Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/August

< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

World Showcase pavilion logos

I believe that all of the EPCOT World Showcase pavilion logos, listed below, are incorrectly labeled as non-free logo when they should really be PD-logo (since they are only consist of typefaces), which means that they would be eligible for a transfer for to Commons. I would like a second opinion before I change the licenses and transfer them. The files are:

Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a reasonable assumption for these, considering EPCOT is also US based with a very high TOO. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks MASEM. Putting up for transfer now. Elisfkc (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Can this file now be qualified the under the non-free content policy?Timur9008 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_summit_media_group_inc_logo.jpg

@Timur9008: No, that image fails NFCC #3 and #8. It is alright to use a logo as an identifier for an article, but the article in question, 4Licensing Corporation, already uses File:4Licensing Corporation Logo.svg for that purpose. Logos aren't normally necessary or appropriate for identification in article subsections, since the "identification" is primarily to let a reader seeing the top of the article visually identify that they've reached the correct one. That doesn't apply to subsections, and we can't and shouldn't use a logo every time a company is just mentioned. I'm afraid the nomination is correct, and the image will need to go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Logo Upload

I need help uploading a logo for a company bio article... I have read multiple articles on the proper protocols of uploading logos. It says I should use wikipedia:upload. I am not verified, so I cannot go ahead and upload there.

Can I upload a logo on Wikimedia commons? I have already been blocked so I do not want to be penalized again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrisonj627 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

In general, logos are non-free and should not be uploaded to Commons. If you are not yet autoconfirmed, you can use the Wikipedia:Files for upload process to upload files. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Jon Rua photograph

I'm not convinced that the photo used in the article about Jon Rua, File:Jon Rua Headshot.jpg is being used legally on Wikipedia. The photo is indeed by Luke Fontana (see the same image here on IMDb, for example), but although it's credited to "own work" I don't believe Luke Fontana uploaded it himself as he doesn't have a Wikipedia account – I think the editor SergioVillavicencio who created the article has simply uploaded it from the internet and credited it to Fontana. Is there any way of checking this, please? Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120: I have requested deletion as a copyright violation on Commons. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
JJMC89, thanks. I've also found this photo of Fontana's on Commons: File:LFP3586 copy.jpg – I don't know the copyright status of this one either. Richard3120 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120: I found it on Instagram, so I've tagged it for deletion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wall Street

Could someone please take a look at Talk:Wall Street#Can we insert this image somewhere in the article? and answer there. There's a question about an using an image in the Wall Street article and I'm not sure of the answer. Station1 (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Responded there. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Purchased photographs

If a sports figures purchases digital photos of himself from the photographer can these be uploaded to the common for use in the sports figure's wikipedia bio IceTwinsMom (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)IceTwins Mom

@IceTwinsMom: Not unless the photographer has put the photos under a free license. Or has a work-for-hire agreement with the sports figure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

File:LovcenCelik.jpg

Should File:LovcenCelik.jpg be tagged with {{No permission}}? It's claimed as "own work" and licensed as such, but the uploader (seems) to have a history of uploading photos found online as "own work". I can't find this particular photo online, but there's no EXIF data and it is (mistakenly?) licensed as GDL. OTRS verification might be, in my opinion, a good idea just to be on the safe side? -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The image was speedy deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus as a copyright violation. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Would you mind taking a look at the other photos from that same uploader tagged as copyvios? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at them, some are odd crops: Compare http://portalanalitika.me/storage/2015/05/26/thumbs/5563a1dd-2abc-4747-8ab6-6031b0765237-stadionsutjeska26-preview.jpg with https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/West_Stand_Nik%C5%A1i%C4%87_Stadium.jpg the latter cannot be derived from the former, but they clearly have the same origin. Some more of his uploads are also like that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a closer look Jo-Jo Eumerus. If any of the copyvio tags were incorrectly added, please remove them or let me know and I'll self-revert. As for the online cropped version referred to above, perhaps it was done because of this to remove the watermark. I also found this and this online without the watermark. Photo is being used a lot prior to being uploaded so it doesn't look like "own work" at all, at least not to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Wug picture

I think copyright applies due to the fact that this file depicts the original Wug test, but that the "wug" in general is too elementary to be copyrighted, as it's essentially the mirrored, flattened top half of a rest symbol with legs. So I drew an SVG and uploaded it to Commons: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Recent upload of File:Wug.svg.

What do you think? →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Are we talking about the bird-looking like part of the image? Because I would certainly claim that that is copyrightable as the modifications are non-trivial and have an aesthetic and creative value (the bird-like appearance). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
For me, File:Wug.svg is clearly a derivative work of File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg which is still in copyright because its creator, Jean Berko Gleason, is still alive and as far as we know she has not released this under a free licence. It is too similar to the original to be considered a new original work. ww2censor (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Can a misshapen blob really meet the threshold of originality if you give it legs and eyes? I simply doubt that a wug can be copyrighted, even if a specific drawing of one can. (And then, I believe that the File:WugTest NowThereIsAnotherOne FairUseOnly.jpg would only be fair use if a wug "itself" was copyrightable, which I don't think is) →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Image for Peter Ewart Maxwell

I want to upload an image to the Peter Ewart Maxwell article that is owned by his daughter who gave me permission to use it here and elsewhere. Please let me know what category that fits under. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoolsA (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@JoolsA: Did she make the photo? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi JoolsA You should make sure you that you attach each file you upload like File:Peter Ewart CP poster Big Game.jpg, File:Peter Ewart CP poster Big Game2.jpg, and File:Peter Eward Ed Pryor portrait.jpg with an approriate image licensing tag and provide a source for the image; otherwise, it is subject to deletion per WP:F4. Also, please note that simply adding "used with permission" to the file's description is generally not considered in and of itself sufficient for adding a free license to files uploaded to Wikipedia. If you didn't create the image yourself and are not the original copyright holder of the image, then some proof (such as WP:CONSENT) needs to be provided so that the free licensing can be verified. Also, please not that "freely licensed" means the image can be used by anyone anywhere in ther world for any reason, including commercial purposes, without getting permisson from the original copyright holder in advance. So, you cannot upload a file like "File:Peter Eward Ed Pryor portrait.jpg" and try and restrict it's use to Wikipedia only under a free license. For reference, certain copyrighted content may be eligible to be uploaded as non-free content, but there are some strong restrictions placed upon how such files may be used. For example, "File:Peter Eward Ed Pryor portrait.jpg" can likely be uploaded as a non-free file of a deceased person for use in a stand-alone Wikipedia article about said individual (per No. 10 of WP:NFCI), but the poster image would not satisfy Wikipedia'a non-free content policy as currently being used in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The image deleted is owned by Linda Ewart. How do I show Wikipedia this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoolsA (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
If the file has been previously published online, etc. and Ms. Ewart wants to freely license it for use on Wikipedia, then she can upload it directly to Wikimedia Commons herself as explained in WP:DONATEIMAGE. If the file has never been previously published (for example, a personal photo she took herself and kept as a keepsake), then she can simply upload it to Commons as her "own work" as long as she agrees to freely license it. You can only upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons on her behalf if you ask her to freely license it and she agrees to provide an "explicit guarantee of consent" as explained in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. If none of the above apply or seem possible, you might be able to upload the photo as non-free content per No. 10 of WP:NFCI as long as it use in the article satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria. However, File:Peter Ewart, c.1982.jpg currently being used in the article is freely licensed which means that a non-free image would likely fail WP:NFCC#1 unless it can be shown the licensing of the aforementioned Commons' file is incorrect/not valid. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

NFCCs not applicable?

