Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/December

Photographer okay with Wikipedia using his image, but nobody else

Hello everyone, I've been contacting some photographers about using photos that they've taken in an article I'm building, and in the emails I sent them I used the sample consent letter that Wikipedia provides for copyright owners to send to them. One of the photographers just got back to me and said that while he was willing to let us use the photo he took, he has a problem with the part of the consent letter that says "I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites."

Basically, he'd like to know if there is any way to grant Wikipedia permission, but while still requiring that anyone else get permission before using or altering his photo. I know next to nothing about copyright or licensing, so I don't know what to tell him. Is there any way it could work?

Thanks, Hrboe (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The photographer can grant such permission, but it is useless for us, and we will not use such an image. The idea is that content from Wikipedia is reusable. Also so it can be modified for other uses. Another idea is for the photographer to release a smaller image, perhaps 300x400 pixels under a free license that permits anyone to use of modify it. Then they can retain rights to the print quality image, but one good enough for web use is made available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Carl Linneus

Should I find the copyright owner of the image of Carl Linneus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus)? if I want to use this image in a book? Or it is enough to publish the link to the page next to the image? Juli506 (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)juli506

The image is in the public domain as it is over 200 years old. You can see who painted it on the file description page: File:Carl von Linné.jpg. This means you can use the image freely without credit or links. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to upgrade the logo on our school website

File:Woodstock School logo.png Wooodstockwiki (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

References

• Are you yourself the creator or copyright holder of this artwork? If not it can probably be used under fair use and uploaded to English Wikipedia. if you are the copyright holder then we will need more evidence that you are. I have updated the Woodstock School article for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Science Journal Photos

When using pictures from scientific papers published in a journal, what is the procedure to get the pictures approved on Wikipedia? Chris.sumner12 (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)chris.sumner12

First you can check if the journal is published with an open license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0, or CC-BY. If so you can use the image and give the correct credit and license.

Second if the journal is old, eg 1932 or before, the images are probably public domain. But I also notice that they are low quality. But they can be used.

Third, most journals are not either of the above, so you cannot copy the image. Journals are very unlikely to grant a free license. If it is clear that the author of the journal holds the copyright, then you can ask the author to release rights for a CC-BY-SA license. I have succeeded in asking an author to supply another photo that has not been published, and supply the right kind of license. Otherwise I recommend that you draw new diagrams yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Liquidated company logo still copyrighted

If a company is liquidated by a court, is it's logo still protected by copyright? I'm asking specifically about this logo which belongs to a football club that was wound-up by the Northern Irish High Court but is still listed on Wikipedia as being copyright protected. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is still copyright protected and illegal to reproduce. Perhaps intellectual property of the club was transferred to another entity, which could grant licenses for use. Or perhaps no one can give permission, but also no one may sue for infringement either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Logos

Hi,

Im new to editing wikipedia article and I had a question about the logo for the school I go to. It was recently updated on wikipedia The file is File:Woodstock_School_logo.png and it has been uploaded to wikipedia commons while the old logo was uploaded under a fair usage policy File:Woodstock_logo.png . My question is has the new logo been uploaded incorrectly, if yes how can it be fixed, if no then can you explain to me how a Creative Commons License is the same as a fair usage policy on an Image.

Thank you, Tanujbagaria (talk) 10:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tanujbagaria. In most cases, school logos like the one which was uploaded to Commons are copyrighted and the copyright holder is typically the school itself. I think the person who uploaded the logo and claimed it as their "own work" did so in error since it is very likely that they did not create the logo or are the copyright holder. Simply downloading an image from the Internet may be "free" (i.e., not cost any money), but it doesn't mean there has been a transfer of copyright.

