Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/August

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Using info

If I have take some information by other page how can I credit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djeidi123 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Exactly what is your question relating to media? You have no other edits so we have no idea what you might be asking about. ww2censor (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

John Phil Wayne

Hello there,

You've mentioned that some of my text look like something which has been copied on Last FM. Well please allow me to inform you that I am the author of the Last FM Article regarding Mr John Phil Wayne. In fact a few years ago I was a member of Last FM and on the Bio Page I wrote the text in question. So please let me know what to do now.

Thank you,

Keith McLean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith 009 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Keith McLean /@Keith 009:. The text is currently marked as "© 2015 Last.fm Ltd. All rights reserved"; if you are the owner of the copyright, can you change that notice to something that is Wikipedia compatible as indicated on WP:IOWN? Also, I would recommend a more neutral text for that draft - unsourced adjectives like "stunning" and other promotional language is generally not welcome here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Iconic diagram

I'm considering uploading an iconic diagram of metabolic pathways for use in the article on Biochemistry. It is entirely possible to remake the diagram even though it is a complex figure, however the point about using it, or other versions of it, is that it is an iconic poster often found in laboratories. The poster and other versions of it were made by Donald Nicholson (an obituary here) who gave the copyright to IUBMB which offers free download for this and other versions of the diagram (one version here). The image I'm considering uploading is blurry enough not to be usable in close up, but gives an idea of the complexity of biochemical pathways. I'm wondering what the opinion is of using the diagram as fair use. Hzh (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Does that diagram satisfy #1 of the non-free content criteria? One issue with diagrams is that they can usually be created from free works, and I can see a way of making an equivalent diagram that would not qualify as derivative from free works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, you are correct, it is a complex diagram but it is not impossible for someone to create a new version and freely licence it, so it clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. Perhaps, if it is so iconic then you might get away with it so long as it passes WP:NFCC#8 which requires critical commentary about the image itself and not having the image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic if the image were omitted, and that use claim would need to be backed up by some independent third-party reliable sources. Put in a request at the commons graphics lab. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no doubt that it can be remade, the question is not so much about the possibility of remaking it, but whether remaking it is something worthwhile. For example, the London Underground Tube map is very much an icon of map design, and it would be entirely possible to remake it, but the point of using it is that it is an iconic design, a substitution would defeat the purpose of its use. The Nicholson biochemistry metabolic pathways diagram is something you would see in most if not all biochemistry departments and it is what the author of the diagram is known for, and it is the reason why it would be worth using in addition to illustrating the complexity of biochemistry. Hzh (talk)
Remaking a diagram as free content is absolutely worthwhile. Unless you want to have an article about that particular image (or sourced content about that particular image), it is better to use a free image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
There are already a number of metabolic pathways charts, for example the Expasy one, some of them might be even copyright free, none of them however are as well known as the Nicholson one. I might need to think about it before engaging others to spend so much effort in making a chart like this. Hzh (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
(←) A bit of an update: Our article Donald Nicholson (biochemist) has sourced discussion about that image. It might pass NFCC#8 and NFCC#1 there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Harshaali Malhotra

I'm not confident on whether this image is verifiable or acceptable under Wikipedia's copyright rules. Can someone help me tag this? Or if possible can someone review and delete the file? File:Harshaali-malhotra-20150602114113-35141.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anushka.parihar (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 August 2015‎

The image has been tagged for deletion because it has no information on its copyright status. The source does not help as there is no author or statement of copyright, so without that it will be deleted in due course. Generally any image you find on the internet is copyright to someone unless it has a clear statement that it is freely licenced. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that explains the issues such images have. ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair use pictures on a deleted article

How do we delete these images specifically File:KissAnime Homescreen 30 July 2015.png Iady391 Talk to me here 11:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You add a {{db-f5}} or {{di-orphaned fair use}} tag to the top. Then it will get a timeout in case someone else uses the image, or the page gets restored. Note that Jo-Jo Eumerus has already placed this tag. Since you uploaded the image, you can add db-g7 instead to get it deleted straight away. Or if you state it clearly here that you want it deleted, I can do it now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks. I added the db-g7. Iady391 | Talk to me here 20:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Jay Marwaha

Hello,

I created this image and I allow this to be used on websites and for articles, biographies, etc. I am not sure what information to include in the information section that will reflect that information. Please advise. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Marwaha (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to File:Jay Marwaha SYNTASA President and CEO.jpg. First we need to know if you really did take the photo as it does not look like a selfie. Assuming a photographer took the photo it, then they are the copyright holder and we require their permission. Get them to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. It will need to be freely licenced which means that anyone can use it for anything including commercial or derivative uses. Images require a fully completed {{information}} template as well as aa appropriate free copyright tag. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page that covers most of the issues images encounter here. ww2censor (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Determining copyright status of images

Dear Wiki Media Expert:

I am currently drafting an article in which I would like to display some images, and need help in determining their copyright status. I have four examples, which I think represent most of the images I want to use.

The first is the masthead of a 1914 newspaper column in the New York Evening Mail showing a drawing of the author and title of the column.

The second is a family photo from 1901 owned by a personal acquaintance who has given me verbal permission to use it as I please.

The third is a woodcut from an independent college literary magazine issued in 1902 that was not associated with the university in any way and had a run of 200 copies. The self-publishers is known for certain to have no living heirs.

The fourth is a photo that was used in a 1963 newspaper article. It first appeared in the Kansas City Star, but the story was picked up by the Associated Press and appeared in a number of other papers. The Kansas City version has an author byline, who is also is credited in the photo (this person is now deceased, I have determined). In at least one AP version, the photo credit is given as the AP. I came upon a fellow researcher who had bought an original print of the photo on eBay, and it was stamped on the back by the AP. He allowed me to make a high-quality scan, and gave me verbal permission to use it, but I don't know if he has the right to do that.

