Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/November

NRHP nomination photos

I'll be fairly formal here, since I'm trying to change a long time consensus, and since the use of tens of thousands of high quality public domain photographs are at stake.

These photos are part of the nominating form for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) run by the Federal government National Park Service (NPS) who publish many of them on a very frustrating and incomplete website http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov (focus) and in other places as well example. Copies of these forms are also available to the public during a comment period preceding listing in the register, at NPS physical sites, and via state agencies who rule on the nominations prior to sending them to NPS. Some of the state agencies (e.g. [1]) have better (but incomplete) online records than focus, which is still under development. I've uploaded File:AthenaeumPhilly.jpg and inserted it in Athenaeum of Philadelphia as something of a test case, and some detailed discussion is at User_talk:Doncram#NRHP_photos_Public_Domain.3F

Consensus has been that, because the photos are provided by nominators, who may be private individuals, consulting firms, or state employees, that the photos are not public domain. I argue that because the NPS on focus declares them to be public domain, because they are administrative rulings (i.e. "edicts of government"), and for many, because they were published before January 1, 1978 without copyright notice, that they are public domain. Those forms prepared by NPS employees such as File:AthenaeumPhilly.jpg are also clearly public domain.

Some facts

• Focus declares each individual NRHP nomination form to be "Public domain" (at least all the ones I've seen) even though the actual forms may not yet be online.
• "Edicts of government" can not be copyrighted in the US - specifically the nomination forms are "administrative rulings" that, for example, can have tax effects. Focus declares that the photos are part of the nomination forms.

"206.01 Edicts of government. Edicts of government, such as judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal docu- ments are not copyrightable for reasons of public policy. This applies to such works whether they are Federal, State, or local as well as to those of foreign governments." from [2]

• Focus declares a publication date for all NRHP nomination forms. On all the forms that I have seen there is no notice of copyright, though there is "back of the photo" information on focus (but not usually on State sites) giving picture credit. ANY pre-1978 publications in the US that doesn't have a copyright notice is in the public domain.

Given the above, I could argue that ALL NRHP nomination forms are in the public domain. Nevertheless, several editors have had communication with NPS employees about focus and they don't seem to be fully satisfied that focus is working well enough that a declaration of "public domain" means that the form is actually public domain. I suggest going slowly on this until editors are satisfied that the NPS or private photographers don't have objections. Specifically I propose that

• A) All NRHP nomination forms prepared by NPS personnel be considered by Wikipedians as public domain immediately.
• B) All pre-1978 nomination forms where the complete form is available on focus or another NPS site be considered public domain immediately
• C) Pre-1978 nomination forms where the forms are only available on State websites be considered PD if no negative feedback comes from NPS or photographers within a month or two.
• D) Post-1977 nomination forms where the complete form is available on focus or another NPS site be considered public domain within a month or two if there is no negative feedback.
• E) Post-1977 nomination forms where the forms are only available on State websites be considered public domain within six months if there is no negative feedback.

Smallbones (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In my comment, I'll assume that 1978 was the latest you could publish without a copyright notice and have no chance of a document being copyrighted...I really can't keep these dates straight.
First off, these forms are prepared by private individuals, not (except in a few cases) by governments, and they're not laws that the Supreme Court has declared uncopyrightable, so unless they're works of the federal government (e.g. your NPS-produced form) or of states that declare their official works public domain, we can't use them on those grounds. Moreover, I'm swayed by what Jameslwoodward says here — we can't prove that there was no copyright notice included with these images when the nomination forms were produced; and as well, we can't prove that the images weren't already published (e.g. a book had been written about a nominated property, and the nomination form author got permission to use photos from the book in the nomination form) in some other place. While I'd like to have unrestricted access to these images, I don't believe it to be safe to use them. Nyttend (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

January 1, 1978 is the cutoff date. Before that date a copyright notice had to be given or the publication can never be copyrighted. I take it that you at least agree with proposal A? The "Edicts of Government" quote is from a Copyright office compendium handbook, so I think current legal practice goes beyond the Supreme Court case from the 1800s. Jameslwoodward's comment was about the "back of the photo" problem on state sites, that information usually NOT being included there. But it IS included on the focus site. So, I think proposals A,B, and D satisfy his objections, but not the other proposals. You want to go further and have us prove a negative - that nobody ever published these anywhere with a copyright notice. Nobody can prove a negative, so I doubt that this is how copyright law works. Finally, doesn't it matter that the NPS has declared these completed forms to be in the public domain? Smallbones (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been quoted, correctly, above. A couple of clarifications. As I said in conjunction with my earlier comments, I am NOT a copyright lawyer -- just a reasonably well versed lay person who has had responsibility for such issues over the years. I am sure that before the 1976 copyright law (effective 1/1/78), a copyright notice was required on first public release -- no notice, no copyright and no ability to fix it after the fact.

• A -- no problem. If an NPS person did it, including taking the photos, it's PD -- the general policy of the Federal government covers this case.
• B&C -- OK, provided we are satisfied that the photos did not have the required notice -- the notice had to be "affixed" so having a digital copy of the front and back will suffice here. Note that this requires a certain amount of trust -- that, for example, we trust that the fronts and backs are actually correctly matched. I don't have a problem with this because (A) such a mistake would be a good defense against claims of willful infringement and (B) we exercise similar trust all the time -- I upload an image which I claim is my work and Commons trusts me (within limits) to have been honest in that claim (indeed in many contexts, we also trust uploaders to have correctly identified the subject).
• D&E I am neutral on the "edict" rule that User:Smallbones has proposed -- I don't know the law well enough to have an opinion.

