Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/December

Copyright Question

Hi,

I need help choosing the right copyright tag for File:Peter Spears Headshot.jpeg before it is deleted.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelterpr01 (talk • contribs)

Hello @Shelterpr01:, assuming you are not the "studio photographer" mentioned in the upload information, you'll need to provide a verified license from the current copyright owner (usually the photographer). Apparently the image has been previously published on other sites, which makes such a verification even more important. If the copyright owner wants to grant a completely free license (incl. commercial and off-Wiki usage), Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials contains information about the license verification via mail. Two more points: 1) currently the image is hosted both on en-Wiki and Commons. Assuming it can be freely licensed, the en-Wiki file is redundant (Commons is the preferred location for free images and other media). 2) If you are editing for a PR firm on behalf of these actors and actresses, you must disclose this conflict of interest. I have added some information about this issue on your user talkpage - please make sure to read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Hope this helps with a few of the basic questions, but please feel free to ask if you need further media-related help here. GermanJoe (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

New York State archives copyright questions

I am currently in the process of improving Buffalo, New York, to WP:GA or potentially WP:FA status. I am also looking for historical photos that put the subject in context. This website has an ambiguous copyright policy. On the one hand, most of the images were taken over 70 years ago. On the other, some were done by companies such as "Fairchild Aerials." Complicating this is the fact that many of the images lack dates. So are these pictures a no-go, despite their quality? Buffaboy ^talk 04:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The website has this copyright page that clearly states the copyright permission must be obtained from the copyright holders, so unless, for each image, you can determine the date of publication and copyright holder as 70 years old is not good enough for us. You may want to refer to the Hirtle chart for more info where you will see that unpublished works must be 120 years old. I'm afraid you are likely out of luck. Don't forget to search the Library of Congress photo collection at https://www.loc.gov/photos/ Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent answer, thank you. Buffaboy ^talk 12:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyrights and commercial use

Hi

If an image has an unknown copyright status, is it free to use for commercial use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.29.209.220 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

If the copyright status is unknown then it would be unknown as to whether or not it can be used commercially. That is the whole idea behind "unknown". When in doubt, it is safer to assume that all images have an "All Rights Reserved" type copyright status. It is safer to assume no, it is not free. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Politicians' photos (UK)

Hi there - I was wondering what "Personality rights warning" meant. I noticed that it's been added to numerous photos of UK politicians eg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_portrait_of_Jeremy_Corbyn_crop_2.jpg

Does this mean that we are no longer allowed to add them to election infoboxes? I'm confused by what it means, especially as it has a big exclamation mark which would usually indicate that something cannot be used. Can anyone clarify? Are we allowed to use them? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@FriendlyDataNerdV2: It is a secondary type of right given to photos of people outside of the normal copyright protections. See personality rights. Basically, different countries (and states in the US) have laws that govern how you can use someone's likeness. The template you mentioned is just a warning for outside reusers that such laws exist and that they need to be aware of them if they plan on reusing those photos. You are allowed to use them on Wikipedia as much as you want. --Majora (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see! That's very helpful, thank you! So the Parliamentary portraits, like the ones I've linked to, are free to use across Wikipedia in election infoboxes and the like? (Apologies if this seems clear already, I'm relatively new to editing). Kindest regards, FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Let me preface this with the standard, "this isn't legal advice so if you have specific questions on the reuse of a specific image outside of Wikipedia contact a lawyer". However, personality rights are generally for commercial reusers. So, I can't take a photo of you, slap it on a t-shirt, and sell it. Your likeness has restrictions on its use. Since Wikipedia isn't a commercial enterprise you are free to use any freely licensed image on Wikipedia as much as you want. --Majora (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Majora - that answers my question perfectly, I really appreciate it. Hope you have a good day, kindest regards FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

SPEEDYY DELETION

Hello, my page was deleted due to copyright problem with Word Press. I own all rights of my material every bit of it, WP has no rights. I would like to be noted on your site and so wish you would look into the issue. I own all rights and to all Southern Raiders Band material including all songs and rights. Johnny Abbott

1. REDIRECT Target page name

§Johnny Abbott — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1srb (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

If you grant Wikipedia no rights, the work will be deleted - all content needs to comply to the appropriate Creative Commons licence (which is why you see "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" when you edit a page). Since a search for "Southern Raiders Band" on Google News comes back with 0 hits aside from a Bandcamp site, I don't think it's possible for anyone to write a neutral and well-referenced article on this topic. Find another article to edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Angela Boškin.jpg