Your opinion on these examples would be greatly appreciated.

Wills473 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wills473 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Evening Star item is easy: U.S., pre-1923, public domain. It could be uploaded to the Commons right away.
Where was the "independent college literary magazine issued in 1902" published (i.e., what country)? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Signatures

Is a 1963 autograph (the signature portion) subject to copyright? I would like to add one to an article about a poet who recently died.- MrX 18:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though the subject is dead you probably should read Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons and c:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. ww2censor (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the information.- MrX 04:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Reality TV Swindle

The Great Reality TV Swindle was a 2002 con perpetrated by Nik Russian. Russian was the key figure in the con, and much of the subsequent media reaction centred on him. Some commentators speculated that Russian's physical appearance may have helped him to perpetrate his con, as he appeared to be "every inch" what he claimed to be. Some critics descirbed him as a "beautiful" and "Byronic" figure, and this is discussed in the article.

For these reasons, I feel that it would be to our readers' benefit to have an image of Russian somewhere on the page. Unfortunately, following the con, Russian went into hiding and hasn't really been heard from since (he may well have changed his name), so I can't find any free images of him anywhere, and I'm not sure that any exist. The best image that I can find is this one by Closer magazine, which is a video still from a documentary on the con, and is obviously non-free. However, I feel that an appropriate non-free use rationale could quite easily be written to justify its place in the article. Am I right in thinking this? Would such use of the image meet WP:NFCC? Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? Can anyone offer me advice as to whether use of this image in the Great Reality TV Swindle article would meet the NFCC? I'd be very grateful for any advice. Thanks. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
If we know that a living person is on the lam in a manner that we cannon reasonably expect a free image to be possible (without risking the exposure of that person, etc.) then we do allow cases for using non-free images for living persons, but at the same time, you probably need to make sure that his physical appearance then is sourced and documented to be part of the con; if he was the person but his appearance didn't have much to do with the con, then we'd probably not allow the non-free use. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, Masem. I'll just go for it, write the most comprehensive rationale that I can, and see what happens. Thanks again. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Diagram in Donald Nicholson (biochemist)

A follow up of an earlier discussion on this page, when we discussed this diagram and concluded that it can't meet NFCC#1 on Biochemistry. However, upon taking stock of the Donald Nicholson (biochemist) page I wondered if using it to illustrate that article would meet NFCC#8; there is sourced discussion of that diagram in the article and from the sources it appears that that diagram is a fairly important - if not the most important - aspect in that biochemist's career. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

copyright of image

hi i received a message below: Where did this image come from? Who created it? Who holds the copyright to this image? Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted one week after 9 August 2015. Remove this tag when you provide the information. Administrators: delete this file. What is the copyright license for this image? If you do not know what a "copyright license" is, or how to find out, ask for help on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted one week after 9 August 2015.

Remove this tag when you provide the information. Administrators: delete this file.

but i am not sure how to edit this and provide this kind of information. Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemmalaria (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Haemmalaria: Greetings. Is this a drawing you made, or did you take it from somewhere else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

this is a drawing i made — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemmalaria (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

also, can i please know how to cite the same reference through out the page? like I would like to cite the same reference in the later paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemmalaria (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What kind of copyright status did you accord to this image? Note that because of our non-free content criteria (point #1 regarding replaceability), only "public domain" or attribution and/or sharealike requirements are OK here. Incidentally, where does the information on the image come from? Taken from a book, for example? Regarding the reference thing, you might want to ask on WP:HELPDESK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I presume you are referring to File:Malaria life cyce.jpg. So just add the appropriate details to all the fields in the {{information}} template that I added to the image. Any questions about it just click on the template link provided or ask again in this post. ww2censor (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Dartmoor Preservation Association

I have an image of the current logo to upload to WP Dartmoor Preservation Association (DPA): Dartmoor Preservation Association

I recently completely replaced this page, with guidance from an established Wikipedian.

I am the webmaster of the DPA website and uploaded photos of my own with no problem. The logo was removed by Filedelinker.bot for having no permission, which I don't understand.

I have permission to use the logo but now rather than using Wiki Commons, I want to reload it to Wikipedia but I am not sure what license to opt for. Any advice would be appreciated - I find this aspect a little confusing. This time around it would be good to reserve some copyright so discourage other people from using it.

RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are the actual copyright holder of the logo, you can email your permission by following the procedure found at the Commons OTRS page but even though you are the creator of the image the copyright may in fact belong to the organisation, in which case, get someone with authority to make contact and the OTRS volunteer will go through the verification process with them and add an OTRS ticket to the image. Unfortunately you cannot release an image to us and still retain any copyright over commercial or derivative use because we require your image to be freely licenced. It might be better to just upload the logo here and not to the commons, under our non-free policy so long as it is only used in the infobox of the article about the organisation. BTW you need to be aware of your conflict of interest in the DPA article. ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. I will get the CEO to go through the process as someone in authority. I am aware of the conflict of interest and NPOV - this was pointed out by the Devon Wikiproject Administrator(?) who thanked me for my first effort and awarded me some sort of e-award (looks like a medal with the Devon flag as the ribbon)! I was surprised and grateful for his comments and advice etc. RoadRunnerCwll (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem, hopefully it works out for you. ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

File:IC 1101 by SDSS-II.jpg

Is this image really copyrighted? Because an image of the galaxy NGC 3312 from the same origin as this IC 1101 picture is on Wikimedia Commons and tagged as public domain (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NGC_3312.jpg). Discuss below. --189.106.231.36 (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is Wikisky but it's likely it comes from somewhere else. Unfortunately, the source link is the image URL as opposed to a file page, making it a bit harder to track down the actual source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be the source page but there is no copyright status information. Maybe someone else can find the author. ww2censor (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Self Portrait and Cat by Patrick Hennessy RHA

I would like to upload a copy of the above picture which was bought by public funds and is in the custody of the Crawford Gallery(a public gallery).