Since Commons does not accept non-free content, which the logo likely is, I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. The logo is used on the school's official website which clearly states at the very bottom that the school is the copyright holder. So, it will never be acceptable for Comomns unless the school/copyright holder agrees to freely license it. It may, however, be acceptable to upload as non-free content to Wikipedia, but each usage of it has to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria. It should be OK to use in the infobox of Woodstock School, like it currently is, but probably is not going to be acceptable for use in any other articles. If you decide to upload the image to Wikipedia as non-free, please make sure to provide a proper non-free use rationale; Otherwise the file is likely to be speedily deleted for one of the reasons listed in WP:CSD#Files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tanujbagaria: I wonder if Woodstockwiki may be a represenative of the school, given that they asked here about updating the logo on "their" school. Maybe they could ask the school to license the logo in question.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Wooodstockwiki.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Can you instruct me on how I could remove the logo from the commons and upload it with a Fair Usage Policy?Tanujbagaria (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The logo was removed from commons, and I have uploaded it to Wikipedia. It may need to be reduced in size though. Are you an official of the school who can grant copyright on this image? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Tanuibagaria. I've tweaked what Graeme Bartlett did by adding {{non-free reduce}} to the file's page per WP:NFCC#3 and a source for the image (|Website=) to the non-free use rationale per WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a. I think the non-free use rationale provided by Graeme Bartlett is fine for use in the infobox of Woodstock School and that permission from the school/copyright holder will only be needed if you wish to move the file to Wikimedia Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Previously unpublished Photo

I uploaded a photo that had previously never been published before. It was part of the media materials from the 2015 Portland Film Festival, but it's never been used. How do I verify that the creator of the work has agreed for it to be used on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechaosfactory (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This means that its first publication is here. Any way an email from the 2015 Portland Film Festival to WP:OTRS team can prove the license granted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Thechaosfactory: But we require more than permission just for use on Wikipedia; permission must allow reuse anywhere for anything. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. —teb728 t c 08:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted Photographs

Hi there. I've recently had multiple pictures deleted due to what was called "obvious blatant copyright infringement", despite the fact I followed all guidelines I possibly could for files which have uncertain copyright licensing, including a Source website and a photographer for each one. I would like to know how to keep this from happening again, as many websites have no sourcing information and/or have vague copyrighting (ex. All Rights Reserved, or © 2008-2015). Now, I know you would normally suggest simply finding a photo with a more clearly defined copyright license. However, this is a case in which the topics represented by said photographs are sparse on the internet and there are few if any photographs of the actual place, person, etc. whose licensing is clearly or even vaguely defined. Please help me sort this out, if there is a way at all. I am aware that if I do this again that I may lose my posting privileges, so I am being VERY cautious with this situation. Thank you so much, for your understanding.
Ben Fishman - Dunedin High School, Florida | talk | contribs 18:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bfedward13: Greetings. The issue is that stuff is copyrighted by default, and by default you cannot use it on Wikipedia. Unless it clearly states that it is free content (ex. by having a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license), you cannot use it. "All rights reserved" by default is not usable - it means full copyright. Unless you can comply with fair use criteria, that is.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bfedward13: Adding to what Jo-Jo Eumerus told you: The easy way to get a usable picture is to take it entirely by yourself, That way you are the copyright owner, and you can license it with an acceptable license. Judging by the file name, one of your deleted photos was of your school. That would be something you would take a picture of yourself (unless it featured someone else's creative work).

Most of the stuff you find on the web is unusable. Notable exceptions are works of Federal government employees as part of their official duties, and stuff first published before 1923; those things are not under copyright; so we can use them. —teb728 t c 08:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Teb728: So essentially, I cannot use the pictures (as the ones I am specifically talking about are taken in the mountains of Norway and it is therefore impractical for me to go there). Thanks so much for the help! I will be sure to take my own pictures (if possible) if I am unsure of what the copyright licensing is. Ben Fishman - Dunedin High School, Florida | talk | contribs 12:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: So maybe these pictures fall under the no free equivalent part of the fair use criteria. Is there a way to determine that, because as far as I've seen there aren't any free equivalents.Ben Fishman - Dunedin High School, Florida | talk | contribs 12:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The "no free equivalent" referred to in WP:NFCC#1 not only means that no free equivalent currently exists, but also that no free equivalent can essentially ever exist. So for a photo of mountains in Norway, even though you may not be able to go there and take the photo yourself, it's possible that someone else may be able to take said photo and decide to license it freely. They may not do it today, tomorrow or even next year, but the possibility that such a photo or equivalent photo which serves the same encyclopedic purpose may be taken is probably enough in most cases to not allow a non-free photo to be used. Have you tried WP:RP or c:COM:PR to see if there's a Wikipedian in that particular area who might be able to take the photo you want or have one they wouldn't mind freely licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

how can I get rid of the image tagging and Speedy Deletion of images commentary, so that I can post my article?

Dear Expert:

If I am conceding to Wikipedia's deletion of seven of my eight images although I may, at a future date, try to submit some of them again. How is the "tagging" removed?