File:Angela Boškin.jpg appears to be a crop of c:File:Angela Boškin.jpg. If it is and the Commons' file's license is the OK, then there's no need for a non-free file locally on Wikipedia. If there are concerns about the Commons file's licensing, then perhaps the local file should be renamed so it no longer shadows the Commons file and so that Lysteria bot, etc. stops mistakening it for the Commons file and adding it to various pages outside of the article namespace in violation of WP:NFCC#9. FWIW, the non-free was uploaded in September 2016 and the Commons one was uploaded just a few days ago, which explains why this is just being flagged as an issue right now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Initially it might be best to rename one of the files so they don't shadow one another, and then try to figure out the copyright status, which from Susunw's talk page discussion with you appears to be unverified. ww2censor (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree about the shadowing. The question is which file name to change. I think it would be easier just to add "(cropped)" to the local one, but that's just my opinion. As for the Commons' file licensing, I intend to ask about that at c:COM:VP/C. I was just waiting for someone to respond here just in case some was able to clarify the licensing of either file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

With no evidence of publication this is likely still in copyright 120 years after 1914: so 2035. I agree that adding (cropped) to the local one is likely best and if you like I will nominate it for deletion on the commons, while pointing to the discussions. The commons template PD-Slovenia may well be good but on the commons it must also be PD in the US, so it may be ok on the Slovenia wiki. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Ww2censor. Just for reference, there have been comments made at c:COM:VP/C#File:Angela Boškin.jpg that the Commons file might actually be PD, but is just using the wrong license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Question about uploading photos

Hello. I'd like to upload official photos of several members of the Minnesota State Senate. They are the official state portrait, taken by the official Senate photographer. I work for the Minnesota State Senate and have the photographer's permission to use these photos. How do I go about uploading them so I don't get repeatedly berated by administrators for not following the rules?Jas88934 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jas88934:: From your talk page I see you have already had issues with some images you uploaded. As another editor mentioned that the source page has a clear copyright statement we cannot use those images without verification of permission under a free licence. It is preferable to upload images to the wikimedia commons so all language wikis can use images not just this language wiki. I assume the copyright has been transferred to the State, otherwise the photographer is usually the copyright holder and they would be the one to verify their permission. The images should be uploaded to the commons and verification can be done with the Commons OTRS Team. This page explains the licenses and most of what you need to know about licensing. Once you have reviewed that, the copyright holder can verify their permission by using the Interactive Release Generator found linked on the commons OTRS page or directly at: https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/. Currently that is quicker than the email route because the OTRS Team are rather backlogged at 89 days. BTW, because you work for the State you should familiarise yourself with conflict of interest and should disclose that as described at WP:DISCLOSE. Just ask if you need more help. ww2censor (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thank you!!! Jas88934 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Photographs in a 1956 book

The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art is a 1956 book by Harold Plenderleith (d. 1997) that was published in Britain. Plate 31 contains two photographs of the Emesa helmet, which are credited to the British Museum. Could someone please advise me on the copyright status of these two photographs? As it is, I would have thought that the entire book would still be under copyright (life +70), but it's online in its entirely, and I'm even more unsure about the photographs. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Usernameunique At the end of the list of illustrations are acknowledgements and most, which included plate 31, are attributed to the Trustees of the British Museum, so I suggest the images are copyright for 70 years after publication, i.e., 2027, as you say. Being available online does not have any bearing on its copyright status. You have also uploaded File:Emesa helmet.png as a non-free image that clearly fails WP:NFCC#1 because a freely licensed image could be taken of the helmet at its current location which apparently is the National Museum of Damascus. I rather poor quality image exists on Flickr but it is not freely licensed, however, it proves an image can be taken. Perhaps one of our Syrian wikipedians can get access to the item, though in the current state of that country it may be difficult. ww2censor (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ww2censor Thanks for the clarification. I had thought archive.org paid attention to copyright status, hence the confusion. All the Flikr image proves, however, is that a photograph could be taken in 2013. Most of the National Museum is currently empty. (By the way, I already asked that user about an appropriate license, no response yet. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Usernameunique: Not all of archive.org's content is in the public domain. You have to look carefully at the entry for the copyright status and even then some content may not be free in both the US and the source country, which commons requires, or free in the US for this wiki to keep. As I suggested it may be difficult to get a photo currently, but unless it is known to no longer exist, a free photo could be taken at some time. BTW, I have waited more than a year for a response from some Flickr users to requests, so patience is required. Another suggestion is to make contact directly with the museum and encourage them to release a free image which might get a positive response, especially if you point out how other such institutions have shared their material with wikimedia commons or on Flickr but of course freely licensed. ww2censor (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ww2censor, by that logic it would be inappropriate to have photographs illustrating No. 5, 1948 or Portrait of Madame Cézanne, let alone any art produced in the last century, because we could just wait until they're out of copyright. Hypotheticals aside, the bottom line is that it is currently not possible to take a photograph (and yes, I previously reached out to the Musée de la civilisation, which exhibited the helmet in 1999, and their liaison at the National Museum of Damascus, without success—I was offered low-resolution images and no rights for $100 each); when and if it does become possible would be the time to propose the deletion of a non-free image. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Usernameunique Unfortunately that's not the way the non-free policy works. We have been through these arguments several times before. The very first requirement of WP:NFCC#1 includes the phrase could be created and that is the key and why the non-free image you want to upload cannot be used, no matter how difficult it may be to achieve, sometime in the future, sooner or later, a freely licensed image could be made. Portrait of Madame Cézanne fails your argument because Cézanne died in 1906, so it is already in the public domain for 11 years and File:No. 5, 1948.jpg complies with the NFCC policy because it falls within the exception WP:NFCI #7 for paintings because it is used to illustrate the article about the painting itself or as sourced critical commentary about the painting. Our non-free is much stricter than the legal term fair-use and no matter which way you slice it, I'm sorry it's unfortunate but but I don't see either of the images complying. Personally, if you really want the 1999 image I would go back to the Musée de la civilisation and point out how many other institutions contribute images via the Flickr Institutions participation, many without restrictions, and ask them to license their image freely again without a fee. ww2censor (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Ww2censor Portrait of Madame Cézanne, as linked above, is by Roy Lichtenstein (d. 1997).

