Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/November

Micronation flag

Can the flag for Zaqistan [1] be uploaded and used in the article? – Brianhe (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Check the copyright policy of the website. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 01:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Usually that's what I'd do, I was hoping somebody would speak to fair use in the article. – Brianhe (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Flags and coats of arms are commonly based on a description called a blazon. This is thought to be in the public domain, so anyone can reproduce a similar flag according to the blazon but the individual drawings are copyrighted. This means someone could replace the original non-free flag design from that website with a free version, so fair use does not apply here. De728631 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair use policy in Italian Wikipedia

I wanted to add a non-free image in an Italian-language article, it:Gloria/Aria di lei. However, it:Wikipedia:Copyright immagini#Fair use and it:Template:Copertina album said that I must have a company's permission and OTRS ticket to use an image. I asked Masem about it, but I guess he's not an expert in Italian policies there. What is a proper effort to legally upload a non-free image in Italian Wikipedia with or without permission? Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Italian reader here. Their policy roughly requires the same things as our WP:NFCC policies, specifically #1, #9 and #10. What is the image you want to add, anyway?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry for late reply. I was busy with other stuff. Anyway, I want to add File:Umberto-tozzi-gloria.jpg. --Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 00:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Public domain?

I have another question about whether or not something would be in the public domain. I want to add this glass-plate negative to the article for John Armstrong Chaloner. It looks like the photograph was taken in 1918, but I don't know if photographs would be considered public domain material or not. I suppose that I could use this photograph from one of his books published in the late 1880s and I may use that in the article somewhere (I will at the very least upload it to WC so it's there if anyone needs it), but I like the first image more. Do you guys think that this would be fair game for uploading? Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've uploaded the second image, but I'm kind of hesitant about it because it needs some context to really explain why he's altered to look like Napoleon. (It was something like a friend offhand commented that he looked like the guy, so Chaloner just ran with it.) Also, the photograph was taken while Chaloner was alive, obviously. He died in the 1930s, so at least 80 years have passed since Chaloner died. I don't know if that plays into anything or not. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• In any case, if I can upload the first image I plan on moving the second one down and giving a little bit of context just for sort of a "huh, well that's interesting" flair. No real reason to mention that except that I just find this guy fascinating. If he'd been alive nowadays he'd probably have his own reality show. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If the second photo was published before 1923 it is PD. If it was first published after 1 March 1989 2002 then it is PD because the photographer died in 1930, over 70 years ago. If it was first published in between it might be still in copyright depending on when it was published and whether and how it was registered. See http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

This image you uploaded to the commons is PD but I have corrected the url for the image itself. The first image you mention is more difficult as it only mentions a 1918 creation date and does not confirm publication of any kind. In that case it is copyright for 120 years after creation per c:COM:CRT#United States. ww2censor (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

ww2censor, that's kind of what I was worried about. It doesn't appear to have been published in a book from what I can see, so I'm going to err on the side of caution and assume that it's not in the PD. I can always petition that UVA upload the image themselves via OTRS or WC somehow, but that could take a lot of time since they'd have to do it themselves. Tokyogirl79LVA (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You can of course always also ask the UVA for clarification on its copyright status but I suspect they have no more information than they have already provided, so are unlikely to upload it without such clarity. ww2censor (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright of maps I create from paintmaps.com

If someone could take a look at the question I posted at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Copyright_of_maps_I_create_from_paintmaps.com (and reply there to keep the discussion in one place)? Thanks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Letter of Invitation Copyright

Hey, I'm working on an article about a scholarship program and would like to add an image to the page. I think it would be nice to have on the page to showcase the timeline and support the Korean government gives to foreign students. I'm a part of the program and was sent this document. I merely edited out my personal information, but I'm not sure what its copyright status would be. Could someone take a look at it and let me know? Thanks.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46293382/Korean%20Graduate%20Scholarship%20Program%20-%20Invitation%20Letter.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draconicfire (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The copyright in the letter would belong to the program for whom it was written. Also: since the letter was a private communication and not published, it does not constitute a WP:Reliable source. Besides, it appears to me that it would not constitute encyclopedic content, adding no meaningful information to the article.