In general, Wikipedia removed 7 of my 8 images, due to copyright issues. I am willing to post my article without the photographic images, at this time. How can I get rid of the image tagging and Speedy Deletion commentary?

Then, how do I finally post my article?

Thank you,

Cyd MathiasCmathias1 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Cyd Mathias. It was a mistake to draft an article on your user talk page, User talk:Cmathias1; that page is supposed to be for other people to leave you messages. See Wikipedia:Your first article for how to create an article. —teb728 t c 23:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Etta Federn Photo?

Hello there. I just had an article approved about a writer and anarchist named Etta Federn. I'd love to add a photo of her, but it's tricky to find something in the public domain. What about the photo (URL below) that ran back in 1934 in Barcelona, in a paper called Mirador?

http://www.estelnegre.org/documents/federn/federn.html

Many thanks for your help! Gecko990 (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gecko990. Since Etta Federn is deceased, we can use a photo that is not in the public domain, insofar as you have conducted reasonable effort to find a public domain image and your search has been inconclusive. See: WP:NFC#Images#10. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That's great news! Thank you so much for your expert advice. Much appreciated. Gecko990 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Gecko990 I've written a proper non-free use rationale for this use on the image talk page. It's still missing the source of the image. I assume you got this from somewhere on the internet. This is fine; just add the url to the source section of that rationale so that we can establish that it meets the previously publication criteria. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Finnusertop, I have added the URL of my source. Thank you again for all your help with this process. Please let me know if there's anything more I need to do to make this kosher. All best to you! Gecko990 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Facebook pictures

Can I use pictures from Facebook to post in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andkir1 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Andkir1. 99.99% of the time, the answer is no. Here are a few of the very rare exceptions: If someone shares an old photo on Facebook first published before 1923, it is OK to use, since copyright has expired. If someone shares a photo created by an agency of the US federal government, it is OK to use, since such photos are copyright free. If someone shares a photo they have taken themself, and they explicitly release the photo under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then that photo can be used. By the way, I release my own photos that I post on Facebook under a Creative Commons license, but very few people do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

CSU.PNG image file for

Hello,

This is the CSUMB Communications Office. I am updating our CSUMB Wiki page.

I have gotten an error message saying that an image file, named CSU.PNG, is violating the fair use policy. This message appears at the top of the CSUMB Wiki page.

I would like to delete this file. What is the easiest way of doing this? I'm not seeing it.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csumbnews (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Csumbnews. It appears that have successfully removed the image from California State University, Monterey Bay. The image will be automatically deleted as it is no longer used in any article.

Please note that if you are editing on behalf of your employer, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello. I'm wondering how I would go about adding an image for the Izzy Slapawitz article. I've seen a number of pro wrestling photos used under a non-free fair use license. The second criteria states "where the indvidual(s) concerned are deceased, or where access would for practical purposes be impossible". Does this apply to wrestlers who have been retired and no longer make public appearances? Thanks. 72.74.202.127 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not. The only exception to the rule is deceased persons, fugitives, prisoners, and recluses. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 04:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How to add image to my article about a personality?

Hi I have question on my image File:PaniBabu.jpg

I received a message of speedy deletion. What Should I do? Can I use Facebook image of the person I am writing about? Please help.

HaronaPani — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaronaPani (talk • contribs) 13:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, HaronaPani. Pani Babu has been dead since 1986, and if you have searched for photos with a free license but not found any, we can use a copyrighted photo (eg. a photo you found on Facebook). Note that this applies to deceased persons only, and even then, you need to explain on the image page where you got the image and why you think it constitutes fair-use. I've helped you to do this this time, but you need to tell me where exactly did you get the picture? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Licensing tags for File:Storybookweaver.png

