'm guessing one and the same). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This might also be a licensing issue since the Commons text lacks the dual CC/GFDL licence required for direct import to Wikipedia. I guess we need an OTRS ticket for this. De728631 (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comic saucy seaside postcards by Sapphire (e.g. artist "Quip")

Are these under Copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.164.76 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That depends on several factors but firstly you need to determine when they were published and when the author died. The back of this eBay lot clearly shows a copyright notice, and I presume they all have it, but they are not dated, so how long ago were they published. You may find it useful to read c:COM:CRT#Ordinary copyright for more details about UK copyright. ww2censor (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia images

Hello,

I am planning to use several Wikipedia images in a book I am creating. The book is NOT for sale, but for family members and friends. Is there citing language for images. I see that there is citing language for text in the left-hand column of the page. What about images>

Thank you.

Kerry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerridanm (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no standard way for citing images, and also the sources in Wikipedia articles are always cited according to personal preferences of the first author or the most active editors. However, for most images you should at least mention the creator (photographer, painter) and the type of licence, which is actually required for licenses such as Creative Commons and GFDL. If the images are in the public domain then you could use them without attribution, but it would be a courtesy to mention the creator. De728631 (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note also that many images shown on Wikipedia are actually kept at Wikimedia Commons, so that should be mentioned as your source. An attribution could be as simple as "Image by John Smith. Wikimedia Commons, CC-by-3.0". De728631 (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

To add, not all Wikipedia images are necessarily available for you to use. You must check it has an appropriate license rather than being used here under the fair use provisions. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

pictures

how to upload images from the google to wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekevin (talk • contribs) 22:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

See the upload page but note that you can only upload free media or rely on fair use in limited circumstances. You should read Wikipedia:Image use policy first. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

1891 Ordnance Survey maps

Hello, I am currently working on an article about an English town, Sleaford, and I have found that the 1891 Ordnance Survey maps for this area are available online, here and here. It would useful to use these to create a summarised and much more simplified vector map of the town; however, I am unsure about the copyright restrictions on these images - I would assume that they are Public Domain, but I could do with some advice on using these scans as the basis for a derivative work. Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC).

"Ordnance Survey mapping is protected by virtue of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Our mapping is protected for 50 years from the end of the year in which the map was published. For example, a map dated 1942 would have gone out of copyright on 31 December 1992." from the official Ordnance Survey site QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the quick response. So it looks like there shouldn't be any issues with me uploading a work derived from that map? --Noswall59 (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC).

I agree with your analysis, yes. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, how should I tag it? --Noswall59 (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC).

I suggest you should say it is "own work" but in the description say what you have done, just like you have done here. Give the source, etc. and if the original is still visible in your final map give two liences, one PD for the original map and one CC 3.0 for your work. If, as I expect, the original map will have been removed completely, one licence will be enough and simply to credit the Ordnance Survey will be sufficient. Thincat (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. For the record, I have uploaded the file at: c:File:Sleaford-Map-1891-Simplified.svg. Thanks again, --Noswall59 (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC).

I would still provide a url link to the original file from which you made the new map. ww2censor (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the links to the description. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC).

Looks good to me (both the map and the file description!). Thincat (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Noswall59 (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC).

Fortune Magazine 1996

I have an article from Fortune Magazine, Jan 16, 1996. I wanted to attach it as a Reference under the "Browning Ferris Industries" section, as a point of history. Now sure how to go about this. I have created an account, which appears to be the first step. Can you please advise as to the next step? Thank you. Ann Riege — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Riege (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Ann Riege: If there is no legal copy of the magazine available online, note that there is nothing wrong with citing offline sources. Uploading and hosting the magazine yourself in order to link to it from Wikipedia would be a copyright issue. To make citing magazines easier, I recommend using Template:Cite journal. Wikipedia:Citing sources is a nice guide on how to create citations. If you need more help with sourcing and whatnot, feel free to head over to the Teahouse, which is a great place for new users to get editing help. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate fair use sample size for bad recordings

I'm trying to add audio files to illustrate some of the issues mentioned in the fraud section of Leslie Flint's article. People are making subjective comments based on their own interpretations of the media (comments which are being deleted), but the reader has no reference with which to interpret the claims of the article's subject and the researchers of his work.