Deletion of Jose Pereira Coutinho in Portugal 2015.jpg image

Dear Sir or Madam, the uploading of this image has been a problem that is lasting for quite long for me. I've already sent the permission of the owner to Wikipedia email address according to your instructions. I've asked why you still do not let me upload the file and do not reply me saying the reasons so I can follow and improve. As I've already said before, there is absolutely no problem of using this image and the owner doesn't mind to be used on Wikipedia whatever the reasons are! What can I do more! I'm feeling that I will be left talking alone here! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gicacoca (talk • contribs) 04:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Your question was answered at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard/Archive 4#José Pereira Coutinho image. If you can't get permission of the photographer, then we can't use the image. If you are in personal contact with José Pereira Coutinho, you might consider photographing him yourself. —teb728 t c 05:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Permission from email

Hi, I just uploaded a pic and uploader added Template:Permission from license selector. If you don't allow pics for use on Wikipedia only, why is there a drop-down box for it at the WP uploader, what a waste of our time. Here's pic in question. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

More a waste of your time for not reading and understanding our policies.--Aspro (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::OTRS [Ticket#2015110310020085] it's people like you that make me want to quit editing here and you didn't answer my question about the drop-down box that says: "The copyright holder gave me permission to use this work only in Wikipedia articles" Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Calm down dear. Believe it or not, we are here to help. You appear to have made the attempt to get it right but something has gone wrong from your end. Suggest you simply go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright an explain your problem there. Whilst I could quote chapter and verse here – I can appreciate you need a solution. They will be better at explain what was wrong with your OTRS and how to resolve it. If I get the time, I will follow your question there to help resolve this issue.--Aspro (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Aspro meant Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. —teb728 t c 05:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: I asked about the trick option in the File Upload Wizard here at the Help desk. The reply there gave a sort of an answer to your question about the drop-down box and gave also a reference to a forum to discuss the File Upload Wizard. I hope that helps. —teb728 t c 13:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this image ok to upload? It keeps getting deleted by your Bots

Albert Folch

This image is a self-portrait by the author (Albert Folch, the subject of the picture) and he posted it on the website with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (which can be changed, he doesn't care). I don't understand why it gets deleted by your bots, so any help will be appreciated.

Why is Wikipedia so difficult on the user? Uploading an image should be very simple. More generally, why do we have to communicate through this awkward interface, in the era of email and messaging systems? I don't even know where and when I will get the response ... Weird ... Thanks anyways! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfpurcell (talk • contribs) 21:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the metadata on that picture, the artist of that picture is one Scott Manthey of a company called Image Photoarts in Kent, Washington. Albert Folch can't license Scott Manthey's work; only Manthey can do so (assuming he was the original photographer). If the photo was taken by Folch, then modified by Manthey, then they would both have to license it. That's the way copyright works.

Copyright law is not only complex, but varies from country to country and sometimes (in the U.S.A.) even from state to state. It is also one of the most litigious fields known to law. All of us involved in the various Wikipedia Foundation projects must therefore exercise a great deal of care to avoid violating copyright, or facilitating such violations, not least because in the eyes of some would-be litigants we present a big fat target. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You have not set up your Wikipedia account so that people can send you an e-mail; so it seems a bit disingenous to complain that we can't communicate by e-mail. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Rogerfpurcell. Please try and understand that we are all volunteers and it sometimes takes a little time for an editor to respond to questions posted on a noticeboard such as this. It makes things easier to follow if you stick to one noticeboard and simply wait until someone responds instead of posting basically the same stuff almost simultaneously on another noticeboards like you did at WP:OTRSN#File: AlbertFolch2.jpg should not be deleted! Please stop tagging it. Also, please try and understand that discussing things on Wikipedia is typically done on noticeboards, talk pages, etc. where all members of the community are free to comment if desired. This is mainly how the community achieves agreement on things related to Wikipedia. Private email conversations may be appropriate for certain things, but generally things related to Wikipedia are best discussed on Wikipedia itself.