My reason for choosing this picture is because it is not in private ownership and displays the unique ability of the artist with a self portrait incorporated into the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascaper (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately possession of a piece of art does not confer any copyright to the person owning the painting. That copyright is the artist's or their heirs. Because Hennessy died in 1980, his work will not fall into the public domain until 2051. The only way you might be able to use this image, which I presume is the one on this webpage, would be under our non-free policy to show an example of his style but it would require some sourced critical commentary about the painting itself but it must pass all 10 non-free media content policy guidelines found at WP:NFCC. BTW, are there more paintings that include a self-portrait? If so how many out of his output? ww2censor (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to upload one of the above artists pictures onto his Wikipedia page in order to give the reader some some sense of the style Hennessy used.
The one I would like to use is in the custody of the Crawford Gallery(public gallery)and is called Self Portrait with Cat. I chose this one because firstly it is not in private hands and secondly it conveys his technical ability and incorporates a portrait of the artist."snowpatrol 13:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascaper (talk • contribs)
See response above. There is no need to ask the question again. ww2censor (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

disposable test images

  • Hey. t's been years since I've uploaded images. I am working on some maps. I want to make a copy of an article in my sandbox and replace its maps with ones I've made, just to see how they look, then have an admin delete the test images until I'm satisfied with how they look. Can do? Tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
If the test maps are entirely your own work, yes, that would be fine. If, however, they're a takeoff or derivative from a copyrighted and nonfree map (including if you were looking at the original and made one roughly like it), they're a derivative work, and can't be used under any circumstances the original couldn't be, which would preclude use in userspace. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Using a non free image in Wikipedia article

Hello, I have found a non free image(copyrighted) that I would like to add to a Wikipedia page. The image best illustrates the subject and I would like to use it under fair use. The image is published art that appears in many places online already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoxkeelac (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to identify the article you want to use the image in, and what the image is (a URL to the offsite location). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

sreekanth

I download this image from net for thangapathakkam movie stills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangavitamilmani (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

So what is the question. Your contributions do not show that you uploaded any files. ww2censor (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing the logo on my company page

Hi. I'm social media manager for LV= and would like to update the logo on our page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Victoria

As I'm not an autoconfirmed user I'm finding myself in a loop of links, trying to work out how to do this.

So, put simply, how do I change the logo on our page? It's an image that we own the copyright for. I'm a novice and I'm struggling.

Thanks

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickjjoy (talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ask at WP:FFU, giving a link to the image on the internet, and state the article Liverpool Victoria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Image for Jiggles, a former strip club in Tualatin, Oregon

I am unable to find any free images of Jiggles at Wikimedia Commons or Flickr. However, there are many images of the strip club if you Google image "Jiggles Tualatin". Can any of these images be uploaded to Wikipedia? The business is now defunct and the building demolished. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It is very unlikely any of those images can be used. Most of the images shown in Google image searches are subject to copyright without a license acceptable for use. If you want to use one of them, you are free to track down who took it to see if there is an acceptable license or arrange for one but without clear evidence that the image has been properly licensed it cannot be used.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi everyone, I recently came across this image in which the source (at the time) was correctly linked to the University library archives, but I later found this picture to be deleted. The picture does not have reliable claim to back up the fact that is of a Nair lady, but the problem is, the source is not verifiable. I have checked constantly for the picture again and again, but was not able to find it. I was still able to find a a similar picture however that was said to be from this same exact source. I found this to be concerning, especially due to the fact that the article on which this picture is supposedly about has a history of having disruptive editing (especially from the user who uploaded this in particular). I wondered what to do with this, as I have no clue where to ask. I attempted to propose this picture for deletion, but failed as I had no clue how to. I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but can someone please help? Thank you Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless you are more specific we don't know what image you are talking about but it sounds more like a content dispute, so Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may be useful to you. You can probably find the image name in the article history even if it was deleted since then and post it in this post. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey WW2censor, it was an image relating to caste-based article. Thanks for the advice, and I'll do that. Happy editing Kanchipuramsilk83 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Copyright Owner's Permission Sufficient?

I’m writing a biographical article about a scientist (deceased). The archives at the university he worked at has a picture of him that I would like to use in the infobox. I wrote and asked for permission to use it in the Wikipedia article and mentioned the open-content issue (i.e., the Free Art License required by Wikimedia).

An archivist wrote back and gave permission to use the picture in the article. However, the language he used suggested that this was not equivalent to a Free Art License:

“To the extent that the University has any rights to the published work [i.e. the Wikipedia article], the University grants non-exclusive permission to use it in accordance only with the request listed above, provided that you use the following credit line: ‘Photograph courtesy of the University of [XXXXX] Archives’. You will need to obtain further permission should you wish to otherwise publish the work at any future time.” (bolded emphasis added)

If it can’t be uploaded to Wikimedia, can I still upload it to Wikipedia directly with the permission given? JRicker,PhD (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If your article is still a draft, JRicker,PhD, wait until it is ready for the encyclopedia, and move it to main space. Then, because the subject is deceased, you can upload it to Wikipedia (not Wikimedia Commons) under #10 of our non free content policy for images. It should be a lower resolution version of the image, and used only in that one encyclopedia article. Permission is not required for that type of image use. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

1952 Allentown Cardinals Photograph

I have a team photograph of the 1952 Allentown (PA) Cardinals. Like nearly all baseball team photos, it was a publicity photo taken by the club for distribution to the public. The Allentown Cardinals went defunct in 1956, and there are no successor organizations. I actually have two photos, One being the team photo, another being a game photo taken from the stands of a player at-bat during the game, also being a publicity photo.