Photographers were quite well aware of the copyright rules before the 1976 law -- I would assume that a pre-1978 photographer who allowed a photo out of his or her hands without a copyright notice intended to put it in the PD. We're talking here about professional photographers after all.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear - "A -- no problem. If an NPS person did it, including taking the photos, it's PD" when an NPS person prepares an application, he/she can include photos that were not taken by the NPS/Feds. On C - I don't expect that many state sites will have both front and back of the photos, but it seems that you agree with B) entirely. BTW, though the "edict" logic applies to all cases, ultimately it's the declaration of "this is in the public domain" by the NPS that I think is crucial. If we trust this statement to be true, it rules in all cases. But, since some editors have questioned the truth of these statements, I've suggested the "small step at a time" approach, where there are other arguments for PD as well. Smallbones (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment A number of comments in this discussion assume that copyright notice on published copies became optional when the 1976 Copyright Act became effective on January 1, 1978. That's not correct. The 1976 Act continued to require notice on published copies, although it did provide some cure provisions for fixing things when a notice was inadvertently omitted. The date you're actually interested in is March 1, 1989. That is the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. The BCIA is the act that did away with the notice requirement. TJRC (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Several points - let me preface my remarks by saying that I would really like it if someone who is a lawyer and who knows copyright law would weigh in here.
• First off, consensus here will not change the law (so even if we all agreed things were PD but legally they are not, they are still not PD).
• Second, in my experience Wikipedia errs on the side of caution. Even if we are reasonably sure something is PD, that is not good enough, especially for things like WP:FAC where image review is quite strict and it needs to be ironclad PD or free license.
• Third, asking the creator of the image to release it under a free license often works - I asked the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for permission to use one image in Plunketts Creek Bridge No. 3 and they released all the images they took for their NRHP bridge survey (well over 100 bridges, just need to upload all of them). I also note that until the OTRS ticket was in the system giving permission, the FAC did not pass.
• Fourth, what exactly does the NPS / NRHP consider the form? Is it just the paperwork (and not the images)? I would like to see this clarified before
• Fifth and finally, as to the points above, A) is a no-brainer. Work by US government employees (or work for hire for the US govt) is {{PD-US}}. B) and C) also seem reasonable as long as submission to the NRHP constitutes publication (I am not a legal expert). I do not understand how B differs from C. D) and E) seem dubious to me. Usually the creator has to reliquish their rights or know going into it that they lose them (i.e. work for hire). I do not see submission to the NRHP as work for hire, but I am also not an expert. I also am not sure that NPS is the ideal arbiter here and would be more comfortable if there were a court case to cite. Would asking User:Jappalang or User:Elcobbola be useful (both image copyright experts)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses to individual points

• • 1 - yes, we can't change the law; but I'm saying that when the NPS says "This is in the public domain" that we can have a consensus that we will believe them (unless there's an obvious reason not to in a specific case).
  • 2 - frankly, when were choosing not to accept the Federal gov't statement that "this is in the public domain" at full face value, but choose to look even further for a possibility of copyright, we are being super-super-conservative.
  • 3 - I'd prefer to have an basic understanding that will apply to large groups of these photos. As I said, there are tens of thousands of them. A one by one approach is pretty clumsy and slow.
  • 4 - they consider the completed form with the photos to be the "form." I'll get quotes.

from NRHP regulations"(i) National Register Nomination Form. National Register Nomination Form means (1) National Register Nomination Form NPS 10-900, with accompanying continuation sheets (where necessary) Form NPS 10-900a, maps and photographs or (2) for Federal nominations, Form No. 10-306, with continuation sheets (where necessary) Form No. 10-300A, maps and photographs. Such nomination forms must be "adequately documented" and "technically and professionally correct and sufficient." To meet these requirements the forms and accompanying maps and photographs must be completed in accord with requirements and guidance in the NPS publication, "How to Complete National Register Forms" and other NPS technical publications on this subject. Descriptions and statements of significance must be prepared in accord with standards generally accepted by academic historians, architectural historians and archeologists. The nomination form is a legal document and reference for historical, architectural, and archeological data upon which the protections for listed and eligible properties are founded. The nominating authority certifies that the nomination is adequately documented and technically and professionally correct and sufficient upon nomination." Let me emphasize The nomination form is a legal document and that the photos, maps, etc. are included. Smallbones (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• • 5 - publication has to do with distribution of copies which they do, and they also specific state "Date of publication" There is a statement about photo contributors giving up rights (I'll get it). I am also not a lawyer, and welcome comments by copyright lawyers. I'll try to contact them. Smallbones (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

from [3] example of "publication" in a legal sense "Request copies of individual nominations either via e-mail please include your mailing address and the property name, county, and state. or postal mail:

National Register of Historic Places National Park Service 1839 C St., NW (MS 2280) Washington, DC 20240 "

from [4] "Use of National Register Photographs

By allowing a photograph to be submitted to the National Park Service with a National Register form, photographers grant permission to the National Park Service to use the photograph for publication and other purposes, including: putting on the World Wide Web; duplication; display; distribution; study; publicity; and audiovisual presentations."

Well the whole focus site seems to be down - I'll just add this as a typical result from a search which mentions "public domain", what's in the form, publication, and record ownership. Note that the 2 pdf files come up as "we haven't digitalized this yet"!

• • Brown, John, House [Image]
  • URL: https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/70000548_text ...
  • URL: https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/70000548_photos ...
  • Publisher: National Park Service
  • Published: 03/05/1970
  • Access: Public access
  • Restrictions: Public domain
  • Format/Size: Physical document with text, photos and map
  • Language: eng: English
  • Note: 225 E. King St. ...
  • Place: PENNSYLVANIA -- Franklin County -- Chambersburg
  • Record Number: 149640
  • Record Owner: National Register of Historic Places

Smallbones (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asked by Smallbones to offer an opinion.[5] Two months ago, I nominated such photos for deletion on Commons (commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_NPS_nomination_forms). The key points are that there is no evidence that the photos are the works of non-government employees and that they have transferred their copyrights to the government (and that the government in turn chooses to release the photos into public domain). Furthermore, the photos' uploader have contacted the NPS archivist, who have clarified that the photos are not in public domain. Jappalang (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