The image File:Storybookweaver.png is currently tagged with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} even though it appears to be a screenshot from a non-free software title, Storybook Weaver Deluxe. From what one understands, given that the image is actually used in the article for Storybook Weaver, the image could likely be retained under the Wikipedia non-free content criteria if a non-free use rationale and a template such as {{Non-free game screenshot}} were put on the image's page and the resolution of the image was scaled down in line with the non-free content criteria. If these changes were to be made, though, there is the question as to whether the uploader would have any additional copyright in the screenshot contents and whether that would need to be indicated. (From what one can tell, the graphics shown in the screenshot are ones that came with the Storybook Weaver Deluxe game and were likely not drawn by the uploader. It is not clear as to whether the story text ("Benjamin and Guy were going to granny and grandpa's...") would have an additional copyright.) --Elegie (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Licensing updated, and rationale supplied. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

an article

who writes the articles? i am trying to write a refrence page and i used an article from your website (philipino debut) and it doesnt say who wrote it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.62.108 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written by countless ordinary people volunteering their time. You can see individual editors' contributions to an article by clicking on the "View history" tab on the top right corner of the article. For example, Philippine Debut, is written by the people shown here: Philippine Debut: Revision history. If you want to cite or reuse Wikipedia and want to properly attribute it to the writers, you don't need to name them individually. For instructions see: Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content, respectively. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wiki Expert

Hello Wiki Expert,

It has been a full week since I moved my draft to the correct "Your First Article - draft page. I am trying to upload some of the photos that had previously been deleted from the Talk Page that I was erroneously using, but his time I am using the Upload Wizard and I am claiming that the photos qualify as Fair Use.

However, I am having trouble uploading the jpegs. The Upload Wizard has you "choose the file" first off, and again in the end. After choosing the desired jpeg, and then filling in all of the blanks, I there is another button to push for uploading a photo (or start over). However, this final "upload" button is "frozen" so I have to start over. This has actually happened to me several times, absorbing much of my time and energy. Please advise me of another, more user-friendly way to upload my photographs into my article. Cmathias1 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Cyd

Hello, Cyd (Cmathias1). You should not upload fair-use photographs until the draft has been accepted and moved into articlespace, as fair-use files are not allowed outside of it (this includes drafts). If your draft is accepted and you are still having trouble uploading files, you can submit a request at Files for upload where someone will be happy to upload it for you. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Is File:VTech_logo.jpg below the US threshold of originality?

The image File:VTech_logo.jpg is currently treated as non-free content. On Commons, it appears that an instance of the VTech logo was deleted on the basis that the logo's country of origin is likely Hong Kong and Hong Kong copyright law is likely to have a very low threshold of originality, being based on UK copyright law. This raises the question as to whether the logo is below the US threshold of originality, it which case it could be treated as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} instead of non-free content. --Elegie (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Only slightly modified letters are not original enough for enwiki.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of images for video for non-profit

Hello,

I am working on a 15-minute video about an event that my non-profit organization created. The event was called The Ground Beneath Our Hearts and took place in ten communities around the world that are hurt by mineral extraction. In the video, most of the footage will be what people submitted about their event, but I would like to use maybe a dozen other images. I believe that ones from Wikimedia Commons are free. But what about those credited to Wikipedia.org, such as the one here? I have read your website pages trying to figure out the answer, but want to be sure. I see that the word "commons" is in the URL. Is that an indication that it's copyright free?

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.243.38 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You can check the file page by searching on "File:(imagename)" eg here File:Clifftops4-7-07.jpg. This shows that the image is from Commons and has a PD license, meaning it is free to use. Do note that some images may have CC-BY licenses, which means you should give proper attribution by linking back to the image page in the credits of the video or an associated document. You don't have to do this for the PD images but it's a courtesy to do so. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Not all images on Wikipedia are free. If you want to know if you can reuse them, you need to click on them to access their description page. Most of these images are actually on Commons and are free, such as your example image. Clicking on it takes you to a page (File:Clifftops4-7-07.jpg) that tells you its license. In this example, it says " More details". Clicking on that will take you to Commons where the file is actually hosted.

Commons images are free, but not all of them are free in the same way. Some of them require that you attribute them to their author. Others require that if you publish them elsewhere you need to use the same license.

To answer you question specifically, yes the "commons" in the URL is an indication that is free, but be sure to check the description page for the degree that it is free. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Couldn't access your example, but all you need to do is properly attribute the images at the end of the video. If the video is 15 minutes long that could be a lot of attributions, but they can be very quick. Check out the end of this video Wikipedia’s year-in-review video to see how it's done. All you need is the file name, contributor, and CC license. Hope this helps.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question for image of living person

I am trying to upload an image for Dr. Giulio Maria Pasinetti's wikipedia page. He gave me permission to upload a photograph that he owns and is also the same photograph that he uses for multiple other profiles.

I have a signed letter from him stating that I am allowed to use this image for Wikipedia. He also contacted Wikipedia on December 9th stating that he gives permission for this image to be on Wikipedia.