I would like to use these photos in two articles to illustrate the team. The first being the Allentown Cardinals article, and also the History of baseball in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Can I upload this using a Fair-Use statement? Using two of them (one for each article)? Or can they be loaded into Wikipedia Commons as there is no current Allentown Cardinals organization?

Thank you for your help with this Connor7617 (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume you do not know who took the photo so you do not know who owns the copyright. That person might still be alive but even if they died in 1952, their work would still be copyright until 2023. I honestly can't see that photo passing all 10 of the non-free media policy guidelines (especially #8) as it is not necessary for either article to have this photo for the reader can understand it. Such an image would be just decorative but nice to have. ww2censor (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
If you can show that the pictures were distributed to the public without copyright notices, they would be free for use. By public distribution I mean situations like being passed out or sold to fans. A small number being sent only to local news media probably wouldn't qualify. I assume that these were publicity photos taken for the team's use, which would ordinarily be work-made-for-hire, with the team being the legal author/owner rather than the photographer. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

File of Thea Tolentino, Head Shot

Hello i am MarkHerson i uploading a file of Thea Tolentino that is reason why uploading that is a head shot of Thea, of my own work of File:thea_tolentino_secondary_1426673401.jpg thanks MarkHerson (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this image is that you claim to be the author of the image but in this edit you stated that you commissioned photographer Ronan Capili to photograph. Obviously one of these statements is false, so, for verification, the best thing to do is get the copyright owner, who is usually the photographer and not the commissioner, to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ww2censor, I think you're off base here. If an artist's management "commissions" a photograph of the artist, it's ordinarily work-made-for-hire, and the management is either the legal author, or the artist is, and in either case the management has the authority to license the image for use. (The photographer's contract may require a credit line, but that's a different issue, and generally falls under acceptable attribution requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Evidence will be provided on request"

Frequently I see images uploaded to Wikipedia which have either a given, apparently non-free online source, or have an offline source, and moreover have a free license but the phrase above in lieu of evidence. See e.g. File:Moda Mall Interior and Exterior.png. What is the best course of action in these circumstances? The example I have given I have sent to WP:PUF. BethNaught (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Uploads such as this should really just be as having no permission, which is what I would have done with this image. Tagging the image is your request so if that does not stir the uploader into action to provide the copyright verification then it is likely they are just taking a chance no one will bother or they really don't understand copyright which is likely as a new uploader with two uploads and just 12 edits. Older uploads should be nominated as normal, for deletion or, if you think it might be freely licenced then PUF can be used, as you have done, but it is a slower process. The guide to image deletion gives more advise. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice. BethNaught (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it appear that this editor has uploaded a number of other images from the same source claiming them as their own work, but most are available on this webpage and have an "All rights reserved" notice on the page which is specifically for downloads from their media centre. Highly suspect. ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we are dealing with an employee of that mall, or something along these lines. I agree though that if permission (say through OTRS) is not forthcoming these images are suspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
That may well be so, but then why upload such low quality images that appear to have been swiped from the webpages with no metadata? I have tagged them as copyvios on the commons and we shall see. Perhaps they will make contact and provide permission via OTRS. ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Uploading image I own

If I create or edit a page on the Wikipedia, I unambiguously license it under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. If I upload a fair-use image owned by someone else, I obviously do not have legal standing to relicense it, but Wikipedia accepts claims of fair-use when accompanied by a detailed fair-use claim for a specific use. But what if I upload an image that I own myself? I can't quite follow the Terms of Use for that specific case. Am I free to upload an image I own, but refuse to license it under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and refuse to license it under the GFDL, so long as a reasonable fair-use exemption can be made? --Yamla (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A good question. The WMF's Terms of Use state "When you contribute non-text media, you agree to comply with the requirements for such [free] licenses as described in our Licensing Policy". It would be prudent not to upload an image under those circumstances, absent clarification from the WMF. Because it's Foundation policy, we can't vary its terms. Also remember that nonfree use policy is considerably narrower than standard "fair use" law allows. You might want to ask Jimmy Wales about this directly; he's at least likely to advise about the WMF's general leanings. I can see them going either way. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
That section of the ToU appears to be written under the assumption that we don't host any non-free images. From what I can tell, uploading images under any other free licenses - the two licenses mentioned there are not the only ones that are free licenses - is OK, at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
To expand somewhat on the above replies. Ownership of an image is entirely different from being the copyright holder of an image. If you took the image then, in the majority of circumstances, you are the copyright holder, but if you own a copy of an image that someone else took or your found it on in internet or in a photo album or elsewhere, you are not the copyright holder and have no right over it unless it is verifiably in the public domain due to age, previous publication or its author is deceased long enough. If, as a copyright holder you do not want to release an image as freely licenced then we cannot use it unless, under a non-free claim, it complies with all 10 non-free content policy guideline requirements. So if it is an image that could be recreated by someone else, it fails NFCC and so on for the other 9 points. If for instance it is a photo of a deceased person, and it is unlikely that a free image will be found, then a non-free claim can be entertained but the idea of the free encyclopaedia is that all its content is free, as in freely licenced text and images. ww2censor (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's follow-ups. Ww2censor, I did already understand the difference between being the copyright holder and owning a copy (say, a print) of an image. Sorry for my lack of clarity in the original question. --Yamla (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

File:PC speaker audio sample.ogg – Must this file stay?