Is there any case where, in a non-free image, the Non-free use rationale can be completed with NFCCs #1 and #2 marked as "n.a."? If there is no such case, are the images subject to deletion under WP:CSD#F7 (I would assume so, as the rationale is not complete)? AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That's typically due to sloppy rationale writing and is usually overlooked. If the file fails these criteria on the other hand it's usually tagged for deletion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
While it is sloppy and should be fixed, I would not necessary say that's calls for deletion, as some uses would be implicit (for example, cover art for most published works in today's day are not going to have free replacements, so by that nature NFCC#1 is reasonably met). What does need to be present is at minimum as to avoid deletion is the following: The article(s) that the NFC will be used on, a rationale of why that non-free is going to be used, and some type of acknowledgement of where the work was originally published and/or whom owns that copyright. Other aspects are generally not needed unless there's clearly a problem: for example, if someone wants to use a full 1920x1080 screencap for a movie, which is well beyond low-resolution, they better explain why that image size is needed otherwise reduction or deletion is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 19:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally speaking, no part of a rationale should be left as "n.a.", as it's required to actually consider how a given use meets each part of the standard. (And I really, really wish the template wouldn't allow that, and would instead flag a big red warning "YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED A RATIONALE FOR THIS REQUIREMENT" if any are omitted or left blank.) That said, I do agree that in cases where it's obvious (album cover art, etc.), I'd probably just add it myself rather than nominating for deletion. If it's less clear and I don't really know how someone would've considered it to pass, then yes, I'd probably take action to remove from that particular article (if other rationales are acceptable) or nominate it for deletion if all of them seem deficient. It is ultimately the responsibility of the person who uses it in a given article to provide a full and complete rationale for why that use is acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


I just found this discussion, my involvement: [1] and [2]. Pinging participants for feedback in relation to the Upload Wizard: @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Masem, Seraphimblade, and AntiCompositeNumber:

When using the Upload Wizard, depending on the file type, the wizard automatically adds n.a. (not applicable) in the fields that are implicitly satisfied. One notices this when one uses the wizard, for instance when uploading a small-size album cover or logo. Of the 96000 [3] files that use Template:Non-free use rationale 2, a template used automatically by the wizard, hundreds more likely thousands are album covers, numerous examples can be found here. The fields that are automatically marked n.a. by the upload wizard are not suspect for lack of rational. Are they? If they are suspect, then this is a big issue that needs to be discussed by starting a request for comment on the upload wizard's talk page or perhaps at the village pump in order to modify and fix the upload wizard. In the meantime, the wizard's automated behavior is the norm, and given its prolific utilization, it is consensus or de facto consensus, no? Bammesk (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I've never used the Upload Wizard, since generally anything I'm uploading is to Commons. I did just give it a run, and see that it has a setup for some of the stuff that's generally accepted (album covers, logos, etc.). I wouldn't see any problem with using some type of autofilled summary for those, since it's going to be effectively the same thing every time, but I don't think we should just leave it blank or "n.a". Every criterion applies, every time, there's just certain cases where we've decided they'll almost always be met. To the user, it would be essentially transparent; the tool would just fill in the reason rather than leaving it without one. That would also make it much easier to use an automated process to generate a list of incomplete rationales. I would imagine a similar automated process could fill in the summaries for any of those types that were left blank in the past, that'd probably be a pretty straightforward one-shot script. But I don't think we should get people in the habit of thinking leaving parts blank is alright, since that's confusing for cases where they really do need the detail. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, users do fill all the fields (and I don't mean with n.a.) that the upload wizard requires of them, otherwise the wizard will not perform the upload task. However (for instance in case of album covers and logos) the wizard automatically decides which fields are implicitly satisfied and by default marks them as n.a., with no bypass option. An example [4]. Bammesk (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. Rather than filling them with "n.a." (they always apply, there's just certain cases where they've been decided to essentially certainly be satisfied), why not have them be filled with boilerplate? The interface could do that automatically rather than "n.a.", such as (for NFCC #1 on an album cover) "As album covers are copyrighted and any derivative work would infringe that copyright, no free equivalent is available or can be created." The user wouldn't have to put that, the interface could. So to the user, nothing would change—they still don't have to touch that field when doing an album cover. But there still should be something in that field. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand, thanks for clarifying. On modifying the upload wizard, I yield to consensus. Bammesk (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
For album covers, the upload wizard should use the album cover template. It's the proper template, and it has all the boilerplate built in. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea of using the template, and there's templates for the rest of those common use cases too, so we could do the same with those. There probably also should be a reminder, as there is on the template page itself, that the user is still responsible to check and ensure that the templated rationale is in fact valid and appropriate, and modify it if not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted in any instructions that templates like the album cover one are designed to meet the general allowance when that image is used at the primarily infobox image for identification. The rational aspects presented in that are tuned for the NFCI#1 allowance, and not the general use of those images anywhere else; that's when we'd expect editors to start with the general NFC template and fill in all needed fields. Separately I do want to stress that we need to avoid being jerks about NFC to avoid the Betacommand situation. Having "n.a."s in these fields is not necessarily right but with the exception of a rationale statement, original source/publication, and article that the image is used on, the rest can be easily fixed, though that onus is on the uploader or image user. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bammesk: What do you think about using the templates for this purpose? Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I am not clear about what you mean by "this purpose". Do you mean having the upload wizard use specific templates such as album cover template? or do you mean having the upload wizard do what it does now, plus have it place an extra template on each file page it creates flagging that all fields are applicable and that the onus is on the uploader or image user to provide a rational for each field in place of n.a.? Given those two choices, I prefer the first, though I don't have a strong preference. BTW I am leaning to #3 below.
Other thoughts:
  1. User:Masem mentioned the "Betacommand situation". I know nothing about it.
  2. There must have been discussions leading to the wizard's design that addressed when and why n.a. is sufficient. Perhaps those discussions, or those involved can provide some guidance. If I am not wrong, the wizard is 4 years old [5], [6].
  3. I revised a couple of my wizard-assisted uploads here: [7], [8], and added simple boilerplates in place of n.a. I am not a template developer nor a wizard developer!, but I think having the upload wizard automatically place such boilerplates rather than "n.a." is a do-able thing and only needs reasonable effort.
Bammesk (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary of the BetaCommand situation: BetaCommand was a user with scripting skills that helped to work the transition of our non-free policy when the WMF passed the resolution back in 2009 by identifying articles that failed NFCC#9 (no mention of the article they were to be used on). While this was all proper, several users got upset because Beta's scripts tagged things like mispellings of article names or didn't handle articles that were moved w/o the regular redirects. This created tension around NFCC handling. That then later flared out when more of BetaCommand's bot scripting were found to have some legitimate problems, but that created this whole situation for several years that many editors resented at NFC mandated aspects. Hence, here, I am cautioning us to take careful steps and not be blindly enforcing NFC to avoid that situation. --MASEM (t) 20:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
As to Betacommand, pretty much what Masem said. As far as template use, I think it would be okay to have the wizard automatically use the templated reasons for cases where the templates would generally be applicable, so the reasons could be automatically filled in with, for example, an album cover or logo. I don't think it needs to use a separate template on the page to remind uploaders to check the reasons, but the wizard should make clear, during the upload process, that it will be automatically filling out some of the fields, and that the user does need to check those when done and make sure they're accurate, and adjust them if not. I don't recall any discussion around the Upload Wizard at all, or how it would function, but it might've happened somewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be "n.a." is not acceptable. It makes sense to me to have the wizard add boilerplates and give a user-be-aware notice during the upload process. As I mentioned above, in regard to revising the wizard, I yield to consensus. Bammesk (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