He is dead. His 'foundation' have a large selection of recordings of his works from the 1950s and 60s. Trouble is, the sound quality is awful. Usually I wouldn't take more than 30 seconds from the beginning of this sort of file to establish context and illustrate the subject. 30 seconds is probably not going to cut it in this sense.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to how long a sample size would be appropriate? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

For non-songs, we ask no more than 10% (less if possible) of the length of the work be used; there's no fixed maximum, but this probably means that if you have a 2 hr (120 minute) recording (and if we're talking of a medium session, that's basically a lot of talking and voices), 12 minutes of sound will not be acceptable. Do you have an idea of the length of the original work and about how much you would need for that? That might help to guide you better. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a great couple that are supposed to be the voice of Arthur Conan Doyle - a good quality recording would establish everything within a few seconds, but I can't find a reasonable 30-second window that is cohesive enough to show the listener what is going on. What do you think? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How do I upload an image of a piece of art that I own?

Hello, I am the legal owner of several fine works of art that are not yet represented on Wikipedia. I would love add some images of these artworks (that I have taken myself) to the Wikipedia pages of their respective artists. All were made in the 1940's- present and most are on display publicly. What is the best way for me to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssavage11 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that ownership of the artworks does not convey ownership of the copyrights to those artworks. If they have not been published, then the copyright is probably still held by the artist(s). If they have been published, then the details will depend on when and where they were published, and in what manner. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC) (has some Savages in his family tree)

potential GA needs a picture...

Gathered some possibilities if anyone can help? See Talk:Nipo T. Strongheart. --Smkolins (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The first photo is from 1917 and is in the public domain--making a note of this on the talk page. We hope (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

wow - that seems to be a solid answer! I'll give it a shot! --Smkolins (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:PD-US This is the PD-1923 license you use for this. We hope (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As the image is clearly pre-1923, you can upload it to Commons (so other Wiki-projects can access it aswell). Please use Commons:template:PD-US-1923 there, the generic PD-US is kind of vague. GermanJoe (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Done at [2]. --Smkolins (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright tag for a company's logo?

Which copyright tag should I choose for a company's logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatyana medova (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tatyana medova: If you are talking about File:Traffic inspector eng 300px.png, it is too simple for copyright so I have added the appropriate licence. However, you must fill in all the details for the blank information template I also added. ww2censor (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm the copyright holder of a cover art

Hi.

I'm the owner of an album cover art. The picture was deleted from wikimedia. What do I do to make Wikimedia accept it?

--Suittheday (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If you actually own the copyright of the cover art (and not just an album) you can follow the procedure at WP:PERMIT to send an email to prove that you are the one that owns the copyright, and really intend to release it under the free license that you give. You did not upload anything to en.wikipedia, but did you upload to commons? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a photo

Please help me,How do I insert a downloaded photo to a page, am stuck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliwala (talk • contribs) 11:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You will have to make 3 more edits and hang around for another 2 days to get autoconfirmed, and then you should see an upload link available. Alternatives are to ask at WP:FFU or to upload at commons:upload. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Image of a book cover

Dear editors: I have a very old road map book published by the Hovis company. I have added a small section on that page about the company's map books, and I would like to know if I can add a photo of the book cover. I have read the "Fair use" page, and I am not sure whether descriptive information is considered "critical commentary" or not. The book has copyright notices, but is undated. However, the notification that the maximum speed limit for cars with pneumatic tires is 20 mph, and those with solid tires 12 mph, tell me that it is quite old. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Normally we would only allow a book cover image on an article about the book. If there was equivalent writing on the topic of that book in the company article, then you could employ fair use to have the image. Unless it gets to about 70 years being old would have little effect, except it would not affect commercial opportunities. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's a UK road map book, then according to Road speed limits in the United Kingdom then that would put it at 1930 or earlier. If the work is anonymous, then according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom that would make it pd.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of Internet Archive images (flickr stream)

Hi. I asked this question over at the Teahouse and was directed here, where there might be editors with more experience in this area. So, I'm interested in using the millions of images recently uploaded by Internet Archive, but I'm not sure if I can freely use them on Wikipedia. https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/ is the URL. If I click on a random image on the landing page, it says "No known copyright restrictions" and "Public". But if I do a search, say for "fish", there is a License filter near the top of the page which has following options, Any License; Creative Commons only; Commercial use allowed; Modifications allowed.

Basically, do I need to apply this filter every time I search for images, so that I only use "Commercial use allowed" images? Annoyingly, the individual image pages don't mention the Creative Commons status of the image (Commercial use allowed, or Modifications allowed).