Hello. I have a question which concerns my file's dispute. The problem with my sound sample is whether or not it can be easily replaced with a free sound sample. I have a few reasons to stick with my uploaded file:

 • It is not easy for me to find appropriate programs for writing sound samples, but I have better reasons than this one.

 • I have disputed over whether the sounds really belonged to IBM, PC speaker's manufacturer, because they were able to make PC speaker and its sounds. Am I missing something important over here?

 • I understand that it is important to use possible free files in places of non-free ones, but the need to do that and being notable are important from my point of view. I think that it is good to do free media, but I find my uploaded file notable because the game was very important for PCs during the 1990s, so this file may be a better illustration than other examples.

Perhaps, I am missing the point here. Does notability matter, or is it just about replacing every non-free files regardless of their notability? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright of Euro coin images

Hi there,

I want to help contribute to Wikipedia by filling out the images on the Euro coin pages. Most pages are only showing a small proportion of the coin images at the moment and I want to put them all on. I found a list of all the images on the European Central Bank website. E.g. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/coins/html/fr.en.html. I don't know anything about copyright. However, considering that these are just pictures of coins, do you think that I'd be able to use those images to put up on the articles?

Thanks for your help!

David (Wikipedia editor noob) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidtunderthesea (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

adding copyright ©

How do you add copyright to an image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTICHRIST SVERSTAR 15 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Where do you want to add copyright to an image? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you are talking about File:MarilynMansonLiveFilmore.JPG. Well I found the proper Flickr url source for the image, which you did not provide but anyway the image is copyright with an "All rights reserved" licence which we don't accept. It has been nominated for deletion. You also uploaded File:PaulWiley.jpg without giving an exact source url or a licence so maybe this is the image but without it we cannot verify the copyright status of the image. You need to get the photographer, whose website you list, to verify their permission and the licence they are prepared to allow us to use the image under by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Neither you nor we can decide what licence to add to that image only the copyright holder can do that. ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Should the browser toolbars, etc be cropped from the File:Ytmnd-screenshot.jpg screenshot?

File:Ytmnd-screenshot.jpg is a screenshot of the YTMND website, used in the article about YTMND so I think it's a perfectly fine to have the screenshot as a fair use image. However the screenshot also includes the toolbars, etc from whichever version of Safari was used by the person who took the screenshot - should these be kept or removed? Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The image fails WP:NFCC#8 because it is not contextually significant to include this non-free image for the reader to understand the article. ww2censor (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The article is all about the visual appearance of the website (that's the point of this website) and there is discussion of this version of the website. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well Thryduulf I disagree with you because the use of a non-free image such as this, specifically showing Sean Connery, who is known for using the phrase, requires the rationale to make the claim for its use and as stated "For describing this web page on the article of its parent website" I don't think this what it does. To me a better rationale would likely be fine. I highly doubt the toolsbars are a copyright issue. ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright question

I own a copy of the book Coles Finch, William (1933). Watermills and Windmills. London: C W Daniel Company., and also of the reprint Coles Finch, William (1976) [1933]. Watermills and Windmills. Sheerness: A J Cassell. ISBN 0 903253 02 X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help). On the flap of the dustjacket (of the reprint) that folds over the rear cover is a photograph of Coles Finch, who died in 1944. There is no indication at all as to where the photograph came from, but I'd say it was either from WCF himself or his family. Can this image be uploaded to Commons as a Public Domain image, or would it have to be uploaded locally with a FUR? Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So the book is not obviously in the public domain being published after 1923. Does the book have a copyright notice anywhere or acknowledgment for the images? If not, then you can likely use {{PD-US-no notice}} either here or on the commons. Otherwise a local upload as a non-free image of a deceased person with a fully completed WP:FURG would be the last option but only after you have done an exhaustive search for a free image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: WCF died over 70 years ago, therefore his books are now firmly in the PD. Any image of him is also over 70 years old. Publication of the image can be stated to have been in 1976, regardless of its age. Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that based on WCF's death his own works are in the public domain but we don't know who took the photo. A photographic self-portrait would be highly unlikely, so we must assume, because you have not said there is any attribution, that the photographer is anonymous or pseudonymous. So his portrait would be copyright for 70 from publication per List of countries' copyright lengths having been published in the UK but specifically per this c:Commons:Anonymous works#United Kingdom but not because the subject died over 70 years ago even though the coverage period is the same. However I believe URAA applies so you should keep the image local and not upload to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Album covers

I have been asked to completely update a Wikipedia biography from a recording artist. His page currently has no discography and he requests one be generated with pictures of his albums. Can this be done under Fair Use? Utnijlj (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Utnijlj: Unless there's good reason to, we don't put non-free album covers in artist biographies. The idea here is that an album cover is not necessary to help identify the artist. Unless the artist agrees to release the album cover under an appropriate free license (which may or may not be against his contract with publishers and the album's original artist), we should only use the album under fair use on articles about the album or song. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Generally this is not possible because most album covers are copyright images and we only allow such non-free images to be used in articles about that specific album (see WP:NFCI #1). Use in a discography is not possible, unless they are freely licenced images, because such us will not comply with all 10 non-free media policy guidelines. Our non-free policy is much stricter than the legal understanding of Fair Use. If the artist, if they are the copyright holder as opposed to the photographer or record company, is prepared to licence the images of the albums freely then you could use them. ww2censor (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Images for Utica, New York

I'm doing a GA review for the Utica, New York, article. While I was clicking through the images, I was unsure about the true copyright status of these ones:

  • File:Flag of Utica-New York.png - Isn't this a modification of a copyrighted work, so not the original work of the uploader?
  • File:Seal of Utica-Vector.svg - The reason for the PD claim is that a book, published in 1900, describes this seal as such in words. But how do we know that the city's current seal is in the public domain?
  • File:Utica1759-3.jpg - This depicts a scene from 1759, but there's no indication of when the painting was created. The source seems to suggest that it was created quite recently and would be copyrighted. And, not surprisingly, the source site has a copyright notice.