War-era government photos from the UK?

I am curious about this photo. It is an official photo taken in 1941, during the war, by the UK government. In the post-war era this was handed to the Central Office of Information, and then again to the National Portrait Gallery, London in 1974. While the NPG claims copyright, they do this for all photos regardless of their status, like this 1869 photo of Tennyson.

So, can anyone comment on the status of such photos? It was an official photo of the UK government, and I understand that such photos should be in the public domain, at least from that era. I also suspect that UK aging limits have expired on this as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

British government work is covered by crown copyright that lasts for 50 years, so WWII UK government produced material is in the public domain no matter what NPR claims. Refer to the details of c:Template:PD-UKGov. This page from the UK National Archives may also be of interest to you. BTW, we already have the Alfred Tennyson image from a different source at: File:Alfred Tennyson (5225494709).jpg. ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Is File:Byron Hamburgers logo.jpg copyrightable in the US?

Is this logo below the US threshold of originality? Though the logo is likely of UK origin, if the logo is below the US threshold, it might be possible to treat the logo as a case of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} instead of non-free content. (Additionally, if the logo is below the US threshold and the UK threshold, it would seem that the logo could be a case of {{PD-textlogo}}.) Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Below most likely. See File:DUB Magazine Logo.jpg and File:Best Western logo.svg for analogous files which were rejected by the US copyright office when registration was sought. While its decisions don't have the force of law they are usually good guidance on what is or is not copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I still can't get my head around TOO after WMF legal concluded that File:FEELTHEBERN.png and others similar simple designs "most likely [do] meet the threshold of creativity for copyright". They were restored only after the copyright holder withdrew their DMCA request. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, yeah, originality is not a mathematical formula with a deterministic outcome. Big annoying thing when you are dealing with a legal question, since most of us are not lawyers. Also, that DMCA takedown was contested on Commons precisely because of questions about TOO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. For now, the image page has been edited to classify the logo as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} instead of non-free content. --Elegie (talk) 08:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

File:FSCG.png

Can this file be converted to public domain, perhaps {{PD-MNEGov}}? It's currently licensed as non-free, but an IP claims claims the file is in the public domain. It's entirely possible that the file was mistakenly uploaded as non-free back in 2007. For reference, file can be seen at the Football Association of Montenegro's official website. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This one should be correct. It contains 100% coat of arms , with just "FS CG" inscribed. It can't be copyrighted according to the law.
|Permission={{PD-MNEGov}}{{insignia}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.92.247 (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2016‎ (UTC+9)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/780_F2d_189.htm #8 is a problem here - yes, the files would be PD in the source country, but how does it work in the US? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/104 does not indicate any requirement that the work be copyrighted in the country of origin. I am not sure how it interacts with https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/104A - was the logo ever published in the US before copyright formalities became irrelevant? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
There's no obvious reason why this artwork would be in the public domain in the United States. The description page does not specify the date of first publication nor the date of creation, but it couldn't have been created before digital art software became available (it's not a scan of an old work on paper) and it is unlikely to have been created before the football club itself was created in 2006. It is also unlikely to have been published first in the United States and without copyright notice before March 1989. Besides, although not relevant on Wikipedia, it's not obvious if it would be PD under the law of Montenegro. The text of the law is there: [9]. The relevant article seems to be article 8. This artwork is not an official text. The template PD-MNEGov refers to "61/2007", which itself might already be a mistake for the Gazette number "61/2004" to refer to an old version of the law. It's not even sure if the old law said what the user who wrote the template says. It seems that the relevant line of article 6 of the old law said "2) Official materials of state bodies and bodies performing public functions;", which is not the same thing as the template line "2) Official materials of state authorities or materials published by any other person or institution which do public function." In short: A) The template was possibly already wrong even when referring to the old law. B) The law has changed. C) It doesn't apply to the Unites States. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Asclepias: Thanks for the links and information. Can the file be uploaded to Commons if it is PD in its source country, assuming information such as the date of first publication, etc. can be found and verified and the template issues can be worked out? Should the file remain as non-free if not? FWIW, I just trying to WP:AGFC and figure out if 46.161.92.247's claim might be possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
We'd need to know the copyright status in the US, first. Then resolve the issue mentioned by Asclepias about Montenegrin copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: So the file should remain non-free until those issues can be resolved, right? @46.161.92.247: Can you provide information which helps resolve these outstanding issues? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The file was almost certainly created after 2005, which, of course, means that it was published after February 1989, which means that it is under copyright in the United States. Such files can't be uploaded to Commons. The law of Montenegro doesn't have any effect for this file on Commons and Wikipedia. It might have an effect on Commons for works older than this one. This file being non-free, its situation on Wikipedia depends if it meets the policies about non-free content. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The {{PD-MNEGov}} template has an aspect which is unclear...when the template says "This image is in the public domain," does it mean "public domain in Montenegro and the US" or "public domain in Montenegro but possibly copyrighted outside Montenegro"? If the template is to indicate that a work is in the public domain specifically in Montenegro, then it would seem useful to adjust the template to say "This image is in the public domain in Montenegro". --Elegie (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The template is only about the copyright status in Montenegro. It's not about the copyright status in other countries, ruled by their respective laws. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have edited the template accordingly. --Elegie (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I have tried to upload my company logo to our Wikipedia site. However, it is continually taken down. What is the appropriate copyright tag for an image transferred to me through a Design Transfer Agreement? I own the copyright and have specified this in my wikipedia article, but the image is continually flagged. I would really appreciate some guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhodgett (talk • contribs) 11:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Mjhodgett. Seeing as you uploaded the file to Commons, you may want to ask there. You will probably have to prove that the logo is licensed in a Commons-suitable way by sending an email from an official email address (say, the company address) to commons:COM:OTRS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Jo. Should I have uploaded this to Commons as this is a non-free logo? Where else can I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.226.29 (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Mjhodgett (I assume you accidentally logged out? Do you want the IP address hidden?) If it's a non-free logo uploading it locally may be better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jo, I'll try that. I'm currently trying to use the Upload Wizard, but my account is not yet confirmed? Though I applied months ago. Anyway you could help with this? I realize it's out of the scope of this forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhodgett (talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Mjhodgett You may want to try Special:Upload or Wikipedia:Files for upload. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Pulivoy village