What copyright tag do I use for this image?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibbyWard (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Short answer: You don't. We do not generally accept media files under a 'permission to use on Wikipedia' type license. In fact, this is a speedy deletion criteria (see WP:F3). Instead, you have to seek release of the media under a free license compatible with our aims. There is instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission on how to do so. Sorry it's so complex, but the reality is we do not accept copyrighted, non-free images of living people for depiction purposes, even under a permission to use on Wikipedia qualifier. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• The person who owns the picture (Giulio Pasinetti) followed those steps to request release of the media but no one has gotten back to him yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibbyWard (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• How? Was free license consent sent? And if so, to where? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd also add that it's not sufficient that Dr. Pasinetti owns the particular photograph. In order to give permission to use, he must own the copyright to the photo. TJRC (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• It appears from the metadata that he in fact does NOT own copyright to the image. I'm sure this kind of stuff is absolutely maddening to users who are just trying to donate materials, but it is what it is. Permission to use materials, even if we have permission of the author themselves, is not enough. Here, we don't have permission to use from the author...even if that was enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

British Crown Copyright - Open Government Licence Version 3

Is this licence sufficiently compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0 so that Crown Copyright material covered by it can be used on WP without paraphrasing? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

For images and other media it is probably OK. But for text included in an article, you probably won't be complying whit their conditions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Tetra Tech HQ

Should it be deleted? It's inside Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC) (Note: Post edited per WP:TPG#Removing prohibited material so that the image is linked to and not displayed. Non-free images may only be used (i.e., "displayed") in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC))

If the image is truly non-free, then it would not, in my opinion, satisfy WP:NFCC#1 since it is possible for a free equivalent to be created to by someone which would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. It should be tagged with {{di-replaceable fair use}}. The image will be evaluated and it will be deleted if an administrator determines it to be not irreplaceable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Aye, this one is replaceable, so it doesn't meet NFCC#1. I've tagged it for deletion. Conversely, that logo doesn't look original enough, but it may be, so I've sent it to FFD.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-free TimedText file

Can a non-free TimedText file be used under the rationale of the related .ogg file? The file I am asking about is TimedText:Meghan Trainor - Lips Are Movin.ogg.en.srt. If not what is the deletion method? I tried G12 like an ordinary text file, but now I'm not sure. —teb728 t c 11:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not even sure if it's possible to put a rationale on a TimedText page. I'd add it to the FUR for the corresponding media file.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Now, if the text of the TimedText file is non free - mmm, not sure how one would handle that. I don't think that TimedText is a frequently used thing, I can't help you there. Perhaps start a discussion at WT:NFC.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ive started a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/TimedText:All About That Bass by Meghan Trainor (sample).ogg.en.srt‎ that might help establish a consensus on it. only (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That file got speedily deleted before the discussion could get anywhere. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 65#Non-free TimedText. —teb728 t c 19:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That was a mistaken closure; it's been undeleted now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

Hey I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm really sorry about the image policy issue. I didn't know about that and I hope you can remove the ban from my account. Please let me upload images I promise not to break the rule again. Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTPOP17 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you have been blocked for a week on the commons not here so you need to appeal the block there or wait until block to expires, but be very careful of image copyright after that. ww2censor (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

What copyright violations were these uploads and how would I be able to add them under the right terms of use?

I added images, which is available for sharing from these sites: [1][2]. Apparently I am in violation of copyright, despite it being a free non-for-profit image and used in one section of one single article.

I also added an image from this United Nations website: [3], which I believe is a public domain and the image was already published there from where I got it. The same is the case with an image I got from this site, which I believe is public domain; being a government website: [4]

The administrator who deleted them claimed they were marked as copyright, but did not point out where. He has also nominated my addition to the logo of Balochistan police on the article Balochistan police which is the logo of a public organization. I am confused, since I got the image from the organization's facebook page. I am unable to understand how a public organization's logo published on a public page can be copyrighted?