They do seem to be sending two different messages. But I do not agree with the statement "there is no evidence that the photos ... that the government in turn chooses to release the photos into public domain)." See the above entry under "Restrictions," why isn't that a straightforward statement that the material is in the public domain? What's wrong with the "Government edict" and "administrative ruling" reading that these cannot be copyrighted? Smallbones (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, these ideas of edict and ruling being uncopyrightable is derived from Wheaton v. Peters, which ruled that the laws could not be copyrighted because copyrighting them would make it more difficult to obey them. While administrative rulings aren't laws, we can get in trouble if we're governed by them and we violate them, so it's reasonable to assume that these too are uncopyrightable. However, these forms can't be "violated": there's nothing that they prescribe or prohibit, so these aren't the type of documents to which Wheaton applies. Moreover, the ambiguity that we're getting is reason to be concerned about the nature of these documents: unless we have no reason to doubt that a copyrightable document is not in copyright (or is available under a free license), we shouldn't use these — it's safe to treat a free image as non-free, but it's quite dangerous to use a non-free image as a free image, so the only way to be sure that we're heeding copyright is to avoid using these images. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was also asked to offer an opinion. [6] I don't see that this proposal addresses the concerns articulated in the deletion discussion linked by Jappalang. Granting permission for a federal agency to publish a photograph is not tantamount to releasing or even transferring copyright. The NPS photography policy (as of 03.08 - is a previous revision available?) explicitly outlines the permission photographers are granting. Such a statement would be expected to be unnecessary, or alternatively worded (e.g. mention of "public domain") if submission indeed released or otherwise impacted copyright, as purported. NRHP nomination photos, further, are not expected to be "edicts of government" in either letter or spirit; mere use with a form (being "part of the nomination forms") does not an "edict of government" make. The FTC's complaint against Movieland, for example, is itself an edict of government, but still contains copyrighted screenshots; multiple copyrights can, and commonly do, exist within one "work". Эlcobbola _talk 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has addressed the argument that the publication of these forms before 1/1/1978 without copyright notice means that some NRHP nomination forms are in the public domain (other than to say that the real date is 3/1/1989). Does this mean that nobody contests this? I'd use the 1989 date, but there's something about delayed registration and I don't know how to show there was not delayed registration - does anybody know?

Also the NRHP and NPS are definitely sending 2 different signals here. On the NRHP site they say (in public) that it's public domain; but by e-mail they give a different story. I've contacted the NPS and hope to get a unified opinion from them by next week. Please keep this thread open for another week. Smallbones (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Newfoundland Outport Photo

Good Morning

In your description of Newfoundland Outport, there are two photos of La Poile, one of a small whote boat anchored and the other is of the CN Ferry Hopedale at the dock. I was wondering if there was anyway to get in contact with owner of the photo, I grew up there and would love to have the photos for my house. The small white boat belongs to my uncle who died last year and his daugther is trying to teasure alot of photos of him and the boat she owned.

Thanks Clarence Vautier email <redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.106.152 (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Clarence. From a legal perspective, the images to which you refer have been released into the public domain, which means you (or your cousin) are free to copy and use them for any purpose you so desire. Now, of course, you may well want to contact the author anyway (I know I would), in which case you'll want click here and leave him or her a message. Remember to sign it using four tildes "~~~~". If you have any problems, just shout. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"Copyleft" license

The govtrack site's footer states that the site is "copyleft" but doesn't say under which license. I'd like to upload their logos and some screenshots for their article GovTrack. Under what license should I upload screenshots? Their logo faq doesn't mention copyright or trademark. Smallman12q (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling this one is going to run a little. It would appear to me, as a layman (and I have been shown wrong many a time, often embarrassingly so) that their license is not compatible with Wikipedia. This is based primarily off the second of their licence statements, which links to http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. To my eyes, clause 1) says that you cannot charge for redistribution of the images, a statement which I fear is incompatible (somewhat ironically) with Wikimedia's vision. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading Clause 1 of OSD differently: "1. Free Redistribution. The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." The OSI is about software. OSD clause 1 says, in my interpretation and experience, that one cannot limit OSI labeled software to mere commercial or non-commercial use only: Both must be allowed. This is highly compatible with WP policy by my understanding. However, what Smallman12q is trying to do doesn't seem to have anything to do with software or source code, but instead logos and other images. In that case, I think the first link on the govtrack web site, to the OKD, is more appropriate to discuss than the OSD given Smallman12q's purposes: "The Open Knowledge Definition (OKD) sets out principles to define the 'open' in open knowledge. The term knowledge is used broadly and it includes all forms of data, content such as music, films or books as well any other type of information." The question, I have, not knowing OKD, is, "Does use of the OKD logo on the govtrack site imply or grant a specific license (I know that the use of the OSI logo does not grant a specific license since they themselves have none to grant)?" Apparently none of us has yet been able to find on the govtrack web site where they actually grant a license for anything on their site (yet). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The documents are in public domain...but the actual site is licensed under "copyleft"...perhaps an email should be sent?Smallman12q (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The thought had certainly crossed my mind, especially when I read this. I thought, "Hmm, looks like some kind of organizing or re-organizing going on recently...maybe they haven't got the content (or code) license thing straightened out yet?" —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the OSI's definition (which I agree may not be entirely relevant here; in this I agree that an email would be useful), I still think that the first line of the accompanying "rationale" (presumably unofficial) - "By constraining the license to require free redistribution,..." - goes against the WMF's policy, which would place anything under that license outside the reach of the Wikimedia Foundation, though the goals are painfully similar. Kind of odd. But then, that does not answer the question; the answer to the question is email and find out what they are licensing under, and then discuss. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Public.Resource.Org

What about Public.Resource.Org, what license are they under?Smallman12q (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

That site doesn't appear to own most of what it posts, so the copyright status would depend on the source of the material. Material produced by the federal government would usually be in the public domain; the rest, usually not. Steve Smith (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:JamesHunekerArticle1917b.pdf

The picture, JamesHunekarArticle1917b.pdf, uploaded by me is freely available on the Internet. So, I don't understand why there is a copyright problem. Pls clarify. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alextierno98 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• That something is available on the Internet does not make it free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• In the source to File:JamesHunekerArticle1917b.pdf, the statement "Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company" utterly failed to confuse me. Or maybe it did: Can an image of pre-1923 text be re-copyrighted by its original rights holder? (Taking a random stab in the dark I'd say, "probably".) It'll take someone who has much more knowledge than "all Internet data has no copyright" (when in fact the reverse is more generally true, and info to that effect can be found in most web page footers, including the one your reading right now) to answer that question. Personally, since it's the NYT, I'd leave it alone, use the URL for a reference or external link in the WP article, or ask someone at NYT for permission. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• If that file is an accurate reproduction of a 1917 publication, then it's in the public domain in the U.S. It's quite common for people to attach copyright notices to things over which they have no copyright, actually. Anyway, so-tagged. Steve Smith (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Steve on this: it's pre-1923, which makes the original pretty unequivocally out of copyright in the U.S.. With no original artistic value in what is basically a photocopy, no new copyright exists. TheFeds 16:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The basic article and pictures, published in 1917, are clearly out of copyright. But the obnoxious copyright notice at the bottom may not be! I'd trim the copyright notice. Smallbones (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Manning tyree catch.jpg