Pulivoy village

uthiramerur taluk,kanchipuram district- 631603. need to add temple images & photos

Famous Temples 1. Mahamunnesswarar(Siva Temple)& Maragathavalli thayar. 2. Pulisai Kooneri vinayagar temple.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugansaravanan (talk • contribs) 05:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Taking photographs of logos

My question concerns whether it is okay to take photographs of copyrighted works, release those photos under a free license, and use those images to illustrate article sections about those copyrighted works. This image in particular caught my eye while reading the 2016 Summer Olympics article. The picture displays the front of the office buildings at the Rio 2016 headquarters. However, the picture is not being used to illustrate what the office building looks like; rather, it is being used in the "Logo" section to illustrate the logo of the 2016 Olympic Games, which is copyrighted. (On the front of the office building is the Rio 2016 logo.) Is that okay? I have heard of something called freedom of panorama—does that apply here? Mz7 (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you are already familiar with the concept of freedom of panorama, the answer is accordingly: depends on what the local law has to say about freedom of panorama. For some countries, there is none, for some it only applies to buildings, statues, outdoor installments, etc. For Brazil, freedom of panorama applies to all kinds of works that are permanently situated in public places. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Finnusertop. My initial impression was that freedom of panorama only applies to three-dimensional works like buildings, sculptures and trophies. Usually, there is only one "original" copy of such three-dimensional works (i.e. the actual sculpture), and it makes sense that if these original copies are (permanently) in public places, they would be subject to freedom of panorama. However, for two-dimensional works, there isn't necessarily an "original copy" in physical existence, especially if the work was drawn on a computer. It seemed a little weird to me at the time that if one copy of a logo was on a private website, and an identical copy of the same logo was on the side of a public building, they would have different copyright statuses. The more I think about it, the more it is starting to make sense. Mz7 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC) stuck part of my comment, per clarification below. Mz7 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Another factor that comes into play is de minimis; a happenstance-use of a copyright logo on the front of a building that was otherwise within FoP (that is, you can take a PD photo of of the building), where the logo's appearance was clearly tiny or not the intent of the picture, then de minimis is met (see for example File:Shibuya_tokyo.jpg - none of the billboards, despite copyright material, harm the PD nature of that photo). This is absolutely not the case for the above Olympic one - its clearly the intent of the photographer to capture the sign, not the building, and that logo is copyrighted. So even if the building photo was free, this would be taken as a copyrighted derivative work of the logo, and have to be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Masem: Hmm, does that mean that taking pictures of copyrighted logos that appear in public places is okay under FoP only when the use is de minimus? Right now, the picture of the office building is being treated as free, but it seems from your explanation that if the use is not de minimus, it would have to be converted to a non-free file. Mz7 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if it is the case that that image is being treated as free claiming that it is FOP when the subject of the photo is clearly to capture the logos, de minimus does not apply and we should be treating that work as a derivative of the copyrighted logos. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that I have gone ahead and nominated it for deletion at Commons Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rio 2016 Olympics offices.jpg based on reviewing similar cases of FOP mis-use at Commons. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for doing that. It did seem very weird to me as a legal issue to circumvent copyright by taking a photo of a logo located in a public place and being able to freely distribute the photo without restriction based solely on the physical location of that one logo. Mz7 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ed Ross.jpg

Hello - I created the page for photographer Ed Ross who recently died in a motorcycle accident. The page is to ensure his talents are noted and accessible to Wikipedia users, particularly those that share his passion. I was granted permission by Ed's mother to use images on the page, however, those images were deleted this morning. I was also given permission to use the profile photo of Ed that appears on the page currently by the author of that work Eric Mertens. This was given to me via the same means, email. Can you please let me know how I can get these images put back on the page? Is there a form I can send you that notes permissions? Please advise.

Thanks for your time and any assistance you can provide. Tjf5280 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Tjf5280, and condolences for Mr. Ed Ross. By default, we do not permit images only for Wikipedia - images should be reuseable by third parties. You'll need to convince the copyright holders to the images - for Mr. Ross's images that would be his heirs - to give a free license, say one of these listed on commons:COM:L. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Flash Wally West

I need help with uploading a free image on Wally West I have learned the steps but i cannot seem to do it. Christian Ferrer Im very sorry for those other uploads its just that i didnt know how to use Wikipedia all the much until now.I will not do this ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokuwarrior (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Gokuwarrior Wally West does not sound like a topic that would allow free images - almost all such works of fiction are copyrighted. That is, we'll probably have images that need to satisfy WP:NFC there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Woodward_Branson

Hi

All the images are part of my family album, they are of my family and are mine, except two Reynolds & Branson Limited 13 -13 Briggate Leeds LS1 6DL, photo taken 1933 Copyright of Leeds Library and Information Service www.leodis.net & Reynolds & Branson Limited 13 -13 Briggate Leeds LS1 6DL, The shop is on the right by the parked car, photo taken 1933 Copyright of Leeds Library and Information Service www.leodis.net Which i have permmison to use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Woodward_Branson

How do i created a templated simular to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Westminster where the photo are of Parliamentary copyright. Licensing NotCommons-emblem-copyrighted.svg Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They may be downloaded and reused without permission in any format subject to the following conditions: 

   You should not adapt, alter or manipulate any of the images
   You should not use the images so as to bring Parliament into disrepute or use them in a deliberately misleading context
   You should not authorise others to re-use the images
   If a photographer’s name is published on parliament.uk they should be credited
   Photographs should not be used for marketing purposes or used for commercial gain

any help would be great. Regards Paul Bollands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulboll (talk • contribs) 10:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I've slightly edited your post to reduce the whitespace. As to the images, the strong possibility is that they are still under copyright, which lasts for the life of the photographer plus 70 years (if we ignore the complexities of work-for-hire). That they're held in a council archive is neither here nor there. That being the case, in the absence of any proof that they've entered the public domain, they should, in my view, be removed from wikipedia. That sucks, but that's sucky copyright for you. I think there are issues with the article, too, which I'll talk to you about on your talk page, although probably not for another few hours. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

File:''Mercy'' sculpture by Oliver LaGrone, in sculpture garden, Albuquerque Museum.jpg AND File:''Mercy'' sculpture by Oliver LaGrone in UNM Hospitals, Albuquerque.jpg

Each of these photos was taken specifically to document work by Oliver LaGrone, for the Oliver LaGrone Scholarship Committee of the Unitarian Church of Harrisburg. They have not been published elsewhere, although they do appear in hard copy in a LaGrone photo album of the Unitarian Church of Harrisburg. The authors of each have said via email to me that they welcome the pictures being included in a Wikipedia article on LaGrone. I did not personally create these pictures.