--Jsayre64 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, File:Seal of Utica-Vector.svg seems to be a derivative work of the image on this page (the source does not link to the image). So taking that as an obvious public domain image, the flag image File:Flag of Utica-New York.png is essentially also derivative of the same image with a white background and yellow border also using as reference a photo on the source page is http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/us-nyuti.jpg. I think the images themselves are ok though they need the file page information to be refined. The painting image File:Utica1759-3.jpg, as you say, has no author or date, so its copyright status is unknown and should be nominated for deletion. Its licence is obviously false because we cannot know the author is dead 70+ years. ww2censor (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll nominate File:Utica1759-3.jpg for deletion. File:Seal of Utica-Vector.svg points to this source, where on page 20 of the overall document, the same seal is in the bottom left (you'll have to zoom in a lot). So don't we have to assume that's copyrighted by the city? If it's copyrighted, then so is the derivative work File:Flag of Utica-New York.png. Jsayre64 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: do you still think the flag and seal files are OK? Jsayre64 (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I think the images details need to be refined for more clarity to avoid them being questioned again. ww2censor (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  Done Jsayre64 (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

hi i want to upload my information on wikipedia

i want to upload my inforamation wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.246.47 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

We don't generally allow simple uploads of files. What specific information are you trying to add, and to what article(s)? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Adhemar

I uploaded a picture of comic book character Adhemar. Questions have been asked about the copyright, but I noticed on Tintin an image of Tintin is also used, despite the fact that the copyright of the Hergé estate is protected as heavily as Disney. Since the picture of Adhemar is a publicity shot and I found it on the web page of a university professor it can be used as "fair use" to illustrate the article. -- User:Kjell Knudde, 24 August, 2015.

Hello @Kjell Knudde:, the Tintin image is indeed copyrighted, but used under Wikipedia's WP:NFCC policy. Please check the linked policy. If the Adhemar image meets all 10 listed criteria, you can add a similar rationale to the Adhemar image page (just copy/paste and use the Tintin templates as model, and change the differing details), and remove the warning template. You should also save with a clear edit summary like "Fair-use rationale added" or something similar. GermanJoe (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You may be better off to not remove the warning template but allow a more knowledgeable editor review the changes and they will remove the warning if all looks good. Or ask again here. ww2censor (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
On first readthrough the image does seem to meet all the required standards. The only thing I can't retrace is when the image was drawn. According to the style it's probably from the 1980s-1990s, but I can't place an exact date. It's fine by me if a more knowledgeable editor makes the changes, because my knowledge of computer stuff isn't that huge. -- User:Kjell Knudde, 24 August 2015.
I've refined the details of File:Adhemar (comic book character).gif and now removed the warning. ww2censor (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Image for Kathryn Harrold

While I have been a Wikipedia Editor for many years, I have never uploaded an image. Most of the time, I have found it unnecessary because most of the edits I have done involve the text of an article. However, I have recently come across the Wikipedia Article for former actress (and current psychotherapist) Kathryn Harrold -- and found that this article does not contain a picture of the subject. Her noteworthiness being built upon an acting career, it seems essential to include a picture of her as an actor in the article. Yet, I am hesitant to choose one, based on Wikipedia's copyright policies. The most appropriate one I could find is available here: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4PA2F2uadGs/T_3R2hJI8EI/AAAAAAAAFmc/VgScvOUApME/s1600/kathryn-harrold-as-lauren-bacall-in-bogie-1980-image-2.jpg Please verify if this image is acceptable for Wikipedia. If not, please help me understand how to find one that would be acceptable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samson3000 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Kathryn Harrold is still alive so a freely licenced image could be made. In that case we have no reason to use a non-free image to simply identify here. However, if there were sourced critical commentary about that specific image in the article it might justify its use under our stricter than fair-use non-free image policy guidelines but it must pass all 10 points and have a fully complete fair-use rationale. We cannot see the page the image you link to is displayed on, just the image itself, so cannot see any copyright notices or other details that might be there. Can you provide that url? Tineye found it twice here and here but neither provides more helpful information. ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright notice placement

File:WEC-69F-002r.jpg and File:Wh-earth-69-cover.jpg are both taken from the 1969 edition of the Whole Earth Catalog and marked as GFDL, which is clearly wrong, because they're unoriginal scans: they have the same copyright status as the catalog itself. The question hinges on the first image, which is the second page from the original work — is this where a copyright notice would have to be placed, or would it go somewhere else? There's nothing of the sort on this page, but of course if it were required to go elsewhere, that's not relevant. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable position for a copyright notice is discussed in U.S. Copyright Office Circular 3: Copyright Notice.