Regarding the "self-portrait" of Albert Folch Folch, what Orange Mike pointed out above is pretty much what I previously tried to explain to you on your user talk page. Unfortunately, it's likely that this image and File:JordiFolchPi.jpg will continue to be deleted as long as OTRS is unable to verify that each has been freely licensed by the respective original copyright holders or that the images are not protected by copyright.

Finally, there is a free image on Wikimedia Commons File:AlbertFolch.jpg which was also uploaded by you that you can use in Albert Folch Folch if you took the photo yourself and it is really your "own work", but it looks like it comes from here so it may also require permission as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Images used to promote work

If the FU criteria lenient on such images? Why is File:GSLV1.jpg, File:SARAL.jpg, File:Gslv-mkiii-x-14.jpg and File:ISRO-sre02.jpg used in more than a single article, not low res etc? Is this justified? ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-free content policy requires that each use have a rational for that use, and from what I can see, each of these images only have one rational to justify one use. The other uses are failing WP:NFCC#10c, and so should be removed from pages they lack rationals for. That is not to say that rationales could not be created to be used in more than one article, though first glance at the usage, they aren't going to be easily justified (random pictures of rockets taking off to decorate articles about space agencies doesn't cut it here). The image sizes are a tad large but not overly a problem from first glance. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

For a start, as non-free image, I've tagged them {{non-free reduce}}. FU is not lenient so to comply each use must have a fully completed WP:FURG and as Masem notes some rationales might be written where they can justify the use but purely as decorative images, when prose can state such equipment exists or there is no mention at all, those uses should be removed. ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-11-05 1558 Joel Root in Connecticut History Illustrated.png

I am quite certain that the image File:2015-11-05 1558 Joel Root in Connecticut History Illustrated.png of Joel Root I used in the article on him should be in the public domain but am having difficulty finding the appropriate tag for it. I tried several different tags, descriptions, and explanations but none seemed to work. Can you guide me to a correct tag? I have temporarily removed the image from the article. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You did not provide an image source which appears to be http://connecticuthistoryillustrated.org/islandora/object/70002%3A5100 where the image is dated 1844, a relatively early daguerreotype. There is no information whether this image was ever published so its copyright would have been 120 years from creation. Obviously this is now in the public domain in the US. Persoanally I would prefer to see the complete daguerreotype image, frame and all, for such a portrait if that is possible, so maybe you should upload the complete image instead of the cropped one. BTW, jpg would be better than png for this image. I've fixed it for you and the proper copyright tag is {{PD-US-unpublished}} but you should really upload it to the commons so other language wikis could use it. ww2censor (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of a tag.

Regarding this tag...I live in the 9th Circuit, so does that mean I can't do uploads covered by this ruling?...or is the location of Wikipedia's computer the deciding factor? (and, PS, is that why Wikipedia moved from California to Virginia?) WQUlrich (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Corporate-authored works in Canada

How does Canadian law handle works of corporate authors? {{PD-Canada}} doesn't address the subject directly. File:AlbertaHomesteadMap1918 t11-12 r1-3 map31.png was published by a map-making company, not a single individual; it's not a photo or a work subject to Crown Copyright, so it can't qualify for points #1-4 on the template. I don't know whether we have to assume that it's eligible for point #5 (but perhaps not there yet, so perhaps still under copyright), because it's quite possible that the head of the company, or someone else responsible, could have died after 1965, or whether we consider it point #6 (and therefore PD-Canada) because we don't know which of the company's employees was responsible for producing it. Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It depends if the employee is identifiable or not. It would seem reasonable to apply point 6 of the Wikipedia template (section 6.1 of the Copyright Act). (Corporate authorship of former section 10(2), before its abolition, existed for photographs, but not for maps. Corporate ownership of copyright of section 13(3) can exist for any type of work and its duration follows the general rules.) -- Asclepias (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

How do I state that derivative images are out of copyright?

