Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/February

Photo question

I have received a message about a photo on a page which I am building in my sandbox. I put in an explanation of why I felt it was ok to use the photo but have been told I need to put in a tag.

I was given a scan of the photo by the widower of the woman to whom Käthe Schuftan gave her photo. He knew I might be using it for publication, for example in the Halliday Review magazine which I edit (http://www.eugenehalliday.net/?page_id=123). I could ask him for further permission to put it on Wikipedia, if necessary. All parties, including Ms Schuftan, are or were friends of my family.

I am not sure which tag to use, please can you help me? Many thanks Hephzi (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The message I received was - License tagging for File:Käthe Schuftan.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Käthe Schuftan.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hephzibah Yohannan (talk • contribs) 11:24, 31 January 2015

Simply you did not add a copyright tag to the image and we need to know under what licence the image is bring released. From the file page I see that you were given the image but that does not verify it is freely licenced, so you need to get the current copyright holder, who may be an heir, to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT and the OTRS team will handle it. Make sure they give the name of the image, as you gave above, because it might have been deleted by the time an OTRS ticket is provided and they would then restore it. You also need to add a fully completed {{information}} template to the image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you know if the person who gave me the passport photo would be the copyright holder? He is alive. Both the subject of the photo and the person to whom she gave it, have died many years ago. On the other hand, I have managed to make contact with a distant relative of the subject of the photo. It appears to be a passport photo, so there isn't a way to contact the person who took it, in 1945. Hephzi (talk)

That could be a problem because at that time passport photos were usually taken by photo studios and they, or their heirs, would be the copyright holder though this does not really look like a passport photo. You will likely never find out who that was. Because Käthe Schuftan has been dead for almost 60 years we can occasionally use such images under the non-free policy. As a non-free media image you need to add a fully completed {{Non-free use rationale}} as well as the tag {{Non-free fair use in|Article}}. Click on the template links to see how to use them. ww2censor (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Topicon attribution

Template:Administrator topicon uses an image (File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg) that is released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, which means that it may be used only if the author is properly attributed. The author is Commons:User:ANGELUS. Yet, the image is not linked to its info page, which means that the author is not attributed in any way. So, using this template represents a copyright violation. How should we solve this problem? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about that, I would say that there is no creative difference between that and File:Admin mop.PNG which had all rights assigned to the Wikimedia foundation. So there is no need to attribute. Perhaps an alt text that links to the description page is in order. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that we should either add alt text or use different image that does not need attribution. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Tingqua - The studio of Tingqua - Google Art Project.jpg

I am not sure why this says "Do not move to Commons". I believe this is {{PD-old}}, because the artist died in 1870. Or is there an issue with {{PD-Art}}? (For the record, it was already copied at File:Shop of Tingqua, the painter.jpg.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not a copy. Note the language difference of the words on the ceiling. Jee 02:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So Derivative work? --geagea^Talk 03:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO a set, the artist created a picture of his shop and a very similar picture of his studio, and I'd like to have the complete set on commons, if possible (cf. now commons vs. never commons.) –Be..anyone (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've transfered this image to Commons. If there is a problem, please let me know. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Application icon on the Wikipedia

ConEmu application gets new icon recently. I've uploaded new logo, but it was marked to deletion due to "evidence of permission". The application was released under BSD license and I've updated Licensing section of File:ConEmu icon.png. Am I need to do something else? And is it possible to delete erroneous versions of this file? Second and third versions were uploaded by mistake. Maximus7792 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the old revisions. The link you provided supports BSD New license. I am not sure that is suitable or not. But fair use is OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the BSD licenses are considered free (and are accepted on Wikimedia Commons). But I can't seem to find this icon at the source. Maximus7792, at what path/location is this icon? Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Anon126, that is the project logo (upper-left corner of the project page). The icon itself is located here.Maximus7792 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Google map Image

Google map Image: What would be the copyright tag for it? Ejaz92 (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: Google maps are non-free content, and as such may not be used in Wikipedia. See their license here: www.google.com/intl/en_rs/help/terms_maps.html. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And unless its something unique about how Google presents it, these would also fail WP:NFCC#1 as we recommended the CC-compatible OpenStreetMaps for mapping purposes. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ejaz92:In other words, you should use OpenStreetMap instead of Google Maps, because their free license is compatible with Wikipedia. Their license is here: www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. When uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, it may be tagged with Commons:Template:ODbL OpenStreetMap. (All free files should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not to Wikipedia. Those files may then be used in Wikipedia articles without restrictions.) Vanjagenije (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance Ejaz92 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone gave me a photo to use: what's all this about copyright?