For periodicals, acceptable locations include: (a) the title page, (b) the page immediately following the title page, (c) either side of the front or back cover, (d) the first or last page of the main body of the work, (e) as part of, or adjacent to, the masthead or on the page containing the masthead, or (f) adjacent to a prominent heading appearing at or near the front of the issue. Both of the images you reference are from the Fall 1969 issue of the Whole Earth Catalog which had a copyright notice of "© 1969 Portola Institute, Inc. All rights reserved under Pan-American and International copyright conventions." on its title page. I've nominated both for deletion. —RP88 (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The cover image File:Wh-earth-69-cover.jpg is quite likely a simple scan of the cover and may well be in the public domain. If the earth image is sourced to NASA or some other US government organisation, then with the added text no new copyright has been created with a freely licenced image and a scan of it will be free. Find the earth image source but if you can't as a non-free image of a book cover it is allowable in the Whole Earth Catalog article per WP:NFC but nowhere else. The only part of the catalogue page File:WEC-69F-002r.jpg that might be copyright is the image. That likely makes the image copyright per the copyright notices you mention and as such it should be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Two line standalone couplet

The late Robert Conquest, known for many high-brow things, was also devoted to science fiction from the days when it was considered lowest-of-the-low-brow. Amongst other things he was a poet, and in 1962 published a famous two-line couplet that ends "that's not SF!" The couplet is entirely standalone. It is not part of a larger poem. Is quoting it in its entirety acceptable in his article, as part of discussing his contributions to science fiction? Is this acceptable more generally in discussing science fiction culture? Is this acceptable on Wikiquote? Choor monster (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Image of Kingdom Centre in Saudi Arabia

I'm not sure if this is the place to enquire about this issue. This file on Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kingdom.jpg shouldn't be there as there is no FOP in Saudi Arabia. Can I request it be moved to the English Wikipedia with the following tag: {{FoP-USonly}} -- Nirinsanity 14:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no bot or tool that automates this process, you'll have have to do it by hand (the closest is Commons fair use upload bot, but it doesn't support this particular case). Basically, upload the file yourself to English Wikipedia under a different name (making sure to provide attribution to original uploader and a link to original upload location) with the original uploader's license and {{FoP-USonly}}. Change English Wikipedia articles using the Commons file to use the local file. Nominate the original for deletion on Commons. I'm happy to help if you get stuck anywhere in this process. —RP88 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I couldn't upload the file on the English Wikipedia. It doesn't allow me to as it says that the file is a duplicate even if I upload it under a different name and description. So, I'll request speedy deletion of the original file on Commons and then upload it here. Nirinsanity 01:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. I've managed to upload it :) -- Nirinsanity 01:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The correct tag for File:HarryMarkPetrakis.jpg

Hello,

My name is Lambrini Papangelis and I am the author of the Harry Mark Petrakis article on English Wikipedia. I received a message that I have not tagged the photo I mounted there. The photo is a family photo that I got from Harry Mark Petrakis's son. It was never published in any of HMP's books. What is the correct tag to use, please? Lambrini Papangelis (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Without more information we cannot tell you what copyright tag to use. Is this really a family-taken photo or just a photo the family have but taken by someone else? If it is a family photo, inherited by the family they can licence it freely and you would be best to upload it to the commons and use the c:Template:PD-heirs template so long as the family agree to licencing it in that way. There is no equivalent template here. If it was taken by someone else you would need that photographer to verify their consent by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. In fact even if it is family photo it would be best to verify their permission with the OTRS Team. In general it is always the copyright holder who determines and decides the licence unless it is known to be freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

MY UPLOADED PICTURES,,,,,

ALL THE PICTURES I JUST UPLOADED HERE ON WIKIPEDIA, WERE TAKEN OVER THE YEARS BY OUR GIRLFRIENDS,,AT THE TIME,THEY ARE ALL ON MY COMPUTER AND ARE FOR ALL TO SEE,,,,WE HAVE THEM POSTED ON REMEMBRANCE VOCAL GROUP (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)MANY SITES AROUND THE COMPUTER..THEY ARE FROM MY OWN PRIVATE STOCK AND I LOVE SHARING THEM WITH ANYONE..THANK YOU. REMEMBRANCE VOCAL GROUP ... JAMES.REMEMBRANCE VOCAL GROUP (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC) REMEMBRANCE VOCAL GROUP (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If they were taken by your girlfriends, the girlfriend who took the photo is the copyright holder. In that case, she would have to be the one to agree to the release of the photo under a free license, you would lack the authority to do so. Additionally, Wikipedia's photo upload capacity is not for sharing photos you just happen to like; a site like Flickr or Instagram might suit you if that's what you want to do. Photo uploads here are for educational use, not personal use. And finally, YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY SEEMS STUCK. Typing in all caps is shouting, please don't do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete image

Hlo sir plz delete this image — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEJPAL BHADU (talk • contribs)

Tagged it as G7. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete it please

Delete the image please — Preceding unsigned comment added by MooseV98 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@MooseV98: Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question try asking at the Reference Desk. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 15:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  Already done your image is scheduled for deletion because of a copyright violation. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 15:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

FWS Employee Portrait Domain Status

I'm currently working on the article for Lucille Farrier Stickel, who was a government worker for a national research lab and who died in 2007. The US Fish and Wildlife Service tribute to her, found here has a black and white portrait of her that is credited as USFWS. What is the domain status of this? Because I thought all government photos in the line of work for a US government employee went into the public domain. In addition, this photo would have to have been taken before 1982 when she retired and potentially much older than that, depending. I'm just not clear what the legalities are on the use of this image. SilverserenC 02:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

With the US Fish and Wildlife Service attribution you should upload this image to the commons using the template {{PD-USGov-FWS}}. You are correct that it is in the public domain. Provide as much details as you have in a completed {{information}} template with the image. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for the help. SilverserenC 18:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Town of Ajax Flag photo

  Resolved

I am pretty sure that this image is copyrighted but can someone check? Please ping me in your response. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 15:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Skyllfully: it would be copyright, both in the photography, and the flag design. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: thanks for the help. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 23:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Marking as   Resolved. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 23:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Can a file with the "CC BY-NC-ND 3.0" license be uploaded on Wikipedia?