I got two messages from user:Kelly on my talk page saying there is an image copyright problem. File:Childrensfriendjuly1903cover.JPG File:Childrensfriendmay1858.JPG

They're my own photos. But the objection is on the grounds that the photos show images and I have not explained the copyright status of these images.

I am advised: It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

I don't want to have any claim to the copyright, and the images in the magazines cannot seriously be assumed to be still in copyright.

But I have no idea how to sort this out. I'm really sorry as this feels like a stupid question but I just can't work out how to do this; I have tried WP:TAG but it doesn't help unless there's something I'm not seeing. I'm not even sure what the "image description page" is. I'd like to add a tag that says 'these derivative images are out of copyright' but I can't find any tag that expresses that nor can I see where I'd add the tag anyway. But if I don't do anything they will be deleted.

Can someone please guide me in what to do so that these images are not deleted. Thank you. asnac (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You'll want to add two tags to each. One tag will be {{PD-UK}}, applying to the work you photographed, as it does appear out of copyright for the UK. The second tag to add, if as you say you don't want any copyright, is {{PD-self}}, to release the photograph you took into the PD. What I would do is to have two different section heads to put these separately into, one "Original work" for the PD-UK, and "Photograph of original work" for your PD-self. And then just make sure on the file page to explain what the photographs are of, publication date and country, and why you believe them are out of copyright as to support the PD-UK tag. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You should add a fully completed {{information}} template for each image adding all the appropriate details. (Click on the link to see how to use the template. ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Image of All Saints Church, Southampton

This image is taken from the work "England Under Victoria" by William Frederick Rock who died in 1890. Since this is more than 70 years ago, the copyright on his work has now expired according to UK law. Yet the image is tagged with a copyright notice dated 2002 (which I would edit out before uploading to the Commons). Please advise whether that latter copyright claim is legitimate or whether it is safe to proceed with uploading the image. WaggersTALK 09:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No response within (almost) 24 hours so I'll go ahead. The image became public domain in 1960 (70 years after the author's death) so it makes no sense for someone to be able to claim copyright in 2002 for it. WaggersTALK 08:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please remember replies are made by volunteers whose real life may interfere with quick responses. Claiming copyright over images that are in the public domain is called copyfraud. Many organizations and people do so for several reasons, such as thinking that making a slavish copy gives them a new copyright or they want to discourage people from copying the images, etc. Clearly an 1852 published image, whose author died in 1890, is in the public domain both in the source country, the UK, and the US where the Wikipedia servers are located. However, you should upload it to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

How would I correcly upload?

How would I correctly upload this image of James Barret found here? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you can upload it at Commons with {{PD-Art-two|PD-Australia|PD-1996}}. Per Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Australia, Australian "photographs (published or unpublished) taken prior to midnight on the 31st December 1954 are in the public domain." And since this one has never been registered for copyright in the US and the image must have been taken before Barrett's death in 1945, it's also PD in the United States. De728631 (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou. I'll do that when I get the time. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

File:James Barrett circa 1914.jpg Done! Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If the work is in the public domain, the combination of tags suggested above, {{PD-Art-two|PD-Australia|PD-1996}}, would be very good. But the description page currently has a deprecated US status tag and is missing the Australia status tag and the PD-Art tag. However, it would be useful to better document the facts that would support a statement of public domain. The image is a photographic reproduction of a painting. It might be relevant to document the facts about the photographic reproduction and the photographer, but it is certainly important to document the facts about the painting and the painter. Although the source website does not credit the artist, it seems unlikely that the painter of this portrait would be anonymous or unknown. More research is needed to identify the image before a solid statement of copyright status can be made. The painting could be from Barrett's years as office-bearer at the University of Melbourne, between 1931 and 1939. A known portrait of Barrett is a painting by Charles Wheeler (1881-1977) unveiled in 1939 [2]. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll look in to that when I get the time. Adding the tag and improving the documentation have been added to my checklist but feel free to help out to speed it up. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this is the reproduction of a painting. It looks so realistic that I thought it was a portrait photo. But as we're talking about a derivative work the original copyright has become important. Artistic works are only PD in Australia if the artist died before 1955, which would not be the case for Charles Wheeler. So unless we know the painter I believe we can't use the image at all. De728631 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Qt logo 2015.svg