I disagree with the Fair Use rationales for this image. The rationales claim that these images are not replaceable, but surely someone in the stands at the game that day took a photo of both events during this play? The free equivalents may not be of equivalent quality, but free images rarely are of comparable quality to their non-free equivalents. There must be free alternatives to the photos that make up this composite image, so I suggest that the Fair Use rationale is faulty. – PeeJay 22:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that such an image would be OK for the Eli Manning Pass To David Tyree only, but not any of the others. While it is clearly plausible that someone took a free image during the Super Bowl, and thus requiring free images of the game seems fair, I think requiring the same for a specific historic pass and reception is a bit overkill. It doesn't seem probable to me that someone would have known beforehand that the pass was going to be historic, and how many non-paid photographers attempt to capture every single play during a football game? But again, I want to repeat, I don't believe the use of this image in those other articles is appropriate. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specific rationales, on which I'm mostly agnostic, I generally agree with Andrew. A few further points:

• Even if somebody in the stands did take a picture of this play, it's extremely unlikely that they'd have released it under a free license (since when people take photos for their personal use, they usually don't).
• The NFCC don't restrict the use of non-free images to cases where no suitable free images exist, but to cases where the non-free image isn't replaceable by a free one. As a practical matter, there is no reasonable way to track down pictures that people in the stands might have taken (unless they're posted on Flickr or similar, which should be easily ascertainable).

It's quite possible that the image fails the significance criterion in one or more of those articles, but I don't think it can reasonably be argued that they fail the replaceability one. Steve Smith (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's been a year and a half. If someone at the game took pictures similar to these two and released them under a free license, we'd probably know about it already. These pictures, especially the one showing the catch, show an extremely pivotal moment of the game. In fact, the outcome of the entire Superbowl balanced on this play. I think it appropriate for use in the Eli Manning Pass To David Tyree article, but as others above have said not appropriate for Super Bowl XLII. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Life+70 PD tag?

I'd like to upload a copy of a two-dimensional artwork that was created in France in 1875. The artist died in 1913. I believe this is public domain under the laws of the US and of France, but at the "Upload File" page there's no option to tag it Life+70 (which makes it PD in France) - the only option is Life+100. I have no idea when it was first "published" in the US. Should I wait four years until the artist's been dead 100 years, or is there another way to tag this? The painting is now located in the United States and is at a gallery in San Francisco. (It's Louis-Maurice Boutet de Monvel's portrait of the French actor Paul Mounet.) --NellieBly (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't include all the tags in the upload template. Check out this page, Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain. I'm sure you'll find something that works there. Either a country specific template, the generic 70 year template, or a 1923 abroad template, or something along those lines. I haven't looked at the specifics of this case, so I cannot tell you which one is best, but it seems like you know the circumstances of the image, so browsing that list, I have faith you'll find what you are looking for. Good luck! -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --NellieBly (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Album Covers

Could this picture of an album cover taken from this site be used in an article with the same copyright fair use claim as this album cover? Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who created the image in question

Hello! I am the person who created this painting which was included in the layout of the specified music website from where it's been taken, but I am also the author of an article meant for Wikipedia in which I would like to have this image included as with several other paintings I've made. Not meaning to interfere with the person who first asked you about this, I just wanted to leave this comment in case it could help steer this rather entangled issue in a new direction and to hopefully untie some nots. Kdkwinana (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article which is presently in Kdwinana's sandbox here. User:Kdkwinana/sandbox . Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the example you gave File:Olive-extravirgin.jpg has no fair-use rationale as is necessary for a copyright image, so is a bad example of the use of an album. Generally album covers are copyright and only used in album articles per WP:NFCI and must comply with all 10 the non-free media criteria. The sandbox article is about a band and unless the images are released by the copyright holder under a free licence, you cannot use these non-free album images. Right now all of the image have problems because there are no sources, no copyright tags and if they are copyright, as seems the case, they no fair-use rationale to justify their use. BTW, you may not use non-free images on user pages either, only in the article mainspace. ww2censor (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, the Extravirgin image does have the necessary elements: the music cover license tag include common statements of rationale for album covers; the source is identified as well as the article. It's not as clear as using one of the templates, for sure, and I'm personally not a big fan of boilerplate rationales, but its there, and would have to go through a normal xFD challenge to be removed instead of a CSD tag for images. It probably would not past muster if the article was seeking GA/FA, of course. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(OT) While discussing File:Olive-extravirgin.jpg was not the purpose of this post, the source link is generic, so is fairly useless and there is no rationale, whether template or text. I was trying indicate that the initial post gave a rather bad example. Better examples would be File:The Unforgettable Fire album.jpg or File:04 And I Love Her.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see I have chosen a poor example, looking at the File:The Unforgettable Fire album.jpg rational, is that a similar fair use album cover rational that could be used to support these pictures continued existence here? I also see that it is usually only used to represent an album and not a band? Correct? Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unable to access copyright info

As my Internet access is currently restricted to email and Wikipedia so I am unable to grab the copyright info. However, I am aware that the image is copyrighted to LEGO. Could someone help me get the info in?--Twilight Helryx (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's a non-free image, it can be used only in article space, and only under a claim of compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Since its current use seems to be restricted to userboxes, it will have to be deleted. Steve Smith (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am thinking about adding it to a Bionicle article. Would that be alright?--Twilight Helryx (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Added copyright info and have added it to the article. Please let me know if this is all right. Thanks!--Twilight Helryx (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not all right: {{Non-free symbol}} sounds like a plausible tag for the image, but the text is totally inapplicable. I can’t tell you what the correct tag would be because I can’t figure out what the image is. You also need a non-free use rationale for each article it is used on, naming the article, and explaining what purpose it serves that showing it is necessary for reader understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 11:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was the closest one I could find. As for what the symbol is, it's a recurring theme throughout the Bionicle series and is every bit as trademarked as the logo. Added the non-free use rationale tag. Hope I've got it right this time.--Twilight Helryx (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this image in the public domain?