A friend gave me a photo she took of someone I am writing about, and they both agree for that photo to be used in Wikipedia: as simple as that! What can I do to get round all this obscure copyrighting stuff I am being asked about? Thanks! Esaridak (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, free images should not be uploaded to Wikipedia, but to Wikimedia Commons. Commons is Wikipedia's sister project dedicated to hosting images and other files. Those images may be then used in Wikipedia. Wikimedia Commons is here: commons.wikimedia.org. You should ask your friend to send an e-mail to the OTRS team (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). In that e-mail she should write that she agrees to release the photo under a free license. There is a pre-composed form that may be copied from here: WP:CONSENT. So, your friend just needs to copy the text of the message from WP:CONSENT, fill the form, attach the photo, and send it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. It's not too complicated. After that, you don't need to wait for the answer, you may immediately upload the photo to Commons and tag it with {{OTRS pending}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It might not be quite clear but the image must be freely licenced by your friend, which means it can be used by anyone for anything, even commercial or derivative use, not just use in Wikipedia. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And it might be simpler for your friend to upload the image herself. Then she can grant permission and license at that time, and not worry about OTRS. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Permission for an existing photograph of Murdoch Mitchison

I would like to add a picture of the late John Murdoch Mitchison to his wiki page. Specifically, this is the image am hoping to add.

https://collections.royalsociety.org/DServe.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqDb=Catalog&dsqSearch=RefNo=='IM%2FGA%2FJGRS%2F8108'&dsqCmd=Show.tcl

I contacted the Royal Society and was told that the copyright is held by the estate of Godfrey Argent Studio, but that they could seek permission to use it if I could tell them "the rights clearance I require". Can someone tell me what I need to do in order to be able to add this image of Murdoch to his page? Do I need some statement from the estate or is there a label such as non-free content that applies in this case? Thank you.

Hoffmacs (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hoffmacs:You need the copyright holder to give a permission to release the image under a free license. You can find an example of such a permission here: WP:CONSENT. I am not sure if that photo might be used as non-free content. WP:NFCCP#1 tells that a non-free file may be used only if there is "no free equivalent available". Since this person died just a few years ago, a free equivalent may be easily available. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright verification

New to Wikipedia editing: For the Wikipedia article 'Joseph Fleck', I have scanned images from 'The Life and Art of Joseph Fleck' by Joseph A. Fleck Jr., ISBN 0-9760045-8-5. Upon my fathers passing, I inherited the copyright. How do I covey this? Thanks!Jafleckiii (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You will still have to grant a free license. When you upload to commons you can add one of these templates: {{PD-heirs}} or {{Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}

Copyright status of republications of material in the public domain

I'd like to upload a copy of a cartoon which was first published in a US newspaper before 1923 (and so is in the public domain). Do I have to make my copy from the original publication or may I take a scan from a later book (not in the public domain) which reproduced the cartoon? Meters (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are sure that the cartoon was published before 1923, and that the reproduction is true and accurate, then you can scan the reproduction. Be sure that later captions, borders or other additions are cropped out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you. Meters (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Image from an ordinary web

1).What should I with a photo got from a web does not direct about its licensing.....?

Like: http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZ5BhQVx7uqQ3IKXou-uGqCCjTvU3Iq19qIXqLFymDmk3tRIabuSqJNr9T

2).And what should be the tag for images taken from

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img537/903/8SfjsC.jpg

Ejaz92 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is no specific free licence we cannot use these images. For what it matters, the latter one seems to be a screenshot from a non-free video [1]. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Oak Hill Industrial Academy / Elliott Academy

I am writing an article about the Choctaw Freedmen's school at Oak Hill/Elliott Academy. There are some great pictures in a book carried on Open Library. I searched Commons and find none of these images. How does one determine if they are covered by copyright? https://archive.org/stream/choctawfreedme00flic#page/n13/mode/2up SusunW (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

By the year of publication of the images. See C:Template:PD-1923. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that page may as well have been written in a language I do not speak. I am not a programmer and those codes mean nothing to me. The page has no instructions for uploading an image or answering the question about copyright. I am just a lowly writer, not a lawyer, not a computer expert. Photograph copyright regulation is way outside the scope of writing an article about a school. Maybe I misunderstood the reason for this page, as I am a fairly new editor. I thought you all were here to determine if an image is usable or not. I am aware that the original images were published prior to 1923, but I still don't know whether or not the copyright was renewed and thus effects their use now. If this page does not perform that function, can you explain what the function of the page is? Thanks :) SusunW (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, SusunW, sorry for the rather cryptic response. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that, under U.S. copyright law, anything published before 1923 is in the public domain, regardless of renewal status. The page that Asclepias linked is a bit of code that provides a standardized message to indicate that.