Regardless, the phrase "could be created" is quite vague, and its malleability can serve different opinions; you suggest an extremely open-ended interpretation, and I suggest one that is more definite. What separates your logic from arguing, for example, that The Storm on the Sea of Galilee could be photographed if only the thieves would give it back; that Portrait of a Young Man could be photographed if it still exists; or that the Buddhas of Bamiyan could be photographed if only time travel could be invented? The answer is probably degrees of likelihood and difficulty, and I suggest that it is sufficiently difficult and unlikely to get a photograph of an object that is currently hidden away. But I'm clearly not going to convince you, so I will not continue this discussion here. Best, --Usernameunique (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Usernameunique Your Portrait of Madame Cézanne link did not say which image on that page you were referring to, but either way the Lichtenstein image is being used, as I suggested for other such an art image, by way of critical commentary which passes WP:NFCC#8. Indeed you are correct that could be created can have different interpretations by different people, however, as I already stated, this has been discussed several times and the generally accepted view is that to comply with the non-free policy, images of people and things that are known to not exist can usually pass the non-free criteria, otherwise it means if it is at all possible at some time likely that an image can be taken we will not accept such an image, which is the case for your helmet. The 3 examples you mention are red herrings because we already have images of these. If you are not happy with the situation then perhaps you should try to get the policy changed, which is highly unlikely considering it is based on policy for more than 12 years, by making a request at: WT:NFC but there are several discussions in that pages archives that confirm the same view I am giving you. I'm sorry but there is really nothing more I can tell you no matter how you argue the case. ww2censor (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright of Java Simulation

I intend to make a youtube video about thin film interference and I found a wave superposition simulation linked to the wikipedia page "Interference (wave propagation)". The simulation is called "Easy JavaScript Simulation Model of One Dimensional Wave Interference" However, I don't know if putting this simulation in a youtube video would be a copyright infringement. Am I allowed to use this simulation?PhantomOfTheHourglass (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Unless the author of the simulation has clearly put it in a free license, like public domain or CC-BY, then by default the output of their program is copyrighted (even if one is talking a simple graphic result, which normally could be considered under the threshold of originality, the addition of animation compounds the matter and we should assume copyright). However, if we're talking the wave superposition principle, I suspect that you can get someone from the Graphics Lab to help create an equivalent image/animation or find one that is already free. --Masem (t) 16:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Commissioned artwork copyright status

I had a piece of digital art commissioned and drawn for me. If I upload it to Wikipedia, what is the copyright attribution that I should list it under? Antoshi ☏ ★ 13:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that in most cases, commissioned works are under the copyright of the commissioner, not the artist. Depending on the country of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

All right, well I live in the United States. What should I choose for the attribution in the File Upload Wizard? "This file is entirely my own work" or "This file was given to me by its owner"? Antoshi ☏ ★ 14:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Still looking for an answer on this, unfortunately. I did some digging and the website I purchased the commission from states in their FAQ, "By default customers are granted the worldwide, royalty-free, rights to use the resulting artwork for personal and noncommercial use only. You may download, modify, print and distribute your artwork in places such as social networks and blogs, but may not commercially resell the art. If you wish buy the full rights, you must contact the artist to discuss this option." What attribution would this fall under? Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia nor Commons will accept any free license that restricts commericial use or derivative use. You will need to use one of these or these, but only if they apply. A file uploaded under a free license must, in principle, be able to be used for any purpose including commercial by anyone anywhere in the world. So, if you are not 100% sure that the copyright holder is willing to give their explicit consent to allow such a thing, then you only option left would be to upload the file as non-free content, but that can be hard to do in many cases because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been intentionally made much more restrictive than the US concept of fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If I were the contact the artist, what should I ask them to provide? Antoshi ☏ ★ 00:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