I appreciate some assistance here.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Already answered and explained at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. You may not like the answer you got from me, but you won't get a more satisfactory one here either. If you still don't understand, the best thing you can do is to simply keep your hands off images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• You have offered a somewhat satisfactory explanation for the sci-fi image, but no explanation for the other images.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am afraid this admin has failed to answer the question claiming he doesn't have time, so I would appreciate some help here please. Please examine the images and the articles to links I posted. (i.e Balochistan police).--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  Images are by default copyrighted by their creators and are thus unsuitable for use here, unless they explicitly say they aren't or make them accessible under a free license. Not all governments make material on their websites public domain - even the US government occasionally hosts images that are under someone else's copyright, even if it itself can't claim copyright on its own works. UN material is not by default PD either. We do have a fairly restricted WP:NFC policy for hosting copyrighted works, though (sorry if this all sounds a bit fast - if anything is unclear I can explain further).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Further: If you look at the bottom of the pages at your first, second, and fourth links, you will find copyright notice saying respectively: “Copyright © 2011 Wall321.com. All Rights Reserved”; “© 2015 VistaLore. All Rights Reserved”; and “Pakistan Army Web Portal Copyright © 2009-2015”. At the bottom of the page at your third link is a link to a “Copyright page, which says, “Copyright © United Nations 2015 All rights reserved.”

These are easy cases because they are explicitly posted as copyright protected. But in general it is for you to prove that content is free licensed not for an administrator to prove that is not. —teb728 t c 10:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and since you mention logos, logos are almost always copyright protected. —teb728 t c 10:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

teb728, Jo-Jo Eumerus thank you very much for pointing this out. Appreciated. Just two questions: Since the photos in the Pakistan Army website were dated 2009-2015, does that mean I can use them after 2015, if no dates are extended? And I am still confused about the Balochistan police image. Isn't that a public logo? It's a public organization and I got it from their facebook page, which is public domain. Thanks for explaining the rest. All that admin needed to do was point these things out, so I would be familiar, or he could have provided the appropriate link on these policies. Thank you.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• In order: The 2009-2015 number to my understanding says when the copyrights start (I suppose there are several images with different creation dates and thus copyright times), not when they end. Being a public logo does not make something not copyrighted; access and copyright are not the same thing. Now, while a number of logos are not eligible for copyright protection this one is IMO.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Nadirali: I agree with what Jo-Jo Eumerus said and would add: I understand the copyright in Pakistan extends for 50 years after creation. And Facebook pages are definitely not in the public domain.

Also logos can be used on Wikipedia sometimes but not as free content—particularly as the logo in the infobox to identify the subject of an article. Rather they are use under the restrictive non-free content policy. Upload the official logo (hopefully from a more official source than Facebook); tag it with {{non-free logo}}; and provide a non-free use rationale using {{non-free use rationale logo}} (click on that link to get the parameters of the rationale). —teb728 t c 00:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to add some clarity for you though some has already been mentioned. While a facebook page and other webpages may be viewable by the public it does not mean that they or any of their images are in the public domain. That is determined by the copyright status of the image which varies by country and sometimes the type of image; for instance Pakistan's copyright lasts for 50 years from creation date, so possibly the image you refer to will be in the public domain in 2059. Some countries count for the first publication date and most countries use a 70 year term after the death of the author. In general if you find an image on a webpage it is most likely copyright unless it is specifically noted to be in the public domain or the copyright has expired. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page where you will see most of the problems you may encounter and also refer to this commons page c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory. Ask again if you are unsure and we will be happy to review any potential images if you provide the webpages they are on. ww2censor (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I appreciate this. I believed based on my understanding of copyright policy that facebook pages of public organizations would be considered public.

I also received this email from the United Nations web team which was a link to a guide:[5]. According to that guide: "Written permission is, however, not required for reproduction of photo material as allowed by statutory exemptions (e.g. UN-affiliated non-governmental organizations and United Nations Associations, UN system organizations, including Specialized Agencies) or Fair Use. (Fair Use applies solely to scholarly, academic, non-profit, or journalistic use of properly credited UN photos.)"