To upload the the image to Commons, go to the Upload Wizard and follow the instructions. When you are asked to indicate copyright information, choose This file is not my own work. After that, choose The copyright has definitely expired in the USA and then First published in the United States before 1923.

Please reply if you have any more questions. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I really didn't expect that something would seem unclear in the statement "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923." It did seem direct and clear, and better than referring to some lengthy and complex explanation. At the same time, the link provided links directly to the exact copyright tag you will need for this situation if you decide to upload those images to Commons, so you won't be puzzled about which tag to use or have to look through C:Commons:Copyright tags. I'm guessing it's probably the expression "public domain" that puzzled you. Because that expression is commonly used, we sometimes forget that some users may not have heard it. Sorry about that, then. Basically, "public domain" means no copyright. When it is said that a work is "in the public domain", it means that the work is not covered by copyright. For more details about that notion, you can click the blue link "public domain". About the other question in your second comment: it would not matter if the copyright was renewed. Works published before 1923 are in the public domain (not covered by copyright) in the United States. For a general overview of the copyright rules, you can see C:Commons:Copyright rules by territory. If you need help with the process of uploading files, you can see the tutorial C:Commons:First steps and ask questions on the C:Commons:Help desk. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. It isn't the public domain part that puzzles me, it is that every link on Wiki warns over and over again that most materials aren't useable and that copyrights can be extended. I have no idea how I would know whether or not an extension had been obtained. However, in reading both replies, it would seem that the photos can be uploaded to Commons. I suppose that if at some point it is determined that someone has indeed extended the copyrights the images will just be withdrawn by someone. Appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

To be clear and succinct, SusunW, it is not legally possible to extend the copyright on something published in the U.S. before 1923. Such works are always in the public domain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You have totally made my day. :) I have another Native American Boarding School that has photos that were published in 1917 but the source from whence I obtained the link claimed they had a copyright on them. Very happy with your answer. SusunW (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Facebook user page (2014).jpg Fair use

Couple of questions about the fair use statues of this image (cross posted from the image's talk page)

I notice the FU rationale and copyright tag discuss the screenshot. Do we know what the copyright statuses of the images within the screenshot (e.g. profile photo, cover photo) are? Also the profile photo probably constitutes an FU image of a living person? GoddersUK (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The images within the screenshot really look de minimis at the non-free low resolution but the screenshots (there is a second one in the article) do have critical commentary about their design, so don't seem questionable under our non-free content policy. We could of course blur any areas where individual privacy might possibly be an issue without destroying the basic image. ww2censor (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Are solutions to exercises of a mathematics book a derived work?

Hello. May I publish the solutions of a significant part of the exercises of a mathematics book as a stand-alone work (not a derivate) and hence chose to publish it under a free license?. As far as I know, mathematic theorems have never been under the restriction of Copyright (but the wording of a specific formulation may be), but I'm not sure if there would be problems because the compilation of solutions would be specifically related to the book from which the exercises came. Thanks. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

If you restated the problem, then it would be a derivative work. But otherwise it would be a new work with its own copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Old photo

I have a photo taken of a person who lived 1832-1904 which is estimated to have been taken in the 1870s. I was hoping to attach it to the page on this person.

I do not know who took the photo so it seems I cannot get it uploaded to Wikimedia even though, from my other reading, it seems to be well outside copyright given it was taken ~140 years ago.

Is there any way around this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westedit (talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If according to your edit history, you are talking about an image for the John McIntyre (politician) article, then I presume the image is Australian. According to this commons entry Australian images published or created prior to 1955 are in the public domain. Do you know if it was published or not? You should upload it on the commons and use the tag {{PD-Australia}} but you must also add a US copyright tag {{PD-US-unpublished}} if it was not published and {{PD-1923}} if it was published. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The entry form for files needs fixing to allow selecting a license.