See c:COM:OTRS or WP:COPYREQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Uploading photo

Hello, I want to upload a photo to a wikipedia article, but I do not own the photo. I would like to cite it, however. Am I able to do that? Thank you. Emmaosmundson (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you don't own it, you probably can't upload it (unless it was published in the U.S. before 1923, for example). Also: I don't understand what you mean by "I would like to cite it." Can we get more clarifying details? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free content

Is there any reason why File:STED Jablonski.jpg and File:STED Insturmentation.jpg shouldn't be considered replaceable non-free content? None of the individual elements in either of those diagrams seems copyrightable and there does exist File:Fluorophore.png being used in the same article as the two non-free. Perhaps the images themselves are eligible for copyright protection, but the individual elements all seem fairly utilitarian in nature. So, it seems possible that someone could recreate this and release it under a free license if these actual images are protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I want to upload an image where someone else is the copyright owner

I want to upload an image where the copyright owner is the deceased artists sister. She can and will give me permission to upload it, but, I don't want to burden her with dealing with wiki directly…she's elderly and not computer savvy. How can I upload the image myself and also have her grant permission to use it? She does have email, but that's about all she can handle.

Thanks!

GuerillaGirl53 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuerillaGirl53 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi GuerillaGirl53. Take a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder for more details, but generally an explicit declaration of consent is needed from the copyright holder for the image to be uploaded under a free license. Basically, the copyright holder is giving their consent to allow the image to be downloaded by anyone anywhere in the world at any time for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia Commons will not accept any free license which restricts commercial use or says something "for Wikipedia use only". Moreover, once a image has been released under a free license, said license cannot be canceled or revoked. If the copyright holder is fine with that then you can upload the file to Wikimedia Commons on her behalf using c:Commons:Upload, but she will have to email the aforementioned consent email to Wikimedia OTRS. Just for reference, releasing the file under a free license does not mean that the copyright holder is relinquishing their copyright over it. It just means that they are agreeing to let others use the image as long as they comply with certain conditions.

There is another option called non-free content which may be more suitable in this case. Uploading a non-free file does not require the permission of the original copyright holder, but the use of the file is required to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy is quite restrictive and not suitable for all images. It's hard to say if non-free content is a viable option with respect to this image without knowing more about the image itself and how it is intended to be used on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

A Flickr image of A. A. Gill

I wanted to upload this photo of A. A. Gill as freely license. I emailed the photographer, and he gave permission to let me use it. However, I've not seen the photographer grant permission to allow commercial and derivative use under licensing terms. If I upload it as non-free with permission, would the image still pass WP:NFCC? George Ho (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi George Ho. I'm assuming you want to use the file in the main infobox. I say assuming because the link you provided for the file appears to be broken. A free license with no restrictions would be the best option here, but if you made a reasonable search for free alternatives which can serve the same encyclopedic purpose of the one you want to use and have come up empty, then a non-free might be permissible. The definition of "reasonable" may vary from person to person and for some it might be closer in meaning to "exhaustive", but you seem to have contacted someone to try and get them to release their file under a license Wikipedia can use, and you cannot force them to do so; therefore, I think it's probably OK as {{non-free biog-pic}} per item 10 of WP:NFCI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops; here's the correct link. George Ho (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Neither Wikipedia nor Commons consider that to be a free license compatiable with their repsective policies, so non-free is the only option unless the Flickr account holder wants to change the licensing for that particular image. It might be courteous to ask, but you I don't believe you need the photographer's permission to upload the file as non-free content. There appear to be quite a number of images of this person found online. Excluding the Getty ones and the newspaper images, maybe one of those copyright holders can be persuaded to release one under a free license. Also, he appears to have led quite a public life, so maybe one of his fans took a photo of him at some event or just while he was out and about. Did you try asking about this at WP:RI or c:COM:RI ? Obviously, a new image cannot be taken, but someone might know where an older one released under a free license can be found, or they be able to convince someone to release an image under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Done requesting a freely licensed image. George Ho (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I contacted the library that uploaded this photo. It gave permission, all right, but could neither change its license nor allow smaller or cropped versions to be freely used. I was able to contact another photographer of that photo; he granted permission but has not yet decided whether to let the image be freely used. George Ho (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho:: what sort of permission did the library give? It is really best of they verify the permission with the OTRS team but right now, as you may well know, they are backlogged about 68 days, so probably the best way to start the process is to use the Interactive Release Generator. ww2censor (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear when I said "permission". I'll elaborate further. The library didn't give permission to Wikimedia Commons to freely use the image. Actually, the library lets Wikipedia use the image if I wanted to, but then I would end up treating the image as non-free by default since the library would neither change the license from CC-BY-NC to CC-BY-SA/CC-BY nor release a smaller, cropped version of the photo under CC-BY-SA/CC-BY. I can use {{non-free with permission}}, which requires another fair use tag, so I should use also "non-free fair use" tag. George Ho (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Licensing details for coat of arms and emblems