Is the image at [7] in the public domain? I'd like to use it in Thomas Bigelow Craig. Theleftorium 21:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was not published before 2003, yes. If it was published before 1923, yes. If it was first published between 1923 and 2003, maybe. Per my idiocy in the above thread, I'm not going to try to describe what constitutes "publication" for a painting. Steve Smith (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I can't use it then. The source says nothing about when it was displayed in public. Theleftorium 21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Before 1978, under common law copyright in the U.S., an offer to sell or auction an artwork to the general public constituted publication, too. — Walloon (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a free image?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Shotgate_sign.gif

Can this be inserted onto wikipedia?

Gary rip (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is tagged as such on the Commons (as are all images on the Commons), but it's not quite so simple: the photographer has licensed it under a free license, but that doesn't speak to the sign itself. The sign may be old enough to be in the public domain, in which case the whole image would be free. Alternatively, the sign might still be under copyright, in which case the image would be unfree, and should be deleted from the Commons. I've dropped a note on the photographer's talk page (though he appears to be mostly inactive these days) in the hopes of this being clarified. Steve Smith (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The uploader may have believed that it fell under Freedom of panorama. Unfortunately, in the UK that doesn't apply to graphic works like signs & paintings (Commons:COM:FOP#United_Kingdom). The sign is obviously less that 70 years old (given the Hurricane), so unless there's evidence that it's a Crown Copyright work, it's still copyrighted and the photo is a non-free derivative work. --dave pape (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Havana Jam

Hello, I created the Havana Jam entry, as I am a researcher doing a book and documentary about the music festival that took place in Cuba in 1979.

I uploaded a few pictures of the event that were given to me by the photographers during my research. they don´t have any registered copywright, as they have never registered them and will never do.

after i uploaded the pix, someone posted a warning stating the use of copywright and said the pix would be deleted within a week.

what can i do? i have tried to establish that they are fair/non comercial use, but i can´t find the way, so i need help on that front.

best,

ernesto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernestojuan (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean these four pictures?:

File:Irakere jamming at Havana Jam.png

File:Weather Report in Havana.png

File:Stephen Stills in Havana.png

File:Rita Coolidge, Kris Kristofferson and Billy Swan in Havana.png

I understand that the basic and best route in a case like this is probably to contact the author of the photos and request that person to license them under CC-BY-SA license (see also WP:CC-BY-SA). There may be more to it, since they come from a country other than the US, and the date matters as well. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Promotional image of Queen Mary 2 meeting Queen Mary

File:Qm2 qmsmall1.jpg appears to have come from a media kit for the Cunard Line (who own the RMS Queen Mary 2 and RMS Queen Mary ships). At the moment it has a {{NoRightsReserved}} tag. I think it should be converted to {{Non-free promotional}} with accompanying rationales. But before I go switching the tag, I don't feel it fulfills WP:NFCC#8 on the two instances where it might apply to the ships shown. A picture of the newer ship passing the older one doesn't add to readers understanding in a significant manner. Before I proceed;

1. Am I right in thinking the tags should be switched, and
2. do the images meet the NFCC, or should I proceed with a nomination for deletion? -Optigan13 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've speedied it as a clear copyright violation. You are quite right in saying it is not PD, and I see no potential for a fair use case – each of the two ships can easily be photographed separately, and there is nothing in this specific combination of them that requires illustration. Thanks for bringing the case up. If anybody seriously wants to make a fair use case, they can contact me and I'll provisionally undelete it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. The numerous images of both ships are what undermined the combo image's utility to me. Now off to another image(s) I have questions about... -Optigan13 (talk) 08:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Ramone Grave Memorial

File:Johnny Ramone Grave Memorial 4-15-05.JPG (additionally File:Johnny Ramone - Hollywood Forever Cemetary 2.jpg on commons) are photos of the sculpture on Johnny Ramones grave. Am I right with gravestone sculptures like this that it is still assumed to be copyrighted as if they were at any other site? If so I'm planning on nominating both for deletion. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The sculpture itself is copyrighted, and the United States has no freedom of panorama-equivalent (except for buildings). Images that include copyrighted works can still be free if the copyrighted work is incidental to the picture, but that clearly isn't the case here, so I'd say that the image needs to be used compliantly with WP:NFCC or not at all. Steve Smith (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've nominated the local image for deletion, and someone has tagged the commons image as a copyvio. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File:SolwayfirthSpaceman.jpg

There is a mild disageement as to whether or not this image is available under a PD license. I've already explained why I don't think this is the case at File talk:SolwayfirthSpaceman.jpg, and my enquiries at Commons concur with this assessment. Some further input would be helpful. Small-town hero (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur entirely with your assessment. The term "public domain" is often used by laypeople to mean "available to the public" rather than "without copyright". It seems likely that this is the sense in which Templeton meant it. Besides that, it would be very unusual for the photographer of a significant photograph like that to release it into the public domain; he just wouldn't have any credible motivation to do so. Steve Smith (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question

Resolved

Copyright question

Is this picture here status Ok, free to use, public domain,the uploader is the person in the picture? Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

By default, the copyright would go to the photographer, not the subject. Is there reason to believe that Parzen, and not Cevola, holds the copyright? Steve Smith (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Only the he says it does and that the picture is on a website owned and run by Parzen? Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to have Mr. Cevola e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org and confirm that the image is Mr. Parzen's to license. Steve Smith (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also while I am here Steve, is it to early to delete these there is going to be no copyright status coming, I have been in contact with the uploader and the pics of people are he has said not his and he is not bothered about them and the others are album sleeves he says he painted but they are lifted from a web site to, I would just delete them now, what do you think about that? Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They're already tagged for speedy deletion. I agree with you that they're very likely to be copyvios, but they'll be deleted tomorrow anyway; I don't think waiting an extra twenty-four hours to keep the deletion in process is going to hurt anything. Steve Smith (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right Steve, thanks much. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question

Why will this picture be deleted?, It says Los Angeles public library photo archive. here --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Last I heard public libraries are repositories of copyrighted material. I could be mistaken... But the tag states "This image or media does not have information on its copyright status." Could be that providing the information requested might fix the problem. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find a specific indication that the image has been released into the public domain or licensed under a free license, it's almost certainly non-free. As Aladdin says, public libraries are full of copyrighted material; that something comes from a public library is far from proof that it's in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

cornelia phillips spencer entry -- link request

Hi,

An article I wrote on the Cornelia Phillips Spencer Bell Award debate at UNC, was published in the Charlotte Observer on January 19, 2005. "Change focus of UNC award..." After this article was published, UNC sent out a press release, stating they would change the award name. This has not happened, and the issue needs an update. I would like at least to link this 2005 article and a copy of the press release to the entry. I can do this via a .pdf document if I scan the original article and press release. Currently, The Charlotte Observer has archived the story and it can only be purchased through them. May I submit the scanned image that I wrote and printed out when the article was published without infringing on a Charlotte Observer copyright?