Does this mean I can use an image I was wanting to from their website for Wikipedia, which is a non-profit purpose? I can give credit to the author in the caption. Regards--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content; so it doesn’t accept permission for use only on Wikipedia or only non-profit use. Wikipedia articles are mirrored by for-profit sites. Permission must allow reuse by anyone (including for-profit) for anything (including derivative works). —teb728 t c 01:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

images limited to use in Wikipedia only

How can I upload an image, which the author's permission is for use in Wikipedia only? Is any image uploaded to Wiki free for any uses by default? If so, it would mean I can't upload said image, am I correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcpedia (talk • contribs) 19:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

"For use on Wikipedia only" is not generally OK; we wish our content to be broadly reusable by third parties. The only situation it'd be acceptable is if it did comply with the WP:Non-free content criteria in some way; how did you want to use the file?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried the upload and found out that this restriction is not allowed and it has to be free uses. The upload will be promptly deleted by Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcpedia (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-Belize

I just put together this template using the information on the PD-Belize template on Commons. Just wondering if there is anything additional that needs to be added to the template that anyone can think off? Salavat (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems OK, although my recommendation is that PD files eligible on Commons be moved there. I guess this template may still be useful for {{Keep local}} cases and other situations where a local copy is needed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Salavat (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Illustration of MAC on Cell Membrane.png

I'm so sorry, but I uploaded the file/image believing it was mine (because I drew it myself) and I that I could give license to use the image. However, my employer says that since I made it during working hours, it's owned by the company (even though I'm not an artist and creating such images isn't technically part of my job).

I'm currently attempting to persuade my employer to give permission for me to release the image to wikipedia. In the meantime, I don't know what to put under the license terms section on the image file page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLiva2016 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@SLiva2016: Um. The current ("removed by creator") version is PD-ineligible. The prior one - if you drew it yourself without deriving it from another image you would own the copyright to it. Unless your employment contract transfers the copyrights from you to the company. At least, that is what I think goes on here - someone more familiar might want to comment.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@SLiva2016: Yes if made while you were working the employer would likely own the copyright. However on behalf of your employer you may also be able to grant the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Which was done. I am not sure on the rules for this, but if the license is granted legally, then it cannot be retracted. But if your employer is unhappy about it, it is probably better to draw a new image on your own time and upload it from home. And we would allow the existing image to be deleted under a G7 rationale. Please clearly let us know if you want this image to be deleted, if you cannot get agreement from your employer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: and :@Graeme Bartlett:- Thank you for your quick responses. Yes, please delete the prior MAC image I uploaded. I drew a new one just tonight (by myself, at home, on my own computer, on my own time). No one helped me or even made any suggestions.  :-) I'll post this new one (which I own for certain myself) shortly. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLiva2016 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Submitted the current image for speedy deletion as G7.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Fort_Dodge_Senior_High_School.jpg

I can't prove that this is a copyright violation, but it seems pretty suspicious to me. This page includes the same picture, crediting it to "Haase Photography". The uploader's talk page is nothing but copyright violations, so that leads credence to the idea that this is probably also a copyright violation. I don't know how to report/delete images, so can someone help me out? Thanks.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this image is hosted on the commons, not here and the same user's talk page there has image problems. They are mainly lacking permission, which is exactly the case with this image and appear to also be of the same school. The copyright likely belongs to the photographer and not to the school unless they also bought the copyright in the contract. A freely licenced image can easily be taken so the precautionary principal should apply. I will tag it for deletion there. ww2censor (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing text for attribution

On some pages there are buttons for file usage on the right side of the image, for example on this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kalmia_latifolia.jpg When I click on "use this file", there is a text for atribution I can copy.

But on some pages those buttons are missing, for example on this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caesalpinia-gilliesii.jpg

Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.192.10 (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The buttons are missing probably because the informations on the description page are not formatted into an "information" template and so they are not as easily read automatically by the software. Re-users can credit the author by his name, as written on the page, and use the specified license, CC BY-SA 2.1 ES. The user has contributed to Commons recently so, although it's not necessary, one can contact him on his talk page there and ask if he wants to suggest some special form of attribution. If you want, you can format the description page with the information template and then the buttons will probably become available. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Flag copyright tag

Hey, I have a flag of a small town in Saskatchewan, I uploaded it to wikipedia this morning, but I didn't ad a copyright tag. I don't know which copyright tag to use. Anything helps, thanks! Here is the file: File:Flag of pilot butte.jpg

Tyanc13and7 ^talk 18:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You also have not provided information on the author/copyright holder of the image, nor did you provide a full nonfree use rationale, which must describe in detail how the image's use would pass each of these requirements. Just handwaving at being "fair use" is not nearly sufficient. Nonfree images are presumed to be unacceptable on a free content project; you must show that an exception is warranted in this case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering how other flags get onto Wikipedia, maybe I can go through the process that the other flags do to be able to keep the Pilot Butte flag on the site. Thanks again, Tyanc13and7 ^talk 22:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)