Hi, I'm updating some South African coat of arms and emblems. I uploaded a SVG file for the coat of arms of the Northern Cape, but can't find a good example for the Summary and Licensing – the other eight Provinces of South Africa are all over the place. Also, I just uploaded SVG emblems for the South African Navy and South African National Defence Force. What would be the preferred licensing and description rationale for a coat of arms and emblem? Regards (Vectorebus (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC))

Technically, coats of arms are not copyrightable as such, because the coat itself is simply a description: "Sable, a cup argent, issuant thereout a laurel wreath proper" or whatever. HOWEVER, any given depiction of those arms is a work of art, and thus can be copyrighted by the artist. Thus, we only allow files depicting coats of arms, achievements, crests, etc. to be uploaded for which the artist who drew them has given an appropriate license or release, or which due to the antiquity of the rendition fall in the public domain. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Quotation of whole texts of translations of Japanese very short PD poems?

Hey! A bunch of articles (several written by me, but I was just following a template laid out by others before) quote 20th-century scholarly translations of several medieval Japanese waka poems in the entirety. Two articles that stand out are Fujiwara no Teika, with eight poems, and Ariwara no Narihira, with five poems.

Obviously the source texts can be freely quoted as their authors have been dead for centuries, and Wikipedia-original translations are therefore also apparently allowed per WP:NONENG, but I've always justified quoting the translations given in scholarly reference works to myself with the claim that the translations in, for instance, Keene 1999 (cited extensively in the Narihira article) are not meant to stand on their own as literary works but are meant to illustrate the author's discussion of the biography of the poet, and so could be treated the same as any other short piece of quoted text.

But I'm wondering if my interpretation is wrong? I've recently been giving someone else heat for unattributed copy-paste jobs, and I don't want to be a hypocrite. (There's also the fact that, during my absense from Japanese articles, I asked a similar question about translations of somewhat longer Chinese poems, and the answer was essentially "No.")

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Translation of information from a webpage source to Wilipedia

I want to translate the information from a Society webpage source to the Wikipedia. I am not the author but I work for them and I have their approval to do this. How can I apply for the copyright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.43.73 (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You need them to agree to release the content under a license compatible with ours (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). Whether or not this is a project you should undertake in the first place depends on what kind of content it is and what article are you going to use it in (for instance, using content by a society in an article about that society would be a no-no). You should also ask yourself: what makes verbatim use of this material necessary instead of doing what we normally do: paraphrase the findings of the text in your own words (this eliminates the copyright concern and aids in writing in encyclopedic tone). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You may also want to familiarise yourself with our conflict of interest guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Alan Partridge image

I feel the Alan Partridge article (about a fictional comedy character played by Steve Coogan) is incomplete without an image of the character. Can anyone suggest how to go about using a non-free image? Copyright policy is a huge blind spot in my Wiki editing, and I always seem to make mistakes. Popcornduff (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

To expand a little, the character's appearance is important and described in the article (with sources). Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Popcornduff: There is already an image of him in character, though it is rather low quality and cropping it would result in a very poor infobox identification image. So because there is already a freely licensed image in the article any new image could not easily pass all 10 requirements of our rather strict non-free policy. I suspect you are out of luck on this one no matter how desirable a new and better image might be, unless you can find another free image somewhere. You might find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Does the existence of a really crummy free image mean we can never use a non-free image? Seems a strange universe if so - that we'd be better off if that photo had never been donated to Wikipedia in the first place. Popcornduff (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the objective of having a free encyclopaedia with all free content mitigates against non-free images. The first guideline of WP:NFCC#1 says that: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose, so it is very hard to justify using a better non-free image when a low quality free image already exists, and obviously as he is still alive, one could be made, given the right opportunity. In some actor biographies, where there is no significant difference between the actor's look and the character, the actor image is used instead. Perhaps someone else was at the same event and could be persuaded to release an image under a free license, as sometimes happens with Flickr images. ww2censor (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this thoughtful and thorough reply. I'll have a hunt through Flickr... Popcornduff (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and just to clarify, I was indeed talking about the infobox in the initial comment. And in this case there is indeed a significant difference between the actor and the character's appearances. Popcornduff (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-free derivative works