How can that image be considered non-free while this one is listed as PD-textlogo? --Ricordisamoa 02:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Good question. I think not, unless there is something with the SVG that makes it non-free. I'll check in Wikipedia:Files for Discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Book cover image file

Can the image from this [[3]] be uploaded and used on article Operation Underworld (novel)? Thank you Morfij.x (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fair use allows an appropriately sized and lower quality image to be used in these cases. See WP:NFCI, #1 applies in this case. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

WWII Victory Medal image update.

I've found (and cropped the border off of) this image of a WWII Victory Medal for personal use, and was wondering if it would be preferred on the WWII Victory Medal page over the digitally made version currently present on the page. I make no claim to the original image, obviously. Would this be acceptable to upload, along with other similar edits? Thanks.

http://puu.sh/lkPgQ/ba4b96280c.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joulskr (talk • contribs) 05:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely no. You must identify the original source and, if that image is under copyright, you won't be able to qualify for fair use because other free images are available (or could be found). QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Poem about Saigon

my teacher gave me an assignment she said that the poem that we read the Saigon is gone and a text In our text book the forgotten ship in the text what is the message each author is intending to convey about the fall of Saigon? explain how specific word choice help create a tone that contributes to the text's meaning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.5.53 (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't do you home work here. THis question would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. We do have articles at Fall of Saigon, Operation Frequent Wind which has a large list of the ships involved, and Operation Babylift which will give you the background history. You will have to read the poem and look at the word choice yourself! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Roscoe Rowe

Not really an image question, but I didn't want to start a formal full-blown copyright investigation about a possibly trivial misunderstanding on my side. Bear with me please.

The article's content is copy/pasted from here, most likely in good faith by an unexperienced, now inactive, editor. The website states near the bottom: "This information resource of the Maryland State Archives is presented here for fair use in the public domain." That's clear as mud: is it "fair use" (restricted for certain use cases) or "in the public domain" (do whatever you want with it)? Is such a vague statement sufficient to treat the content as fully released public domain content? Maryland State Archives don't count as "USGov" institution copyright-wise, do they? GermanJoe (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This suggests that they mean it is presented to the public, rather than an actual copyright release. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification - I have nominated the article for speedy deletion as copy/paste from the source. GermanJoe (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I cannot find any copyright information for this photo but would like to use it.

I cannot find the copyright information for Shubha Tole's images on google but would like to use one to help her page be fleshed out. Here is the image i have gone for, sized 212x238.File:shubha.jpg, taken from google images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dathava (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 November 2015

Because Shubha Tole is still alive we can only use image that are clearly freely licensed. Most images you will find on the internat are copyright which was the reason the image you uploaded has already been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want good, current, up-to date images Dathava, why not try emailing her directly (E.G., Hi, I edit Wikipedia and you deserve better photos) and asking if she can send Wikimedia Commons a photo(s) with a OTRS. You can bet that Shubha is IT savvy, so if she dose not reply she is not really interested in her professional and public image - so end of story. Should you wish, she can be contacted at टाटा मूलभूत अनुसंधान संस्थान She has a gmail address there but we don't disclose these here. Hope this helps.--Aspro (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Aside: A copyvio also appears (like it says its not licensed appropriately) to be on this Telugu language WP article on Shubha: [4]. --Aspro (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The image source page has a copyright notice but do they allow non-free on the Telugu wiki? ww2censor (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Using pictures and Images