How can I designate that they are fine to use in the article I am drafting, Draft:Oliver LaGrone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordell Affeldt (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Cordell Affeldt: The copyright holder (likely Unitarian Church of Harrisburg either the Church or the photographers, but this depends on the agreement it has with the photographers) needs to grant explicit permission. Have them send an e-mail according to the form on this page to permissions-en wikimedia.org. (Do not send it to permissions-commons wikimedia.org; that is for photos uploaded to our affiliate site Wikimedia Commons.)
On the files you've uploaded, you've said that the Church has released these photos into the public domain. This means anyone can use it without giving credit to the Church. If this is really the intent, then you can change the license in the form to Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, which places the photos in the public domain. If that is not intended, you can leave the license alone, since that license requires giving credit.
In the e-mail, be sure to include links to all the files whose permission is being granted. You can find a list of files uploaded under your account at Special:ListFiles/Cordell Affeldt. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 18:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cordell Affeldt: There is also a more problematic issue with the photos of Oliver LaGrone's work. Copyright of such work itself resides with the the artists and remains in force for 70 year after the artist's death, and that copyright is inherited by his heirs. Is unlikely the copyright of the works is held by the Unitarian Church and owning an artist's work confers absolutely no rights on the person regarding the copyright of the work itself, so even though they may agree to licence photos of the works under a free licence it still need the artist's (or his heirs) release. Unfortunately, except for certain artistic works related to dating and copyright registration, in general two copyright releases are required for such photos, one from the photographer and one from the artist or his heirs. Artist's articles can usually justify at least one image of the artist's work under our strict non-free policy so long as there is some discussion in the article about the work itself, such as the style. For the works that were produced before 1978 you need to find out if the works have a copyright notice on them and for those after 1978 you will need the 2nd permission as noted above. Only two of his works appear to have had the copyright registered and your images are not of those works. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Khalid Saleem Dar

Good Afternoon Sir

This is to inform you that many time I have uploaded the image but from your side it get deleted due to copy right.

Please don't delete the image I am making one scientist page blog that I also have to hyper link.

Link of the image given on page number 44 http://ermt.net/docs/papers/Volume_4/10_October2015/V4N10-103.pdf

E-Book link of Mr Khalid Saleem Dar-Biography http://m.dailyhunt.in/Ebooks/english/khalid-saleem-dar-biography-book-205646

Regards Abdullah Dar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullahdar14 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

So what's the question? You uploaded the same image several times and always failed to provide licensing information. It was even discussed here. The links you provided above are all copyright so we cannot use any images from those sources. I'm sorry to tell you that in most situations we only accept freely licensed images and we do not host image for other webpages either. You need to find an appropriate image from somewhere else because your current upload also has no copyright information. ww2censor (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Logos Upload

File:Alderaan.jpg

Hello, I have a lot of smal Logos at the page The Rebel Legion.
The logos are relevant to the organisation and helpful for orientation.
They are part of every unit, an identification of the units.
The owner of the logos is the non-profit organisation "Rebel Legion".
The logos should not be used outside the organisation, thats why they have smal resolution.
I dont know what else as this tag: -{ {Non-free logo|www.rebellegion.com}} i should use.
I dont know how to stopp deleting the logos i uploaded.

Please what do i have to do that the logos are accepted and not longer been deleted?
Thank you for your help

Leroni Verderoc (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Leroni Verderoc (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately all those images are not acceptable because they fail both WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFLISTS as I stated at the deletion discussion. There is really nothing you can do to retain them unless you write individual articles about each temple and use an identifying image in each one. However, such articles would have to be notable in their own right and you could still not use the images in the main article The Rebel Legion. ww2censor (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

really free?

Can this picture File:Cliques_In_Church.jpg really be free? It looks like a newspaper cartoon. Couldn't it be that the Flickr user where it was found has just routinely tagged all her pictures as CC without actually having that right? CapnZapp (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The artist has signed the piece "M Pherjon" on the bottom right and very small on the left side, as far as I can read such low resolution type, is written "©1991 John MacPherson", so it is unlikely the Flickr uploader is the artist and copyright holder. I'll tag it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 10:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
John McPherson (cartoonist). -- Asclepias (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Images in old fan magazines

The Internet Archive website contains files of many old fan magazines with articles and images about celebrities, films, and radio and television programs of the past. Frequently the information provided with the files contains the line "Possible copyright status NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT", as in this example. Can images from those publications be used in Wikipedia articles? Eddie Blick (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The magazines are wonderful sources of PD material! The example you have is for Radio and Television Mirror in 1941. UPenn has a set of copyright books (original registrations and renewals). Renewals not covered there can be checked at copyright.gov. A check would need to be made for the 27th and 28th years after original publication, as some items were renewed early. I just used the UPenn site to check renewals for periodicals for the years 1968 and 1969; the title Radio and Television Mirror wasn't renewed. Use the license {{PD-US-not renewed}} and include information about the copyright search on the file page. There's a wealth of material in those magazines, so have fun exploring .:) We hope (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I will follow up on your suggestions. Eddie Blick (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding Getty Image to Page

Hello, former NFL player Steve Herndon has asked me to edit his Wikipedia page on here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Herndon

He wants to use an image of himself found in Getty Images. The image can be found here http://www.gettyimages.com/license/82901474

Getty Images has agreed to license it to us, however they wanted me to double check with you to see if it follows your guidelines. Please let me know what to do. Thank you for your help.