Are File:Img-doom-3.jpg, File:Img-doom-2016.jpg, File:Img-Duke-Nukem.jpg, and File:Img-Styx-MOS.jpg derivative works of File:Doom3box.jpg, File:Doom Cover.jpg, File:Duke Nukem - Manhattan Project Coverart.png, and File:Styx Master of Shadows cover art.jpg respectively? If they are, then even though the derivatives might be released under a free license, the source imagery would still need to be treated as non-free, right? So, if my understanding is correct, then a non-free license would be needed for the original imagery and a free license for the derivative. In such a case, however, the entire image would be treated as non-free which means it would still be subject to WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course they are derivative works. To me, the uploader (claiming self-made) simply applied filters to "wash" out the copyright, which doesn't work like that. Even if this person was a skilled artist and drew those in PS, its still clear its based on the original box covers making it a derivative work that way. They are non-free, and since we already have duplicate covers, should be deleted. But it is true in the general case that if there was some reason a user had to add stuff to a non-free (such as to circle out a feature of discussion), they would need a license for their modification to be free, along with the non-free license of the original work. --Masem (t) 14:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference, the original files were being used on the uploader's userpage which is not allowed per NFCC#9; so, I think the uploader created the derivatives under the mistaken assumption that they would be OK to use on their userpage since the non-free ones cannot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree and I've remove the images. -- Ganeshprasadkp

@Ganeshprasadkp: Removing the files was a good first step, but Wikipedia shouldn't really be hosting them at all under such a license because someone else might try to use them. You should tag the file's with Template:db-author or someone else will eventually tag them with Template:db-f3 or Template:db-f9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Ganeshprasadkp

File:Big Eight Conference logo.png

This was uploaded as non-free content back in 2006, but I am wondering if it needs to be. Any reason why this shouldn't be converted to {{PD-logo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say so, it does not seem to be more complex than any of the PD logos on commons:COM:TOO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree, especially because it is a US logo where the threshold is low. ww2censor (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

John Pierre Burr

The image File:John Pierre Burr.jpg says that it’s original work by the uploader. But the presentation of the image at website https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/79414299/john-pierre-burr suggests the image may be older, though potentially still out of copyright. Can someone help with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirvan (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 November 2017

Signing for later archival. George Ho (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status, photos taken by a county sheriff in the USA?

What would be the copyright status of a photograph taken by a county sheriff in the United States as part of his work? Such as those in this tweet? Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant because only works of US federal employees are in the public domain. This does not apply to state employees (except in Florida, California, and New Jersey; with restrictions). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That depends on state law. According to this page [1], Pierce County claims copyright on its works, presumably including employee works, so the photos would be nonfree. Other state agencies also claim copyrights on their webpages, so there's apparently no general release of copyrights, as there is for the US govt and for some other states. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers, guys. Looks like that avenue is closed then. At least NTSBs photos are PD, once they get around to posting some. Mjroots (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh no. As Sandstein said in wonderment as he closed wp:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 31 "It seems that we are of the view that we know better than a government agency whether an image published by them is copyrighted or not. So be it." Thincat (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

That works both ways. I had to tell multiple federal employees that their work was PD via OTRS. They even had the nerve to add copyright protection information into the EXIF which is a form of copyfraud. Of course I verified that the image was taken by a federal employee during the course of their duties but they just didn't seem to grasp the concept. --Majora (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

How to show permission

Hey, there I have taken permission to use this File:Patnitop-Photo-JK.png pic from the owner but how to show that permission. Anmolbhat (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions in given in c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Basically, the copyright holder will need to send an email to Wikimedia OTRS which gives their explicit consent to release the file under a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} or other suitable free license. You also should explain to the copyright holder that once they release an image under a free license that they cannot revoke the license at a later date. -- Marchjuly (talk)

Due to the current backlog of approx 80 days for the OTRS email verification process it may be more efficient to use the Interactive Release Generator to initially obtain an OTRS ticket for the permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding Album Artwork on Music articles

Hello, I recently edited a Fall Out Boy music single page to add information about the remix of their Champion single and would like to include the remix artwork found on their label's website (http://www.islandrecords.com/music-list/?format=single). However I am unsure what option to select under the 'Release rights' section when uploading. I know it's a non-free image and that low-res versions of artwork are usually allowed for commentary/identification as I have seen stated for the other artwork on the page currently, but beyond seeing the information/use rationales stated for like images I don't know how to do it myself and would appreciate any assistance that can be provided so as to avoid committing any violations. Carlobunnie (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carlobunnie. The uploading itself is just a technical question and {{Non-free album cover}} and {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} could probably be used for the file. The bigger question, however, is whether the file should be uploaded at all.