I am writing a book. As well as using some Wikipedia content, I would like to use the pictures included in the article. For example. King James I,II; King George I,II, III; Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Charlotte. Am I allowed to use them as long as I give credit to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14C:8201:FF00:B12B:A1F9:A970:7976 (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What you really need is Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. You need to credit images per their licence not us. ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What if I modified a file from Wikipedia?ChizzleDonkey (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Then you have made a derivative. You would have to comply with the terms of the license. So if it was a CC-BY license you still have to credit the earlier author, and link to the license. And the -SA bit would mean that you have to have the same license on your derivative. So you can do cropping or make a collage, change contrast etc. For public domain images you are free to use them without credit, but claiming your own copyright is a fraud. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Image missing evidence of permission

The image is for a band that were only active for a short amount of time, and the band and their website and this the evidence of permission haves long since disappeared. What should be folded in this instance? Thanks Mattsephton (talk • contribs) 23:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What image? File:Murry-the-hump.jpg? One can look at an archived copy of the source page [5], where one can see that there was no permission. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Michael Richards

I noticed that in the article, Michael Richards, there is this video link being used as reference. The video link is an episode of Jerry Seinfeld's web series, Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, titled "It's Bubbly Time, Jerry". Is this episode under copyright?Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that it's not under copyright. The link is to the official website. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Potential image for Nevado Tres Cruces

So, I was thinking that using the map at the bottom of this page may significantly increase the understandability of the Nevado Tres Cruces article by illustrating the extent and location of various geological features, things that can't be easily explained in text for a volcano that isn't a simple cone. I was wondering if using that map under fair use would be acceptable; I don't think there are freely licensed maps of that type and content.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't use that image. It fails WP:NFCC#1 because, although no freely licensed maps with that information exist, you can create one. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I sort of expected that. No image, then, seeing as I don't have the requisite image making skills.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You could always request one at WP:GL/M, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I've moved my query over there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

file:simona castricum.png

I asked the artist for an image they have permission to use and she sent me this. Not sure how to make it allowable on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.120.9 (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The photographer, not the artist, is usually the copyright holder and we need their permission under a free licence. The best thing to do is have them verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a photograph that I took of Johnny Pate. Can I send it to you, he loves it.

How do I submit a photo of Johnny Pate for Wikipedia. I photographed Johnny and he loves the shot!--68.96.199.232 (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page then register an account. Then you can click on upload. Make sure you add a good description and give a free license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

deena dayala.jpg

I am unable to add copyright info for the image deena dayala.jpg. its self created design for the audio album. No copyrights for this please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canvasartrajaram (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Everything created has copyright, so you will have to grant a license. Also do you own the copyright, or does your employer own it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

You will have to prove that the photographer Dr. Choudary Voleti has given a free license to use the photo, And who is B S Rajaram, is that you? Normally use the template:information to add the information. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair use of logo

Hello,

File:Strømsgodset IF logo.svg has been in use for the page of the sports club Strømsgodset IF and Strømsgodset Toppfotball, citing fair use. User Marchjuly recently removed it from the latter page, and I don't understand why? Strømsgodset Toppfotball is a division of Strømsgodset IF and uses the same logo, in the same way as several Norwegian football clubs, such as Stabæk Fotball and Stabæk IF. Cashewnøtt (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If they use the same logo and have no logo of their own, fair-use is okay so long as you write separate rationales for both articles on the image description page. Currently, only Strømsgodset IF is covered by one. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how to do it. When I try to edit File:Strømsgodset IF logo.svg, I cannot see the existing rationale, it's just a bunch of empty fields.Cashewnøtt (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we generally don't allow the use of parent logos in child organizational articles just because that child organization might happen to use the parent's logo. It is presumed that if the parent/child organizational relationship is defined, that the parent organization will be very clear on the child organization's WP page and the reader can click through the logo to see it in use there. This is to satisfy WP:NFCC#3. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Masem, can you give some examples of acceptable use across many articles? A strict interpretation of WP:NFCC#3a risks it becoming a de facto "one article maximum". Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• There's a line in the sand stated by WP:NFC#UUI #6, which indicates that if an image has an article about that image, we should link to that article rather than re-use the image. A good example of this type of use is File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg. This file has, in the past, been used on many articles. It is a very iconic image that is emblematic of World War II, the Battle of Iwo Jima, the United States Marines, Rosenthal (the photographer) himself, even as highly iconic of the Pulitzer Prize (which it won). There are few images on the same iconic level, and none (in my opinion) that exceed it. But, there is an article about the image. So, we use the image only on that article, and elsewhere we make links to that article. A counter example, one answering your request, is another highly iconic image: File:Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg. This image does not have an article strictly dedicated to just itself, yet it is iconic. It is iconic for representing the Fall of Saigon and the building depicted. The building would now be of any interest without the image, and the image became iconic of the entire fall of Vietnam. It could be used in a variety of articles, but is limited to those two. So, that demonstrates a case where an image might be used in more than one place, yet still not fall afoul of #3. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• There's also cases of some types of paintings and other art (like Picasso's) where the painting might have a page itself, it might be considered the strongest example of a certain school of art, and might be considered the painter's most significant work, so multiple uses on three articles can be justified.