The submission form license field proposes zero license options, thus should be corrected.
The files I summitted indicate the status in the description, thus the license info is present. If someone wants to fix the format, fine.
Since they are in en.wikipedia.org temporarily until decided by group for wikimedia commons, it is really not worth my spending over an hour on it. (there are some 30 files.) André437 (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Question from an AfC issue

Hi. I try to help out on the AfC page, and as part of the review process I use earwig to check for copyvio issues. A question came up regarding the use of a press release, which is supposedly not copyrighted material. You can see the question HERE. I've looked for an answer, but can't find one specific to this particular issue. Any suggestions? Onel5969 (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

To editor Onel5969: Public availability is not the same as public domain. Although the writers of a press release may allow others to copy it, this permission likely does not extend to modifying it or using it outside a journalistic context. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Book cover

File:The_history_of_white_people_bookcover.jpg looks too simple for copyright to me - just wanted to check with others. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Being a US published book it easily passes {{PD-simple}}. ww2censor (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

FUR for two images

Hi folks. I'm currently reviewing Tomorrow's Modern Boxes for GA, and there are two images in the article (File:Thom Yorke - Tomorrow's Modern Boxes album artwork.jpg and File:Thom Yorke - Brain in a Bottle music video.png) which state that they need a FUR. Are these images OK for use in a GA article, or can somebody review the FUR please? I'm no expert on this kind of thing. Thanks in advance :) — sparklism ^hey! 19:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

the album cover is normally okay (per WP:NFCI#1) but I would recommend using {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} for the rationale (not the license) since that gives more rationale to keep. The music video one you probably need to give more reason in the rational as to why the image is necessary to use - is the shot from the video critically discussed, or something visually unique about it, etc? That might be something you'll be challenged at GA to provide more for. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Masem - very helpful! — sparklism ^hey! 21:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Montrose covers

Hi, could you transfer these 2 covers on Commons (File:Montrose-PaperMoney.jpg and File:Montrose-mean.jpg)? These files seems to consist of simple text and don't meet the threshold of originality.Tenebroso (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Image of text from t-shirt

At my request, for intended use on my user page, Kobnach uploaded File:Defective Person ;-).jpg, which is Kobnach's own work depicting this t-shirt, which is in turn of course derived from free Wikipedia content. In my judgement the graphics are not original enough to be copyrighted; is the wording sufficiently creative to make the image impermissible? If so, I'll delete the file. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The text and appearance this is derived from probably has a CC-BY-SA license anyway. And anyway there is no significant creative contribution to the changes, so it could stay. See if you can find a box with the same warnings, and say the shirt is a derivative of that! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That was my thinking, thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Need Help with picture rights

Hi I represent this company and I uploaded this picture File:Open Loop New York hop on hop off tour bus 2014.jpg

i'd like to change the licensing to copyrighted, for non commercial use. Help! I need to submit proof by Feb 15th.

Thank you Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggeenyc (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Douggeenyc. We cannot accept permission for noncommercial use only. While this site is not-for-profit, part of our mission is about freedom, including commercial freedom. We accept copyrighted material in limited cases, but they do not apply here.

Please do consider allowing commercial use, if you would. You (or your company) will still receive credit for the photo.

Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anon124: Thank you Anon124, ok how can I make it for commercial use? Thanks for your help!

Hi again, Douggeenyc. To do that, go to this page and find the form letter to send by e-mail. (Please do not follow the large link at the top or the link to Wikimedia Commons.)

The e-mail should be sent from an address that ends in openloop-ny.com, or one that is listed as an official contact address on the website or social media.

(Please sign your messages with the four tildes ~~~~ at the end. This is also required for notifying me.)

Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anon124: Done, I emailed it , thanks for your help Douggeenyc (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Anon124: Hi again, the photo was taken down, automatically perhaps even though I emailed the form before the deadline. How can I get it back up? Perhaps the admins have yet to read the email? Douggeenyc (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Douggeenyc. The process is not automatic, but the time limits are observed. Yes, most likely the e-mail has not been read; there is a backlog. The photo can be restored when the e-mail is received in its turn. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Logo copyright

Is a logo copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noraresearchsupport (talk • contribs) 11:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To editor Noraresearchsupport: Many logos are copyrighted, but those that consist only of text and simple shapes may not be. More information about this issue is at Threshold of originality (on Wikimedia Commons). Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that you are refrerring to File:Science and Technology Policy Research (logo).jpg, you need to realise that the UK has a very low threshold of originality, so the ligature style U & S combo may well be considered copyright. If it was a US logo it would for sure be {{PD-textlogo}}. The fair-use rationale looks fine as it is but needs to be reduced in size so I'll tag it for reduction. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Image upload