This is just my opinion, but I don't see any relevant content in Champion (Fall Out Boy song)#Remix that would justify the non-free use of another album cover in that article per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 or WP:NFCC#8. By "any relevant content", I particularly mean the context typically required to satisfy NFCC#8. While non-free album covers are generally allowed for primary indentification purposes in main infoboxes or at the tops of album articles, non-free use tends to require a much stronger justification when used in other articles or sub-sections of articles as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. How does seeing this album cover art (I'm assuming that's the one you want to add) improve the reader's understanding of the article content about the remix to such a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding? I think that's the question you need to ask yourself. If your answer is something along the lines of WP:OTHERIMAGE or WP:DECORATIVE, then you're going to have a hard-time convincing others that non-free use is justified in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly I only thought to include the remix cover art based on what I had seen done on other music pages previously hence my asking, but upon checking back those same pages I found that they had been since edited to show the art for only one version of the song so I realised it was unnecessary afterwards, but still thank you for responding. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

New question?

For your Image Upload Ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Adu Mohamed Ali (talk • contribs) 05:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What's your question Mr Adu Mohamed Ali? ww2censor (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I personally own a work by Simón Gómez and want to know how best to share it

I have a small pencil sketch which has been in the family over 150 years. I want it to available for people to view on wiki under the correct page - it is a portrait of this man: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernat_Calv%C3%B3_Puig_i_Capdevila

The artist of the drawing is this man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sim%C3%B3_G%C3%B3mez

However do I have to give up all rights over the image? Don't really want it easily used beyond wiki. Under what licence should I upload it and what are my options? Thank you. Reaper7 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Reaper7: The painting itself is in the public domain. Everything done by Gómez would be as he has been dead for well over 100 years. There are a few differences depending on whether or not you take a photo of it, with surrounding material, or if you just take a "faithful recreation of the work". To explain it a little better, if you were to scan the image and upload it with nothing else then you would just upload it to Commons and use {{PD-art|PD-old-100}}. If the image is hanging on the wall and you take a photo of it then you would have to release your photo under a separate free license. If you let me know exactly how you want to upload the image I can give you more guidance. --Majora (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply Majora. It is in frame with a glass layer over the top. It was hard to take a decent a photo because of the incredible glare you get from any angle in almost any light. However I have managed to take a good photo and have cropped it a little just to remove some of the obvious glare. The image is ready to go. What should be my next steps regarding licence and upload? Reaper7 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The thing that really matters, Reaper7, is whether or not it is a "faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional piece of artwork". That is the standard we have to work off of. Provided it is that, then you can upload it to Commons through their upload wizard. When you get to the screen that asks whether or not it is your own work you would say "This file is not my work work". Then where it asks "Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work" select the "Another reason not mentioned above" and put in {{PD-art|PD-old-100}} with the squiggly brackets. Then just follow the rest of the steps. I can check it once you are done to make sure it is alright. --Majora (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How does it look? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bernat_Calv%C3%B3_Puig_i_Capdevila.jpg Reaper7 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! I just added a category and a link back to the enwiki article for the artist in the author section. --Majora (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help Majora. Reaper7 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

NASA Cultural Resources pics OK to use?

Let me try to be brief: So, I am working on an article about a ghost town: Gainesville, Mississippi. Currently, the NASA Stennis Space Center is located at the site of the old town. The NASA Cultural Resources Center hosts a lot of old pictures of the town: [2]

So I am trying to figure out if these pics are okay to use (with proper attribution) in the article, before I go through the mess of Commons, uploading, etc. I don't know a lot about copyright rules. Can you help?

Here is what the website says about attribution: [3] This page says: "The information presented on this website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." Thank you! Ditch ∝ 02:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

If you can show that NASA created an image, it's PD as a US government work. However, if NASA is hosting images created by others, those would not necessarily be PD, but subject to the copyrights of their creators. NASA has put similar notices on pages including, for example, post-1963 newspaper front pages, which would not be PD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

File:DorothyLSayers MuderMustAdvertise.jpg

File has conflicting copyright licenses. Any reason for these to be treated as non-free cover art? If not, then the non-free use rationale and non-free copyright license should be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Nine words in a black font on a yellow background? I can't envision any way that this meets the Threshold of originality necessary for copyright protection. PD-text would be the best tag.-Ich (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't in the US. Not so sure about the UK, but it is most likely above the threshold there. The file shouldn't be moved to Commons, but can be kept here as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Stephen MacKenna portrait