The key here, common to both mine and Hammersoft's examples, is that there is a unique rational to each use, clearly satisfying NFCC#8. Logos, on the other hand, only meet NFCC#8 (for the most part, there are common exceptions) through virtue of identification, marketing, and branding, and repeated logo use typically makes the same claim on logo and branding across many articles, weakening the claim of meeting NFCC#8 on each subsequent use. Hence why we strongly encourage avoiding logo reuse. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I agree with the two of you. Naturally, this renders thousands upon thousands of present NFC uses of logos invalid. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 16:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Finnusertop, Masem, and Hammersoft: Thanks for your answers and clarification provided regarding NFCC#10c and No. 17 of NFC#UUI. I hope that sufficiently answers the OP's question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I understand now. Cashewnøtt (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

university logo

Hi there, I want to upload our school's logo but everytime I use it they keep on deleting it. Why? What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idiots1234 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, where all content must be licensed to allow reuse by anyone anywhere for anything. Since you are not the copyright owner, you cannot grant such a license. What you need to do is upload the logo to English Wikipedia with a non-free tag {{Non-free logo}} and a non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale logo}}. See File:Princeton shield.svg for how someone did it for the Princeton University logo. —teb728 t c 06:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Metro Transit logo.svg

IIHO, this should be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}. Any other opinions? Useddenim (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, its clearly uncopyrightable in the US, and can even be moved to commons. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Not original enough. The underlying SVG may be copyrightable as software independently from the image design, though - is that an issue? (If so we'd have to recreate the SVG as an user-made version that imitates the appearance of the official one).Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no strong case law (though there has been considerations) about SVG (which is XML at its base), as the case law around computer code isn't tight yet. Since most people generate the SVG by manipulating objects in a graphics program, and the program spits out the SVG mechanically, that process itself is not copyrightable. It can't hurt to recreate the logo as a user-made image that is truly under a free license, but its doubtful that this version off the website would be an issue presently. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Metro Transit's Logos & Images page doesn't have an .svg version, so the source shouldn't be an issue, as long as Train2104 doesn't have any objections. Useddenim (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What is my copyright?

I am trying to upload a photo onto a Wikipedia page. The photo is of the subject of the page. It was taken by a person commissioned by the subject at a show that the subject runs. He pays the photographer to take photos for him to use for promotions and such. The subject has given me this photo to use for his Wikipedia page with his permission. I don't know what to call this in terms of copyright, and am a little at a loss as to how to put it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyndasCat (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@KyndasCat: It’s rather complicated, depending on the terms of the contract between DeWolf and the photographer. Ordinarily a photographer retains the copyright but licenses the client to use the photograph. But in the case of work for hire the photographer transfers the copyright to the client. What you need to do is have the copyright owner (either the photographer or DeWolf if it was work for hire) license the photograph as described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note that permission for use only on Wikipedia is not acceptable; the license must allow reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728 t c 04:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are in direct contact with the subject, KyndasCat, then the easiest solution may be to take a portrait photo yourself. In that case, you would be the indisputable copyright holder and could upload the image to Wikimedia Commons and add it to the article in a matter of minutes, with the least possible rigaramole. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)