Secondly, I looked at the Internet Archive terms and conditions. https://archive.org/about/terms.php It says in that link :

You agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including intellectual property laws, in connection with your use of the Archive. In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law.

My current understanding is that all images uploaded to Commons need to have commercial reuse allowed. Does the above exclude all these millions of images?? :-( Marvinthefish (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Checking that stream now, all those look like images scanned from OLD books (pre-1923), which under copyright law, have fallen into the Public Domain, and thus free by our conditions. If you see the image you want having "No known copyright restrictions", just double check the claim made on the publication date of the book in the photo's description, and make sure its pre-1923. If so, then you are good to go using these. See Commons:COM:F for more details on using Flickr images. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Marvinthefish: I briefly responded to you at Teahouse. Internet Archive's Flickr files are largely public domain (I've not seen one which wasn't after a few cursory glances) so they may be freely reused on Commons, other Wikimedia projects or elsewhere without restriction.

For Flickr's search: this is just an internal feature they have to ease the discovery of Creative Commons licensed files and what not. You need not rely solely upon this function reporting to you "Commercial reuse" or whatever.

We've already some content from Archive's Flickr book stuff on Commons (Commons:Category:Files from Internet Archive Book Images Flickr stream) and you are most welcome to contribute even more. See: Commons:COM:Upload tools for a few ways to batch upload content (Flickrbot has been integrated into the uploader, but its access is limited). If you need assistance or guidance with that, you can hop over to Commons:COM:HD -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Charles Wesley Powell

I need help. I am trying to include photographs in my article Draft:Charles Wesley Powell. I must not be getting copyright (fair use) properly documented because the photos have disappeared from the Read page of this article. What am I doing wrong...I've tried really hard. I'm not tech savvy. sorry. Panamaorchids (talk) 17:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There are several problems with the images you uploaded and have been warned about on your talk page. Firstly, most of them actually seem to be in the public domain, so you don't need to make a non-free claim, even though the orgnaisations claim copyright. Some of the images appear to be from Smithsonian Institution reports that are most likely US government work, so they will be PD. However, you don't provide good source urls, so they can be checked properly. Fix the sources first and I will try to help you get them right if you "ping" me though that may not be possible with all of them. Unfortunately the Harvard images most likely connot be used under the non-free claim because freely licenced images could be made if you get access to the plants. BTW, did you check out whether any of the 2.5+ million images from the Internet Archive Book Images on Flickr are ones you need? ww2censor (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Isidro A. T. Savillo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Madambaster edited Isidro A. T . savillo article without conscience. She exhibited vandalism rather than helping the article. I would like to request for a protection for the page of Isidro A. T. Savillo until it will be structured with finesse . Thanks a lot. Towering peaks (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edit blanking the page did not help, but the earlier edit was not actually vandalism either. However this is not the place to ask, instead the correct place for protection requests is WP:RFPP. This is instead a content dispute, and at least people are posting on Talk:Isidro A. T. Savillo. However you have to address the issues raised by each other, not just make a statement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

File:3rdpres1901.jpg

The image File:3rdpres1901.jpg is a scan (I scanned it myself) of a photograph from 1901. The photograph is owned by Third Presbyterian Church (Birmingham, Alabama). The building in the background was destroyed by fire in 1901 (see Third Presbyterian Church (Birmingham, Alabama)). Since the photograph was taken before 1923, it is in the public domain, right? What other information is needed? I have been informed it is slated for deletion for lack of proper sourcing. How do I properly add the source info? Please advise. Sagefats (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the ways for a work to be in the public domain in the U.S. is if it was published before 1923, not merely taken before that year. There are also other ways, but often the year of publication must be known to determine the copyright status. Regarding sourcing, you should disclose the information about what exactly you scanned and its origin. This particular image has the looks of having been scanned from a copy printed in offset. Thus, it seems likely that you scanned it from some printed publication, book, newspaper, magazine, poster, or other. Please disclose that source, including the usual elements for a citation, author, title, and in particular the year and place of publication. Also mention all relevant information that that source, or any other source, provides about the photograph itself, including information about the photographer, any previous publication of the photograph, and from where the photograph was originally obtained. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If the photo was published before 1923 it is in the public domain but if it was unpublished it falls into the public domain 120 years after creation when the author is unknown, as seems to be the case because you have not provided such information. So you need to determine if the author is known in which case the term would be 70 years pma, and also if it was previously published as the 1923 date would apply. See Cornell's public domain chart. You still need to figure out some details. ww2censor (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