Shane Martin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Incredibleshane. Our copyright policies do not allow us to host Getty images unless they are accompanied by a free license. How was that photo created? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


I just called Getty Images and they said they don't offer free licenses. I have several portrait images of him I could add instead. They were taken by himself. I'm guessing that wouldn't be a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Incredibleshane Depends on whether we can verify that the photographer permitted that the photos be put under a free license. If you made the photos that's no issue, otherwise an email to WP:OTRS would be necessary I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright thank you for getting back to me so quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't seem to add any image to the page now. There is some kind of autofilter on it. Do you have a suggestion as to how I could add his image to this page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Incredibleshane What is this "autofilter"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

After I upload an image and click submit I get this message commons:Template:Abusefilter-warning-baduploads so I tried to research this a little farther. I looked at its talk page where it said this "This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter." I'm guess that has something to do with it, but I don't know what to do next.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredibleshane (talk • contribs)

Ah yes, you have been using the cross-wiki upload function. It has received enough bad input that it's now blocked. You should probably use the regular uploader at Special:Upload instead.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Before you go forth, has Getty actually agreed to release the image under a free license? Currently, the license page on Getty states that commercial use is not allowed, which would not be considered a free license. Just "permission to use on Wikipedia" isn't enough. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I think they're not speaking of the Getty photo anymore. I suppose it's to keep the conversation in the same section. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Squirrel GoPro

We concluded that the Macaque selfie was not subject to copyright but what about the squirrel GoPro video? (I note that the question of copyright is discussed in the comments.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This question reminds me a little of Andrew Davidson's question on this page. In my mind, it's questionable that merely causing the recording to happen does entitle anyone to a copyright. However, putting the recorder on the ground in front of a tree and turning it on could create a human-held copyright - I don't remember the name of the US Supreme Court case where the copyrightability of photos was established, but some of the arguments raised by the court in favour of that idea may apply here as well. Irrespective of the legal questions, as a matter of courtesy, I would ask for permission under a free license first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding upload of an Image

I need to give the copyright status. I am ready to give the copyright status, but don't know the format to enter these details. I am ready to give the details such as where the image came from, who created it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lujojoseph (talk • contribs) 08:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about File:Krishna-Praba.jpg. Unfortunately this image looks like a professional portrait, so unless you are the actual photographer and own the copyright, you cannot add the details necessary, otherwise verify your permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Besides which the image is found on several websites, such as this one, so it looks like you just copied it from the internet and the copyright is owned by someone else. ww2censor (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I understand the fact. I am going to remove the image soon. If I have an original image with me that is never used elsewhere, what's the format to show my ownership. What are all the details that I included in its description part. Lujojoseph (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
You cannot remove the image but you can add the following tag to the image {{db-blanked}} (include the curly brackets). Owning an image gives you no rights over that image which always belong to the copyright holder unless the copyright has expired which is generally 70 years after their death. I don't know what details you are asking about because when you upload an image here you are usually walked through the process and asked to fill in details along the way, which you need to answer honestly. It appears you did not fill in any detail for this image, but if it will be deleted there is no need. ww2censor (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I understood. My question is if I upload an image that I took with my camera or an image that is never used anywhere on the internet, how can I prove its my image and what is the exact tag i need to include in the description part to prove the ownership of my image Lujojoseph (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, ok. If it is you own image, you can just use the upload wizard on the commons and it will ask you appropriate questions. If it is your image you will be asked what license you want to use, etc., It is pretty straight forward. When you click on the button to confirm it is an image created by you, not copied from elsewhere or from the internet, a default license will be listed but there is a link to see other acceptable licenses. There is also a small info button in a circle at the left for more information about each field if you don't understand. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Youtube CC license

Please look at this video. Is "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)" enough to meet our CC-BY-SA requirements so that screenshots from that video can be used in articles here? --NeilN talk to me 16:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If you click on the license it takes you to Learn about copyright on YouTube, which links to the exact CC license: CC-BY 3.0. It's an acceptable license and there's a Wikimedia Commons temaplate for it: c:Template:YouTube CC-BY. Upload any screenshots there.
There is a minor error in your question that I want to correct: all text imported to Wikipedia has to be compatible with CC-BY-SA (3.0), but for images certain additional free licenses apply (WP:C). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It does look like the license is a CC-BY-SA (and importantly no -NC (non-commercial) restriction). However, from the page with the video's attribution [10] it might be a reposting of a previous video that had been taken down. Obviously no way to check that. So what might be happening is the is the same as Flickrwashing, reposting non-CC videos with CC licenses.
My rule of thumb for YouTube is that if the material looks professional (like this does), that the user account posting it is clearly the entity that created the content and can be a verified account for that entity, so that they have the right to assign the CC-BY, license. This would even apply to non-free screencaps from Youtube videos, I would expect those only to be taken from videos confirmed to be uploaded by the entity that made them or would have clear rights to upload them (like Fox Network would for Simpsons clips). --MASEM (t) 16:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The video I linked to was uploaded by the rights holder. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This looks OK to me. The attribution mentioned above is from this suspended account. Much more likely the suspended account used Ten Sports's content than the other way around. INeverCry 19:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Thank you for the comment and the restoration. --NeilN talk to me 19:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's a still from the video: File:P.V. Sindhu.png. INeverCry 19:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Here's my take on it: The way I read the YouTube Terms Of Service the standard YouTube license does not allow making screenshots from videos and uploading elsewhere. Because section 8.1A of the YouTube TOS says "to each user of the Service, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such Content to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Service", section 5.1L says "you agree not to access Content for any reason other than your personal, non-commercial use solely as intended through and permitted by the normal functionality of the Service, and solely for Streaming", and section 5.1M says "You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content" (my emphasis). And since YouTube doesnt have a button that takes a screenshot and uploads it to Wikimedia Commons, making a screenshot and uploading it to Commons violates the TOS, and the license. Any thoughts? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    • There are thousands of converted YouTube videos on Commons so obviously they're okay with the licensing. Pinging INeverCry again. --NeilN talk to me 20:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The way I see it, after reading their TOS, downloading YouTube videos and uploading them somewhere else also violates both the YouTube TOS and the Standard YouTube License, since YouTube explicitly do not allow downloading videos.. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • This practice is no different that using CC-marked images on Flickr on Wikipedia. Note that there was no downloading of the video, simply a still shot (Screenshot) from the video was used to make this image -- and the video content itself is licensed as CC-BY by a user account that belongs to the rightsholder (Ten Sports). This video was also presumably distributed through other platforms, and as such we should be worried simply about the license of the video itself rather than any particular platform hosting it. Dalek2point3 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