Is this Wikipedia Commons image appropriate for upload? How to I cite it? I used the correct format for entering a thumbnail.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cumae_acropolis_seen_from_lower_city_AvL.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchavers21 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to the image you added to Battle of Cumae, it's fine but you should not force the image size per WP:IMGSIZE and "right" is the default so is unnecessary extra code. ww2censor (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Screenshot of a table from a journal article

Hi. I have a question. I would like to use a screenshot of a table in this academic journal article on this article talk page to help editors understand what the source is saying. Is that possible? I don't want to use the screenshot in an article, if that makes any difference. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I'd say that tables can always be reproduced without having to take a screenshot. I.e. you can add a coded table to any Wikipedia page. As to the copyright situation, to my knowledge simple tables aren't original enough to be copyrighted even if the source paper as such is protected. But to be on the safe side you should just use a small excerpt on properly quote the source. De728631 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

For reasons that are quite specific to the debate going on on the talk page, I would prefer to use a screenshot rather than reproducing it by making a table here in Wikipedia, so that it appears exactly as in the source. What licence would I need to give the file if that is allowed? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You should use both {{PD-ineligible}} and {{PD-USonly}} and upload the file here at Wikipedia. According to the University of Michigan tables and charts of data are in fact not copyrightable in the US [2] but the publisher Taylor & Francis is based in the United Kingdom where copyright law is a bit stricter. That's why we should keep the file locally at the US-based Wikipedia server and not at Commons. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, De728631. That's brilliant. I've uploaded it using those licences. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The chart and paper are copyrighted. Taylor and Francis indicates as much on its website ("We are the owner or the licensee of all copyright, trademarks, design rights, database rights, confidential information, or any other intellectual property rights (together the "Intellectual Property") in the Site, the content and the Materials. The Materials are protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved." [3]). Middayexpress (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As De728631 notes, "charts of data are in fact not copyrightable in the US". Further advice would be appreciated on this though. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That makes no difference. Charts like this are deleted all the time for violating copyright. The deletion template explains that "this file may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as this file is copied from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13613324.2014.946493#.VNjZqWNVK1E, which does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia". Tandonline is the actual copyright holder, and it clearly indicates that the "materials are protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties around the world", and that "all such rights are reserved" [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

{{PD-USonly}} is there for a reason and has so far been used extensively for content that is copyrighted elsewhere (especially in the UK) but would not be copyrightable in the United States. Please see also the disclaimer that states specifically that the work is copyrighted in the source country. So again, in such cases we'll have to distinguish between US copyright law and the local situation in the country of origin. Likewise, the UK does not allow for full fair use but we do that all the time at Wikipedia with the servers being based in Florida. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, the image has just been deleted by RHaworth. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's why I just asked him to weigh in. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Great - many thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Easiest thing is to upload it to your own website and link to it from the talk page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a possibility, but it would be better for it to appear on the talk page without editors having to leave Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why you deleted the file. Unless it contained copyrightable text the situation should have been quite obvious given the licence templates. De728631 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Can I formally request that the deletion decision be reviewed? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You can do so at: Wikipedia:Deletion review but read the "Purpose" section and as it advises, you should firstly discuss it with the deleting admin. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. RHaworth, can I request that you reconsider your decision to delete the image, in light of De728631's comments about the use of {{PD-USonly}}? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I can summon up no interest in this topic at all. If you can find another admin willing to restore, I shall take no action. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. De728631, are you willing and able to do this? Cordless Larry (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Restored - but I change the license to {{PD-text}}. Taylor and Francis cannot own any claim on the numbers as they are clearly marked as from the UK Gov - Department for Education. I agree there is probably just about enough "sweat of the brow" to maybe make it copyright over here, therefore the {{PD-USonly}} is good. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Ron. Much appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks a lot, Ron. De728631 (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Giving copyright

How Do You Give Copyright to images? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalworker14 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Metalworker14. I'm guessing you're referring to tagging images with their copyright status. A list of tags is here. In your case, you should check out the "copyrighted non-free/fair use" tags. Go to the page, and add the code that applies by editing the image page.