I've been working on the page for Stephen MacKenna. I want to include a photograph or painting to improve the page, but I have only heard of two:

a chalk portrait by Leo Mezner was presented to the National Gallery of Ireland by J. M. Hone, 1934, while another with Lord Ashbourne and (poss.) Dominick Spring Rice is held in the Gallery.

http://www.ricorso.net/rx/az-data/authors/Mac/M-Kenna_S/life.htm

The only picture I have actually seen is of him on the cover of a book of his letters: it's on Amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/Journals-Letters-Stephen-Mackenna/dp/1597313181

Can the portrait on the cover of this book be screen captured and uploaded, or does this not fit the copyright requirements on Wikipedia?

Thanks, --Tkbrett (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

If you have the book, what does the content tell us as to the origins and date of the photo? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the physical book, but the preview on Amazon shows the portrait again on one of the first few pages, and only says: "Stephen MacKenna at forty. From an oil painting by Amy Drucker." I don't see any other information in the Amazon preview, a reverse Google image search didn't reveal anything, and I'm not sure who Amy Drucker is... hmm... --Tkbrett (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that if he was forty in the picture, then it would have been done circa 1912 (he was born in 1872). --Tkbrett (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Amy Drucker died in 1951. Her works are presumably still under copyright unless published before 1923. I don't know, given the information at hand, how you can establish the publication date for this particular image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

According to this worldcat search result the book was first published in 1936, so it appears this painting was not published before 1923 and, based on the death date you provided, her work is still in copyright until 2022. It looks like you are out of luck unless you claim it under our strict non-free policy which is allowable for deceased people. ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help guys! Unless I find another photo, I guess I'll report back in 2022! Appreciate the help --Tkbrett (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Political Evolution, Evópoli, party logo, Chile.png

This file is licensed as non-free, but someone recently uploaded File:Evópoli2.png to Commons as "PD-logo" annd "PD-Shape". The only difference between the two seems to be the text in the non-free version. Text in and of itself, however, usually is something not eligible for copyright protection. Is there some reason the non-free version needs to remain non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There is such a thing as "selection and arrangement" copyright that can apply to shapes that have very many components (the obvious case being a book where each letter is PD but the whole book is not, or a photo where each pixel is PD but the whole photo is not). Here, I also wonder if the wing shape is copyrighted; it's not that simple a shape. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Spinn Inc Logo.png

This seems simple enough for {{PD-logo}}. The question is whether its worth converting to PD and tagging for a move to Commons since it's not currently being used in any articles and User:ROnaLD 007/sandbox might not meet WP:CORP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Uh, Spinn Inc. exists. I would still move it to Commons regardless. --Masem (t) 02:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I missed that there was an article. Thanks for catching that Masem. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced the non-free rationale with a free one with a free license and tagged it for move to commons. ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

What is the best way to search online library of congress for photos of sports figures or other historical personages?

from dcw2003 Please notify me on my talk page.

What is the best step-by-step procedure for searching the online library of congress for historical photos of existing persons from 1900 until present day?

Will there be historical photos there taken after 1923, the last year of public domain?

Thans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcw2003 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dcw2003: Search their digital collections at https://loc.gov/collections/ by entering the names of the people you are interested in. Yes, there are images from all periods but they are not all out of copyright. BTW, 1923 is not the last year of public domain, but is the year where the copyright has expired on all US published material. You may find it useful to consult the Hirtle chart for more detailed information about other situations. ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hello, I would like to ask how I handle copyrights of:

1. A list of patents that are free to consult, as they have free access provided by the patents recording agency 2. I am asked to provide copyrights of a picture of a person that died in 1919, and the picture was taken between 1910 and 1915. I assume, there are no more copyrights, however, I would like to know how to handle this

Thank you very much for your kind answers. Quico01 (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Quico01: None of the images you uploaded have any of the necessary details, such as source, author, license, etc. Each image should have a fully completed {{information}} template (click on the link to see who to use it and what to fill in. The images of printed material are probably not necessary for an article because you can use the publication as a citation and do not need an actual image of the pages so long as you state all the publication details. Age, death of the author and if it was published are factors that affect the copyright of your images, so when you have added the required details we can help you more. In fact the death of the subject is essentially not important but the death of the photographer who holds the copyright which usually last for 70 years after their death, so an unpublished 1919 photo whose author dies in 1950 would still be in copyright until 2021. Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain and you can use the copyright tag {{PD-1923}} but I don't think any of your images comply. As I mentioned in a post up this page a bit, you may want to consult the Hirtle chart to help you. ww2censor (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)