Thank you,

Pamela Tandy Chapel Hill, NC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innercritic (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The bad news is that you can't upload the pdf to Wikipedia. The good news is that something doesn't need to be online in order to be used as a source; the newspaper name, author, and date should be sufficient. Steve Smith (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Public Domian image?

Is this and this in the public domain? I have no idea how to decipher this one! :) AtheWeatherman 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be? --NE2 21:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Until somebody tells me otherwise (which they frequently do) I look at the footer of the page in question to establish an apparent or prima facie idea of "who owns what". I usually find what I need to know, and while I hope for a CC license logo there in the footer, I rarely find one. Also, both photos you point at credit a specific owner: In one case, "Don McPhee/Guardian" and "Wesley/Getty Images" in the other. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The presumption is that images are non-free. I see no reason to set that presumption aside in the case of these images. So no, unless there's some particular reason to believe they're in the public domain, they're almost certainly not. Steve Smith (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of Mugshot...

Wanting to upload an image to an article that has recently had the image deleted. I am trying to use an image from the Las Vegas Police of Warren Jeffs, they have a mug shot of him [[8]] that has been widely circulated in the media. It is an official booking photo, but it seems that use of such is of controversy. How should I go about this? There is not going to be any opportunity to take a fair use image since he is and will be incarcerated long into the foreseeable future so I propose to use this photo in the link above. It is actually a very respectable photo, and does not have the appearance of a mugshot per se, it is more of a head shot. Any advice? Twunchy (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As you note, it's unfree. The question is whether its use meets our non-free content criteria. The major hurdles in this case would be convincing us that i. its use adds significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject, and ii. that Mr. Jeffs has not been widely enough photographed for a free image to be available (and that he's now sufficiently unavailable to the public that taking a new free image is not feasible). I make no comment on whether these criteria are met here; whether they are depends largely on how stringently a given editor interprets the non-free content criteria. In short, the answer to whether or not you can use that image is "maybe". Steve Smith (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rowfant_Railway_Station_2.jpg

This image is not of unknown origin.

It is an image from the M G Joly collection and is likely to be subject to copyright.

The image is verified by the position of the passenger on the extreme right.

The image may have been scanned from an existing publication in which it was used by permission, but this did not place it in the public domain for general use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.102.188 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell use more about this collection, especially surrounding who created the images in it and when they were created? The image may be in the public domain due to age, even if it's not of unknown origin. Steve Smith (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Derain CharingCrossBridge.png

see there. 212.199.200.76 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that this painting was hung publicly before 1923, I don't see the issue. Steve Smith (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that public display generally does not amount to publication. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, my bad on that point. Steve Smith (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fishman, The Public Domain (4th ed., 2008), p. 128: "Simply putting a work on display and allowing the public to copy it is not enough to make the work published for copyright purposes, as long as the work was created after 1977. Before then, a work of art was considered published if it was displayed to the public and the public was allowed to copy it freely." — Walloon (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah - then my bad on falsely acknowledging an earlier bad. _{I'm just going to back slowly away from this thread now.} Steve Smith (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds wrong to me. Pre-1978, publication was the event that typically took an unpublished work out of the state-law-based copyright system, and put it into the federal copyright system. If the publication was with notice, then copyright subsisted; if not; it didn't. The heart of publication always has been distribution. I don't know what Fishman is relying on, but there may have been some cases that construed giving permission to copy without requiring a notice to amount to distribution of copies, which has a certain amount of common-sense appeal. Such a distribution without notice would put it (uner the laws of the time) into the public domain. But I'm not aware of those cases. I can't say they don't exist, but I'e not come across them. Even the close cases, like the one about the Oscar statuettes, required a distribution in order to find the limited publication that brought it into the federal system (but was less than the general publication that would have required a notice to put something in the public domain. It would be interesting to know what cases her's relying on to come up with that. In any event, it seems like the part about "and the public was allowed to copy it freely" is a critical aspect of it. TJRC (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this is part of the permanent collection of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC (i.e. owned by the Federal government) Smallbones (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ownership by the federal government does not have an impact on its copyright. Authorship by the federal government is what makes a work not subject to copyright under section 105. TJRC (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this didn't jump out at me earlier, but more importantly, ownership of the copy (even the original) is not the same as ownership of the copyright. Even if the U.S. Government owned the copy that was on display in the NGA, that does not mean that the U.S. Government ever owned the copyright. And then, even if it did (and here's where the section 105 issue comes in), section 105 does not prevent the U.S. government from owning copyrights; it just prevents the U.S. government from obtaining copyrights by virtue of its own authorship. TJRC (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Images in a Pennsylvania sculpture garden

This question regards File:MatsudaBldg.jpg and File:McCut.jpg, which depict sculptures found at the Abington Art Center north of Philadelphia. These are clearly derivative images; do we have any way of finding out whether the sculptures are in the public domain, or if they've been released under a free license? Powers ^T 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless we can establish that those sculptures are sufficiently old/have been published sufficiently long ago to be in the public domain, those images are non-free and can only be used under the non-free content criteria. Steve Smith (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure what tag to put on them. Powers ^T 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the correct approach is to list them at WP:PUI. Steve Smith (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Player Photos

Can you upload photos of athletes that are taken as to promote to organisation and use in an article when there are no non-free alternatives? (Example Ryan Searle) I don't know much about images apart from ones I take myself or are logos :P Cheers JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 02:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a presumption of replaceability for photographs of living people - that is, unless you can convince us otherwise, we assume that non-free images of living people are replaceable by free ones, since anybody could go out and take a picture of them, and then release it under a free license. There are rare exceptions (famous recluses, for example), but I don't think any active athlete is going to qualify, since by the nature of their profession they tend to be out in public a lot. So, in short, that image isn't usable on Wikipedia. Steve Smith (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Understandable, thanks for the clarification. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 02:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

how to copyright images

I need to add copyright info for the two images I uploaded, but can't make any sense of the info you provide. It is our company logo and a photo of our headquarters buildings. We own both images. I am not sure how to label them. Can you provide detailed guidance? I think all will be removed by 11/15/09 if I don't fix it, but I can't figure it out. (see EWEBlogo.jpg and EWEBheadquarters.jpg).