Can a file, an logo for a software, be uploaded with the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 be uploaded on Wikipedia?

This license is "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs" which I understand is not acceptable for Commons, but wanted to confirm that it is for Wikipedia.

Thanks.

dorfsmay (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be acceptable only if it would meet the nonfree content use requirements. If it does, you could upload it as a nonfree image. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I checked those criteria, and I believe it does meet them, I'll explain in the description of the image. Thanks for the pointer.--dorfsmay (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to add to that, in general no images with commercial NC and derivative ND restrictions are allowed to be uploaded. What image do you have in mind so we can tell you if it will pass the non-free policy guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a logo for a free software, my intention is to link it from the page with about said software. The author gave me permission to upload it via email, I do not believe there is a free equivalent available.--dorfsmay (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I have added the image File:Bottle-logo.svg. Is the "Permission" description sufficient? Should I create a new page in Wikipedia for the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license, or is the license I selected there sufficient? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorfsmay (talk • contribs) 14:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dorfsmay: You'll need to include a nonfree use rationale. You should easily be able to do that. Generally, the primary logo of a subject that has one is allowable in the article about that particular subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
And because it's a logo for identification at the top of the page (as it seems) you can use {{Non-free use rationale logo}} as the rationale basis to make it easy to do this, filling in the right parts. --MASEM (t) 16:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Added. Thanks.--dorfsmay (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Or you could have the author of the software relicense the logo under an acceptable free license and pass through the OTRS process, if you'd like. Longbyte1 (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dubious copyright on Meme Run.png?

The Meme Run logo includes the Get Out Frog/MLG Frog/Frogout. I don't remember the copyright policy on memes, but in any case this means that he doesn't own more than 75% of the image. Not to mention that the font isn't his either (and can't be copyrighted by itself), so that makes this a totally original work that can be attributed to numerous people other than the developer of Meme Run. Longbyte1 (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(This situation came up elsewhere recently) In terms of fair use law in US courts, WP's use of the image is judged on the fair use merits of our use regardless of how the original image came to us; it basically is not our fault if we are using an image that has some issues of copytaking as long as we can stand up to a fair use defense of the original material (with larger emphasis on commercial value and purpose). And as our NFCC rules are generally aimed to be stricter than fair use, we should be okay in using that as the leading image for the game. The developer is still on their own if they are going to get into trouble for that. I will note that while you can copyright font typefaces, you cannot copyright the resulting text made with a font (see {{PD-textlogo}} for example). --MASEM (t) 23:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:PC speaker audio sample.ogg – Must this file stay?

Hello. I have a question which concerns my file's dispute. The problem with my sound sample is whether or not it can be easily replaced with a free sound sample. I have a few reasons to stick with my uploaded file:

 • It is not easy for me to find appropriate programs for writing sound samples, but I have better reasons than this one.

 • I have disputed over whether the sounds really belonged to IBM, PC speaker's manufacturer, because they were able to make PC speaker and its sounds. Am I missing something important over here?

 • I understand that it is important to use possible free files in places of non-free ones, but the need to do that and being notable are important from my point of view. I think that it is good to do free media, but I find my uploaded file notable because the game was very important for PCs during the 1990s, so this file may be a better illustration than other examples.

Perhaps, I am missing the point here. Does notability matter, or is it just about replacing every non-free files regardless of their notability? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 6:39 pm, 18 August 2015, Tuesday (10 days ago) (UTC−5)

Bump. Nobody has answered my question. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. WP:Notability only applies to articles, not to files or media. It is not a consideration here at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Tag added

File:Team from Thabong in yellow and gold kit.jpeg. This file may be used to write an article about Paseka Sekese from Wits. Please help.

Ras Benjih/RasTalk 08:44, 31 Jul 10:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ras Benjih:, if this image is from a newspaper as you have captioned it, then the copyright of the image belongs to the photographer and you cannot licence it under a Creative Commons licence. Unless it is impossible to obtain a free image of the team then it will not be possible to retain the image under the non-free use criteria either. Nthep (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I am the photographer of this picture, I took this pic in the Liberty Center Park near Matshabeng Municipality building. And I myself took it to the Media, in order to shows our community the work that our boys did. Vista Newspaper is our local newspaper. And I still have a that photo in my album book. Ras Benjih/RasTalk 08:44, 31 Jul 21:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

I have been asked to provide a fair use rationale for an image, but I cannot see where to write it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowcottage (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sparrowcottage: Normally you'd fill in a {{Non-free use rationale}} or something like this and put it on the file page, but in this case I must ask: Is a non-free image really necessary? Can one not make a free image there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sparrowcottage:, I have to agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs). if you add a non free use rationale, all that is likely to happen is that that the deletion proposal will be changed to WP:CSD#F7 on the grounds that a free image could be found or created. A better course of action would be to ask the photographer to release the file under a free licence - see WP:CONSENT for the process. Nthep (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Assuming you are talking about File:Clare Wilkinson (2) small.jpg which is your only upload, that image is attributed to Marco Borggreve and the matadata gives the same attribution plus has the copyright noted as www.marcoborggreve.com all rights reserved. In the majority of cases the photographer is the copyright holder and we must have their permission to use the image. We do not accept non-free images of living people because a freely licenced image can be made by someone else. As mentioned above, get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT to verify their permission. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all! I will use a different image. Sparrowcottage (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2015/August&oldid=1142595961"