-Asclepias & ww2censor, here is the front & back of the original photo: Front [3] and Back [4]. I wish it was a clip-out from the newspaper, it would be easier to source. Per the Third Presbyterian Church (Birmingham, Alabama) archives, the picture of the destroyed building was taken by an unknown member of Third Presbyterian in 1901, and the photo has been in the possession of the church ever since. Is there no way to properly use this picture, or must it be removed? Thanks for the advice, Sagefats (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Accordingly, because there is no author and no apparent publication either we only have the creation date to go by, We have to assume it will become PD 120 years from creation so, sorry, but you will have to wait until 2021 to be able to use it. ww2censor (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Railway tickets

Edmondson tickets are PD Ineligible aren't they? However, the status of File:1066 ticket front.jpg (and by implication File:1066 ticket back.jpg and File:Electrification of the Hastings to Tonbridge Railway. April 1986.jpg) has been questioned at talk:Hastings Line, due to the British Rail double arrow and 1066 Country logos. I uploaded the first two files, the third was uploaded from Flickr way back in 2011 as having been on a CC-by-2.0 licence. Does the presence of these logos mean the we need to apply FURs for the use of these images, or are they still ineligible for copyright? Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Bumping to avoid archival. Anybody have some insight on this? As far as I can tell, its an on the fence case where I wonder how the British Railways logo even qualifies for copyright, but should it be copyright, would consequently make this copyrighted (in addition to the same parameters with regard to the 1066 Country logo). - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Threads get archived based on latest timestamp in the thread, not on whether a response has been posted. Anyway, a railway ticket from 1986 will have been the copyright of the British Railways Board at the time; dissolution of a body does not remove copyright, ownership of which will have passed via BRB (Residuary) Limited to one of its successors, possibly the Department for Transport. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Could've sworn one of the archival bots could be set to not archive those threads. Oh well, an idea that will be lost to the many vaults of wikipedia. I figured this was the case, and I'm not sure whether this would qualify for historic FUR, but I'll leave that to the copyright enforcer clan. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is any copyright involved, it would be Crown Copyright, which would not preclude the use of the images with a FUR. Would really appreciate an answer as this is now the only issue preventing the Hastings Line article achieving GA status. Mjroots (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious Doctor Who images

What is the best tag to apply to File:Series 8 Doctor Who.jpg which is dubiously claimed to be "crown copyright"? It's a BBC TV programme title card, which apart from the format is a duplicate of File:Doctor Who - Current Titlecard.png. Other uploads of Theexploringgamer seem like copyvios too. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

BBC publications are not covered by Crown Copyright. These uploads would have to be covered under Fair Use and as the file is not in use it should be tagged for deletion as unused fair use. QuiteUnusual (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Old photographs

Can a photograph taken in the USA at some indefinite point between 1900 and 1911 still be within copyright. I'm keen to use this image (Cadet Corp in Woodburn Circle) which clearly shows a building completely lacking a wing which was well documented and completed in 1911 - Allowing for building and construction time, I put this photo at about 1905. However, the site owner claims this image is copyright. What's the ruling on this please? Giano (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you ar eout of luck. If the photo was actually published before 1923 it is in the public domain but if it was unpublished it falls into the public domain 120 years after creation when the author is unknown. If the author is known the copyright term is 70 years pma. See Cornell's public domain chart. ww2censor (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm always out of luck! But thanks anyway ww2censor. Giano (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

how uplode aphoto or image — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.B raju (talk • contribs) 12:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

General copyright quuestion

I am trying to improve the article Buffalo, New York by incorporating an image I found from Flickr. I've reached out to the author who currently has all rights reserved on the image. The author said he is open to allowing his image for incorporation but is a bit insecure about how safe his content would be. In particular, he is concerned about his work being sold off or used by a company/other groups with no mention or credit of it being his photo. He said he isn't fully aware of licensing, and I'm not either and I'd just like to know what the CC licenses from Flickr do to help with image credit, if anything. --Dekema2 (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Any CC license that includes BY requires attribution. However, CC licenses that include either NC or ND are not acceptable for Wikipedia, so their choices come down to two: CC BY and CC BY-SA . --Redrose64 (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And those two acceptable licences allow both commercial and derivative use, so if the author is not prepared that it could happen, he should not give permission. He can however define the nature of the attribution if he wants to but some further users just do not comply. Some Flickr users will change the licence for a while and then revert it back on Flickr. They cannot revoke the licence they give us at the time of upload but it may give them a better sense of security in so far as the only free licence is initially available here or on the commons. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