--Ksproles (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Katie

Hi Katie - there are some complications here. I doubt that EWEB wants to release its logo under a free license (which would allow any person to use it for any purpose), which means that it will need to be used under fair use. That's fine, but not until EWEB has a proper Wikipedia article (as we don't allow the use of fair use images in userspace). If you want to contact me either here or on my talk page when that happens, I can help you out with things then. The headquarters picture is a little tougher: I don't think it's okay for fair use under Wikipedia policies, so if you want to use it the copyright holder will have to release it under a free license. If they're prepared to do so, have them send the following e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org: "We hold the copyright for File:EWEBheadquarters.jpg on the English Wikipedia, and hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, allowing for unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including derivative works, subject only to the requirement of attribution and the requirement that any derivative works be released under a similar license." Then tag the image page with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Steve Smith (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nord Stream

Hello.

I wan't to use this map of the proposed Nord Stream pipline, taken from the press kit at Nord streams webpage. Here are the details page of the image , it says "Photo may be used to accompany reports on Nord Stream provided the source is mentioned. Resale to third parties is prohibited". Do that mean that we can use it with the Non-free promotional tag?

Thanks in advance! The Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not free enough for our purposes, since it limits the purpose for which it can be used and says nothing about derivative works. The {{non-free promotional}} tag is for works used under fair use (i.e. those for which the copyright holder's terms are irrelevant). I don't see a rationale for using this image that would allow it to pass the non-free content criteria (in particular the replaceability one). Sorry. Steve Smith (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, pity. Well, thanks anyway for your fast and unerring reply Steve. The Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Public domain video

Would CC camera footage from the US Fort Hood shootings be in the public domain? It seems they should be under PD-USGov. The footage in question. The talk page discussion about it. Copana2002 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends. A work produced by a federal government worker (which would include those serving in the army) in the course of their official duties is in the public domain by default. However, you can't automatically assume that CCTV cameras on the base are owned and operated by the US Army. For example, local police officers work on the base and they're not covered by the federal public domain rule. Do they own the CCTV equipment? Or perhaps it's run by a third party contractor. So, we need more info, basically. -- Hux (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction: having checked your link, that footage is not from CCTV cameras. It's clearly from hand-held cameras and could easily be news media footage, for all we know. Without clear evidence of it being in the public domain, we have to assume that it's copyrighted. -- Hux (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Maps...again?

Hello. It's always been my understanding that Google Maps images cannot be used on Wikipedia (or any derivative works of Google Maps) as there is no compatible license nor does Google allow it (Their copyright policy indicates that images from Google Maps cannot be republished, re-edited, ect without explicit permission which Google does not give Wikipedia). So if that is the case, then Google Maps images should be eligable for speedy deletion under F3.... I tagged File:Argleton - Google Maps 1257569106217.png for deletion but the uploader indicated to me to that there are several images in the article Google Maps, screenshoted from Google Maps. I realize that per WP:OTHERSTUFF, pages for deletion are to be considered on their own merit, but on the Google Maps article, all the images except for one seem to be copyright violations. Yet, somehow, they have survived for over 11 months. Could someone please clarify things for me? Thanks in advance. Confused, FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 06:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look at Google Permissions, which suggests that a claim of fair use may be valid without permission from Google. On the other hand, it also suggests that a screenshot must include the attribution text and that the text be legible. I'll gladly defer to the judgement of others here, but if it helps then I can retake the screenshot with the attribution text intact. Small-town hero (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Google's permissions are completely irrelevant to whether or not material can be used under fair use; fair use is, by definition, use of copyrighted work without the approval of the copyright holder. In this case, the non-free use rationale seems to be adequate, and so the image should not be deleted (and certainly not without a deletion discussion). Steve Smith (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is exactly what Fair Use is for: critical commentary on Google's mapping itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the copyright of satellite image belongs to someone else and not Google. Plus, an external link would likely be sufficient - a direct image is not really needed. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

EU presidency insignia

I have downloaded three files from this website, which allows their use. Actually, the website's only purpose is to host the files for public download. The EU wants use to use them, as long as we do not abuse them. I have given the link to the source when uploading the files. So, I do not understand why my talk page is pestered with three template messages. Isn't the case obvious enough? Tomeasy _{T C} 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The notice on your talk page pretty much explains the issue (as does the notice on the actual images). This image or media does not have information on its copyright status. and If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. These images are lacking copyright tags. Problem is, it isn't clear from the page you've linked to what the copyright status is. Being made available for the public to download is different from "public domain". Two very different things. Is there some underlying EU law regarding PD content? In the US, works of the government are generally PD, but I don't know about the EU. But then again, after looking at the images, you could probably just tag them with {{PD-textlogo}}. While it may not be entirely apparent, all images on wikipedia need a copyright tag attached to the image description page. You have the option to choose from a number of licenses during the upload process, and there is a bigger list at WP:TAG that you can manually add after you upload. Once you find the right tag for these images (if there is one), then simply add the tag to the image page. You may want to look at other images for example purposes. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation.

I have read the messages on my talk page, and I understood that I was asked to put the tag. The problem is that I do not know which one. It is more than obvious to me that the EU wants people to use these logos and therefore hosts this site. However, as you also explained, this does not mean they are public domain. Well, and at this point, I have to admit that I am no expert in the field of copyrights. I was hoping that the person who left the messages, who certainly knows this much better than I, could easily add the proper tags. Probably, this is too much asked, because my case is not the only case this editor is dealing with.