If you want to make the process easier in the future, you can use the File Upload Wizard.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

copyright of image Queen'sBeasts1953 copy1.jpg

The original photograph of the above image was made in 1953 by Studio Swain, Glasgow, a company that went out of business and can no longer be contacted. The family of Alison Geissler, the artist who made the engraving, and who placed the order for the photograph, possesses several prints of it, but not the original negative. In their opinion this image is an important example of Alison Geissler's work. Under these conditions, is there an acceptable way of including it in the entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Geissler ? Thanks for your help and advice.Kreutzbruder (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In this case we would need the heir that owns copyright on the engraving and photo to send written permission of a release under a free license using the procedure in WP:PERMIT. You said cc-by-3.0 was the license so the heir should include that in their email. We can assume that they own copyright on the photo as well as a work for hire. Is it still possible to take photos of the work? If not and a free license is not forthcoming, then it may be able to be used under fair use. The text will have to have commentary on the work, and fair use rationale prepared for the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme Bartlett! Your explanation was very helpful. The first solution looks by far the best.Kreutzbruder (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Willard Libby

I don't understand whether the tags on File:Willard Libby.jpg would allow me to use it in radiocarbon dating, which I'm planning to take to FAC. It looks like it's under copyright, so I assume I have to put in a FUR, like any other copyrighted file. I asked another editor who knows more than I do about images and they said they thought the image meets {{PD-URAA}}, but suggested I ask here and at commons. Any advice? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been answered on commons; it appears too little is known about the original publication to allow this to be treated as PD. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Salvador Alvarado

I am working on an English presentation on Salvador Alvarado. Only one of the images on his Spanish page is in commons, but is there something that must be done so that the other images are available for the English language Wikipedia? Or do I just upload the photo again as I would for fair use, since he is dead? I hardly understand the rules for US copyright, much less the ones for Mexico. Thank you for your help. The images are here [5] SusunW (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

To editor SusunW: The Spanish Wikipedia has disabled local uploads, so all images that appear there are on Commons. So, they can be used here on the English Wikipedia without any extra work. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you! SusunW (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Person who took the photos wants me to upload them

I have two photos sent to me by a popular music group on Wikipedia, taken by a photographer they hired. I thought I had proper permissions, and uploaded them, but they were taken down. Since then, the photographer himself has emailed me asking why the photos are not on Wikipedia. What do I need to do to "officially" have permission to upload the photos. The artist and the photographer all want the photos here, but for some reason, they were removed. Chas (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is easy when you know how. Upload images to our sister project Wikimedia Commons, then they will be available to all our projects. See : [6] in order that we know we have the photographers permission and there will then be no more issues. Just takes an e-mail from photographer to us. See:Email templates Any more questions, then come back here.--Aspro (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan the Man might be able to help also, as he has done a OTRS successfully. It appears in the info box for his image under Permission File:Danprestup.jpg. --Aspro (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Logo copyright

Hi! I recently uploaded File:Bohol Wisdom School logo.png but I was not able to include a fair use rationale or a copyright tag, and it was already deleted. I need some assistance with the fair use rationale and copyright tag. Thank you! — MG (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

To editor Marvgabo:

Question: It is not deleted, and the rationale seems fine. Was there another problem you had? Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Anon124! Thank you for your response. I mistakenly uploaded this on Commons, which I had previously used for the article. I realized my mistake only after the file has been uploaded. As of now, I guess the file has been okay, awaiting for a robot to resize its resolution. — MG (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've been blocked on wikimedia because of copyright violation. I was oblivious about it: all images that are available on internet are not free. Would you kindly unblock me?? I want to upload a poster (which is availabe on google image)...how can I do that without violating copyright?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suman420 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you read and become familiar with Free_content & Wikipedia:Copyrights. Then you should know how to upload images to Wikipedia without violating copyright. Then you will be able to explain why you consider 'this' poster is OK. Then we can reconsider the block.--Aspro (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Placement of attribution and license statment

Hello: If a book contains several articles from Wikipedia, should the attribution and license statement be placed as a footnote at the beginning of each wiki article, or should all attribution/license statements be placed in a separate section at the end of the book? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

To editor Prsaucer1958: Either should be fine; the license Wikipedia uses allows flexibility in this regard. However, you may want to check with a copyright lawyer to be sure. Anon124 (+2) (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Is a work for hire authorization to use anywhere the same as relinquishing copyright?

I'm looking at this picture which apparently was taken by a professional photographer and then uploaded by the subject of the photo. Is the justification presented by the uploader "author photo - hired John to take this picture, i have been authorized to use it anywhere i want to" the same thing as John Geiger, Inc. "waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law"? --Noren (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the authorisation for one person to use a work for hire anywhere does not equal to the photographer waiving all rights. The main concern here is that this sort of licence only applies to one specific person while others may not use the image at all. In fact this photo appears to be unfree. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)