File:MarijaLatticeworkBiskupijaKnin.jpg

Should this file be licensed under {{Non-free architectural work}}? Maybe {{Non-free 3D art}} would be more appropriate for this type of thing if it's really non-free? Also, the source link given for the image is (according to Google Translate) belongs to the Croatian Encyclopedia which is copyrighted (according to Google Translate) by Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography; however, there's no copyright information specific to this particular image provided on the source link. I'm assuming someone took the photo, but not sure if the LZMK can claim copyright over it. The same image can be seen online on a number of websites such as here and here which says the image comes from the Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments (MHAS). There's a category on Commons called c:Category:Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments, so I'm wondering if this file can be converted to PD in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's very counter-intuitive to use a non-free image to depict romanesque art from Medieval Croatia. If that's really as specific as the need to illustrate goes, then any image at c:Category:Romanesque art in Croatia will do. This one fails WP:NFCC#8 in this article. Because it's a 3D object the photograph necessarily contains originality and needs to be licensed free, separate from the object, and since no one seems to know who took the photo, I doubt it will happen. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
{{Non-free 3D art}} is questionable - a faithful attempt at reconstructing a 3D medieval work of art would be PD for the same reason as {{PD-Art}} usually is. An existing reconstruction is of course not {{Non-free architectural work}}. The file fails WP:NFCC#1 in my mind - Medieval art in Croatia should be freely accessible enough that one could easily ~create and freely license a photo of actual medieval art. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The category Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments has free photos, taken by Wikimedia contributors, of free objects in the Museum. This file has no evidence of being a free photograph. It should be deleted. It's not necessary to go into considerations about the pictured object. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Finnusertop, Jo-Jo Eumerus and Asclepias for taking a closer look at this. It seems that everyone is in agreement that this file does not satisfy WP:NFCCP and should be deleted, right? Should the next step be to tag it for speedy with {{rfu}} or something similiar or should it be discussed at FFD? Also, the same editor also uploaded File:StefatonKnin.png as non-free which seems to have same issues as the above-mentioned file. Should this be dealt with in the same way as the first file? One thing about the source link to the second file is that is immediate starts downloading as a pdf file when clicked (at least it did when I clicked on it) which does not seem to be a good thing even if the file's licensing is OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: {{subst:rfu}} it and add a link here in the reason parameter. No need to clog up FFD with this. Take it there only if the admin refuses. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Finnusertop. File has been tagged. If I missed something or did it incorrectly, just let me know. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Permissions

I created a couple imaged from Google Images but the Authors couldn't produce a clear copyright title and I've allowed them to be deleted. One of the authors send me two new images and I uploaded them. After uploading them I replied to the email saying I uploaded them and did a CC to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with a serial number provided by Wikipedia. I asked the author/professor to also email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org making it 110% clear that these images that he said he created just for Wikipedia to be placed in the Public Domain were in fact so. I guess Dr. Willamson would like to focus on his Physics and may be trying to leave this to me. Unfortunately my impression is that the mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org must come from the author. How can I fix this?

  • File:Williamson Electron Spinnor Twisted Photon Strip.png - This file is missing evidence of permission.

Below it says "This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Dr. John Williamson. This applies worldwide." which is true.

The other picture that Dr. Williamson sent seems to be in better compliance: 

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Williamsons_Torodial_Electron.png

Perhaps it my Other information:

Other information John Has released this file to be in the Public domain specifically for WikiPedia.

Email: Hello Piet and everyone,

The one from the eprint may have a SPIE copyright on it. Again not sure here.

Had a go at making a new one for you but my old (windows) machine will no longer boot. Need to spend a bit of time getting Povray working. Anyone got POVRAY working on a MAC?

Here is one I'm sure has never been used, so the copyright is mine. Is this the kind of thing you are looking for?

Regards to all, John.

I'll add this to the non-compliant image and ask John to send his copyright declaration to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org. Maybe the mistake was my Cc:ing permissions-en@permissions-en@wikipedia.org which appears to be for text, not images.--Pete.delaney (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

permissions-en@wikipedia.org is just fine since you uploaded the image directly at Wikipedia. And it would in fact be helpful if Dr. Williamson himself could confirm that he waived the copyright for these two images because this is not evident from the email text you posted here and in the file pages. If you got a ticket number from any previous emails to the permissions agents, please ask Dr. Williamson to include this number in his message so our email helpers can combine these tasks. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

change from non-free use to release under Creative Commons

Please can you advise how I change a non-free image I have uploaded to being in the 'release under a free licence category'. I took the photo myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclomath (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Encyclomath: Pick a license from WP:ICT/FL, and replace the {{Non-free historic image}} tag on the file page with the license you chose. Then replace the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template with the {{Information}} template, and remove any parameters you don't need. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Uploading an author photo at a book signing; I am the author

Hi, I read through a page of many questions already asked and didn't find an answer I feel confident addresses my current issue exactly.

I am an author, and have a page on Wikipedia. I am looking to upload an image of myself at a book signing for the main image. It is my photo, taken by a non-photographer/layman friend at my request. The (my) book cover (which I illustrated) is visible in the photo, as is a poster behind me of one of the other illustrations.

Which tag should I use to upload this image?

Thank you, Huicholo (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Huicholo: Greetings. I hate saying this but a non-photographer/layman friend at my request is a problem - they would be the copyright holder. You'll need to ask them to make an account and upload the file. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Yemeni Government Emblems

I'm inquiring as to the copyright of emblems/insignias produced by the Government of Yemen. I had created an svg of the Yemeni Air Force insignia, however this was deleted from wikicommons on the grounds that I do not own the copyright. As such I have uploaded it under a fair-use tag on wikipedia here in the mean time. Yemen has notoriously poor copyright/intellectual property regulations, however I was wondering if anyone had any knowledge of the copyright status of items produced by the government. Many thanks MrPenguin20 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I had a quick glance at this WIPO page Intelletual Property Law (Presidential Law Decree No. 19 of 1994 in respect of Intellectual Property) but it needs to be carefully reviewed before making any suggestions. ww2censor (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Resemblance to copyrighted character

This lantern (File:Teemo lantern.jpg, file will be restored soon), is supposed to resemble the copyrighted character, Teemo, (some pictures) from the game League of Legends. The image was originally uploaded to commons, but was deleted, because supposedly a 3d recreation is not covered by Freedom of panorama under Republic of China (Taiwan) law. I re-upped it locally on en.wiki, but it was again deleted under the premise that licensing wasn't properly indicated. However it seems like rules allowing for Costumes and cosplay may permit the image to be hosted. Also, in my personal opinion, the depiction doesn't even closely resemble the source at all, so even if it weren't eligible for fair use criteria, it shouldn't matter. Sorry but I'm not sure how to clearly describe the situation and use the proper legal terminology.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to request some assistance and guidance on uploading a certain company logo. For your information, I have written in to the company request for permission for uploading their logo image to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreenspokeperson (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Thegreenspokesperson: Greetings. What company is the logo of? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Thegreenspokeperson: Normally we allow the use of non-free logos as an identifying image in the infobox of articles about the company though in some cases the logo is so simple it may not be copyrightable because it does not pass the Threshold of originality. We don't nee their permission but I should mention that Wikipedia use alone is not a good enough permission for images in general. It also looks like the article you are preparing is not really notable enough to have its own article based on the source you added. It is missing reliable independent third party sources. You seem to be preparing that article in your user space which is generally used to tell other editors about yourself, your interests and activities; the best place is to start a draft in your sandbox. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: & @Ww2censor: It is one of the Malaysia companies. The company name is KEN Holdings Berhad. I believe you could easily search it on Google. As for the image, you can view it on this link as I couldn't upload or attach it on this chat space. https://www.google.com/search?q=ken+holdings+logo&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKopebwdvOAhVBPY8KHVofAg0Q_AUICCgB&biw=1185&bih=895#imgrc=qciTCTm--5b56M%3A Apart from that, it would be great if you could guide me how to upload the image to Wikipedia as I was creating general articles for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreenspokesperon (talk • contribs)