An argument to make is that as long as he has the images up at flickr under a non-CC licnese, there will still be people that will attempt to use and sell the work without their attribution or permission in the same manner as if they were Cc-by/cc-by-sa - there's always that risk once you put something to the Internet. The only change is that there would be a second copy now at en.wiki/commons and while we will certainly assure crediting, there are also similar people that will sponge off our works without credit. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help, I think this should help clear things up for the author a bit. --Dekema2 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PD-ineligible-USonly

@Jc86035: I want some opinion on the usage of public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries. File:MTR logo notext.svg brings my attention when it is added to {{S-rail/lines}} so the image is embedded in over hundreds of Hong Kong metro station articles. AFAIC, Wikimedia imposes stricter copyright policy to reduce legal exposure. If the media file is not ineligible for copyright in both US and the source country, shouldn't its usage meet our WP:NFCC instead? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons has that stricter copyright police; the English Wikipedia doesn't. There is zero legal exposure to an organization established in the US from foreign copyright laws, and to the extent they might have to worry about it, being PD in both the US and the source country doesn't necessarily mean that it will be PD in a third-party country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that such media file can be used in all Wikimedia sister projects but Commons without restriction like any fully copyleft material? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, each project sets its own rules, and many projects will only accept images that are acceptable in their source nations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, {{FoP-USonly}} (used on 368 images, example File:Burj Khalifa.jpg). I've never been comfortable with such licensing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

By the letter of the Resolution and NFC these would be "free" and have no restriction on usage, and we do have disclaimers for content reusers to check licenses of all images to make sure they can be reused in their country, so there's technically no issue. But I'm in agreement that we really ought to treat these "less than free, but more than non-free"; they need a license tag (duh) and affirmed sourcing to know they were published previously, but I would consider restrictions on non-article space (particularly templates) so that reusers have an easier time using our content if they are in a non-US country. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Restrictions to what? What set of rules do you want? Commons rules hardly solve the problem; there are known problems using images from Commons in Germany and Canada (which has no rule of the shorter term for the US), in France and other nations (which do not treat non-renewal and no-notice works as having expired their term of protection for the rule of the shorter term) and quite possibly in any number of nations that don't use other nations FoP rules. In you want a work to be free worldwide, it's 120 years from creation for anonymous works (US law), both 95 years from publication and 100 years from death (US + Ivory Coast, no shorter term) unless it was published after 2002, in which case it's just 100 years from death (Ivory Coast, no shorter term).--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Which resolution are you talking about? Under wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, files are unfree unless they satisfy Freedomdefined:Definition. Under Freedomdefined:Definition, a file is unfree if it is copyrighted in one or more countries somewhere in the world, unless the file is freely licensed. A file with {{FoP-US}} or {{FoP-USonly}} is unfree in one or more countries (for example Samoa: 75 years p.m.a., no rule of the shorter term, no FOP). A file with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is typically unfree in the United Kingdom, and files with {{PD-ineligible}} are typically unfree there too. Thus, wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy stipulates that such files are unfree, and Wikipedia may not circumvent this.

In the Ivory Coast, the copyright term expires at the same time as in the source country (or 99 years after the death of the author if the Ivory Coast is the source country). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If we need to treat files on en.wiki that technically do not fully meet the world-wide free aspects as non-free, we need to do a massive sweep of files using those templates. Most are presented as "free" images and lacking the official non-free rational. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Commons does not follow wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy either by only considering the copyright status in the United States and the source country but not in other countries... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So a fair question is: how does commons consider the handful of images that have limited copyright-restrictions as free within the context of the Resolution? Assuming they have that langauge, we should also adopt similar language for these images if we don't want to tag, say, all PD-ineligible as non-free? I'm sure there's some rationale here for that approach, we just need to identify it. --MASEM (t) 14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The Ivory Coast does not have the rule of the shorter term; the footnote at that page says that "This country implements a reciprocity rule rather than a true "Rule of the Shorter Term". A foreign work is protected to the extent this country's work is protected in the foreign country.", meaning that many US works (for example) get a longer time in the Ivory Coast (a full 95 years) then they do in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sameboat: I've removed the logos due to their disputed copyright status Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 10:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)