Ah. In that case you should upload it on Wikipedia with the license tag {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Malaysia}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hi Jo-Jo, actually where should I enter the code provided by you? Appreciate it if you could provide me a link for uploading the image. Frankly speaking, this is going be my first time uploading image to Wikipedia. For your information, I tried to upload it to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ken-Holdings-Logo-vector.png . Correct me if I'm wrong in the progress. Thanks again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreenspokeperson (talk • contribs) 09:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC+9) (UTC)

Hi thegreenspokesperson. Please try to remember to sign your posts. This will make it much easier for others to see who posted what and when they posted it. Also, certain notification templates, such as "ping", only work when your post is properly signed the first time around. They will not work when you save an unsigned post and the signature is added after the fact by you, User:SignBot, or another editor like I did above.
As for your question, you can find out more about uploading files at Wikipedia:Uploading images. The easiest thing to do is use to use Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. You will need to have a copy of the file on your computer, however, so you should download a version of the logo from the source webpage to your computer. The Wizard will take you through the process step-by-step, you just need to fill in the relevant information. Since the file is "PD-ineligible-USonly", you should check "This is a free work." in "Step 3: Provide source and copyright information". You should then select "It is too simple to be eligible for copyright." in "Copyright status". After you complete all of the relevant fields, you will be able to use the "Upload" button near the bottom of the screen. If you're satisfied all of the information has been added correctly then click "Upload" to upload the file, but don't click "Upload on Commons". Now, that you've uploaded the file, go to it's page (this will be "File:Name.extension" where "name" refer to the name you've given the file and the extension is the format the file is in (e.g., png, jpeg, etc.)). There should be a link to the file's page on your screen after you upload it. Go to the "Licensing" section on the file's page and click "edit". Delete the copyright license added by the upload wizard and replace it with {{PD-ineligible-USonly|Malaysia}} (you need to add the brackets). Then right below that template, add {{Trademark}} and then click "Show preview" to verify. If everything looks OK, click "Save page" and the process will be complete. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Please feel free to correct any mistakes I've made above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hi JoJo, I uploaded it as per advice so does it's mean it been approved or I have to wait for a certain period of time? Thanks for the advice. Thegreenspokeperson (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Just for reference, the file can now be found at File:Logo, Ken Holdings Berhad, Aug 2016.png, but there is a duplicate on Commons as File:Ken-Holdings-Logo-vector.png tagged with c:Template:OTRS pending. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Thegreenspokeperson: Did you upload the file to Commons as well and did you send a permissions email for it to Commons OTRS? The copyright licensing {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is not acceptable for Commons, but if Commons OTRS verifies the permission email you sent it, then there would be no need for the Wikipedia version. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Hi Marchiuly, ya i accidently uploaded it to the Commons before i received advice from Jo-Jo. However, i have already edit format to delete and nominate the duplicate on Commons to be deleted. Thegreenspokeperson (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
No worries Thegreenspokeperson. The Commons file has been tagged for speedy deletion by JJMC89. For future reference, you yourself can tag files you have mistakenly uploaded to Commons within 7 days from uploading it with c:Template:SDG7 per c:COM:CSD#G7. Anything older than 7 days, however, needs to be deleted per c:COM:DR. Finally for reference, I was the one who posted this so if it turns out to be bad advice, then just let me know and I'll see what I can do to help resolve any issues that arise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly:. Actually, your advice did work out pretty good. It is because I don’t have the experience uploading the image to Wikipedia. Frankly speaking, I believe I wouldn’t able to work it out without the advice and guidance provided by you. In addition, it was great getting to know you. Last but not least, thanks again March. Thegreenspokeperson (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A photograph of a standard plush bear - Is it a "Derivative work"?

I received a copyright notice related to File:BellaireHSTexasBears.JPG stating that it could be a derivative work. I took the photograph, but the question is that whether photographing standard plush bears dressed in high school regalia (meant to represent Bellaire High School (Texas)) would count as a derivative work WhisperToMe (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The design of the stuffed bear is definitely copyrightable (it is not like a "utilitarian object" like a car or piece of furniture which cannot be copyrighted). So unless you know that the designer or owner of the copyright of the bear has licensed it as CC-BY or similar, it should be considered a derivative work. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
All I can tell is that the bear came from "Hometown Products" which seems to be a small company based in Magnolia, Texas. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Then the design of the bear is still likely copyrighted, so this is a derivative work to be treated as non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It's just an ordinary plush bear, isn't that too simple to be copyrighted?--Prisencolin (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
No, a plush bear involves a lot of creative choices. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a complex issue/complaint

My name is Latonya Roberts,I have a complex issue/complaint.I have had my Copyright and infringement rights violated,hacked,stolen.I am desperately trying to get in contact with California Commission for a modified review of my copyrights.I also have been a victim of medical fraud and have been implante with medical device of some sort.Without my knowledge of or my consent.I am a Injured/Sick Patient.In need of a Advocate.I need to know how to speeak with the Attorney General.As I have and currently am given medication to harm my immune system.I am suffering with fatal adverse reactions.please help lease — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latonya Roberts (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Monte Carlo vodka

Monte Carlo vodka has a US Copyrigh, please make sure our file is going back, it was removed for no reason, we did provide a copyright number ans still someone is doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcv369 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Per this message on your talk page, you did not provide enough information with the file upload, and so the file was removed. What is more problematic if your plain connection with (presumably the company that makes) Monte Carlo vodka. Please give WP:COI a read. You can upload the image again, but you must provide sufficient info and an appropriate licence. That may well be the sticking point ... we require a free licence for the image, and if you're supplying a corporate image you may well have to go through the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team to validate that you have the authority to licence the image for wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

File:NAACP logo new.jpg

Is this simple enough for PD-textlogo? --15:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laberkiste (talk • contribs)

I would say that that it probably does not pass the threshold of originality. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
We already have File:NAACP logo 2010.png, and it's considered above the threshold or originality and non-free. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't awake. I meant to say that it does pass the threshold, and is non-free. Thank's for noticing my error -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Above TOO, but how old is the logo? I've noticed that frequently logos from the times where copyright notices were needed are considered non-free when no indication of a copyright notice or registration are found. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2016/August&oldid=1140201405"