Do you think it would be OK if I used a little bit of common sense and pick a license tag that I find appropriate even if, most probably, it is not the correct one? I would not have a problem with this approach, as I am certain we are not doing wrong using these logos. I was just afraid that Wikipedia would not appreciate such sloppy approach.

I could think of {{non-free symbol}} or {{non-free logo}}. They are related, but I would guess that we are free to use these logos. At least we would have tags then. Please let me know what you think. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Those tags are for non-free content, and would be appropriate if you have no evidence that the content is licensed freely (and if you believe they meet our strict WP:NFCC policy. Keep in mind Wikipedia favors free content, and thus severely restricts if and when we use "fair use"/non-free content). If you are to tag those images as non-free, you'd also need to write a fair use rationale, per WP:FURG, and make sure all 10 points of WP:NFCC are met. The only other possibly tag I can think of is the one I already mentioned, {{PD-textlogo}}. I'm pretty sure that even adding funky flag color schemes to basic lettering does not make it any more eligible for copyright, but it doesn't hurt to seek another opinion. Let's see if anyone else has some ideas. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I also look forward to hearing more opinions. Perhaps someone can point at a tag and say this is exactly what we need here. That would be great.

For the time being, I will add the tag you proposed, to ensure that my uploads will not be deleted. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being stupid, but I do not find where/how to add the tag. Can you help me out? Tomeasy _{T C} 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, hit the big "edit" tab at the top of the page. Copy and paste the template into the edit box. Hit save. The "template" is everything between the curly brackets (including the double curly brackets). Often, people create a heading that says "Licensing" or something along those lines. Look at the code for File:Activision.svg if you need an example. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God - so easy. Now, I feel ashamed. Thanks again for your help.

I have looked up other EU presidency insignia (as they are called). Those which are of comparable simplicity use the same license rationale. The more evolved logos use the fair-use rationale and carry lots of explanation.

I hope this issue is now solved. Probably, I should not be the one who removes the warning from the file page, or may I do this? Tomeasy _{T C} 19:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just realized there were instructions for this at the top of this page (under the box). Ha. Anyway, the template says the warning can be removed if a copyright tag has been added. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for the entire support you gave. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

james thackara.jpg

I have a letter from the person who took the photograph of tghe above subject. How do I indicate taht this photo can ben shownb on the wikipedia. Thanks very muchLumenlitt (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, to be usable on Wikipedia the photographer must not only give permission for it to be used on Wikipedia, but to be used by any person for any purpose (this is because of Wikipedia's own rules, not because of broader copyright law). If the photographer is prepared to grant this permission, the simplest thing would be for him/her to e-mail permissions-en@wikimedia.org an e-mail with the following content: "I hold the copyright for File:ames thackara.jpg on the English Wikipedia, and hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, allowing for unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including derivative works, subject only to the requirement of attribution and the requirement that any derivative works be released under a similar license." Then, tag the image page with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Steve Smith (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the person who took the photograph of File:James_Thackara.jpg is happy to have it inserteded inte the eponymous's article and have it downloaded and or reproduced for free with no attribution. Does that suffice for what is needed by Wikipedia? If so how do I get that information to you? If you need more can you tell me? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumenlitt (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is sufficient for Wikipedia (provided that he/she's okay with the picture being used for commercial purposes, and with derivative works being produced). Have him/her send an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org explaining this, and then tag the image with {{PD-release}}. Steve Smith (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete my file

Why will delete my file File:Van Meeuwen en Meijwes van Meeuwen familiewapen.jpg]] (by van Meeuwen). The whole picture is made by myself, see [9] (original is the picture made by my friend David Jan van Meeuwen. I hope that my picture will not delete, because the file contains not copyright. Thank you. --Jansma (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A few things:

• If you copied this off something designed by your friend, then your friend has a copyright interest in it (depending on the closeness of the copy, you may not have such an interest). Accordingly, he would need to be the one to release it under a license.
• The image doesn't currently specify a license. To be used on Wikipedia, an image must normally be released under a license that allows for unlimited reuse by any person for any purpose; an example of that is the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you wanted to license your image under that license, you would tag the image page with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}.

I hope this helps. Steve Smith (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question

Providing copywright Excuse repition. This time I signed my query

Hello, the person who took the photograph of File:James_Thackara.jpg is happy to have it inserted inte the eponymous's article and have it downloaded and or reproduced for free with no attribution. Does that suffice for what is needed by Wikipedia? If so how do I get that information to you? If you need more can you tell me? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumenlitt (talk • contribs) 11:44, 11 November 2009 (UTCLumenlitt (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please ask the photographer to follow the process set out at WP:IOWN so that the permission can be recorded appropriately. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the reply to your first topic, and if you have additional questions or concerns, ask them in that topic, as opposed to starting a new one. See your original post. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Cincinnati Bearcats.svg

What do you think of File:Cincinnati Bearcats.svg? I've been going through the overuse of non-free college logos, and replacing most of them with free, PDtext alternatives. I came across File:Cincinnati Bearcats.svg, and was about to replace it with a text only version, when I realized that the "claws" are possibly commas. If this is entirely made up of typographical elements, would it then qualify of PD-text? Or does the unique sizing and use of the comma (if it is a comma) qualify for copyright? I've been looking at logos for too long over the past couple days, so I need a second opinion on this. At this point, I'm almost positive this logo is comprised entirely of typographical and simple geometric elements. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. If you flip the image around (I did) those claws do not look like any comma I've ever seen. Further, each one is different in proportion from the others. These are artistic elements. Not to mention the placement of the claws vs. the "C" in itself creates the image of a bear paw. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What should I do about a suspect image

In the article Miranda Hart, there is an image File:Miranda 1.jpg (held on English Wikipedia, not Commons) which appears to be identical in appearance to one found on the subject's own website - the dimensions and file size are also identical. However, the Wikipedia uploader claims "I created this work entirely by myself.". How can we tell if the copy on Wikipedia is legal, and if not, what is the procedure for dealing with it?

I left a message at the uploader's talk page concerning the missing description, which is apparently ignored; the user concerned has definitely logged in in the meantime, so has had opportunity to read & comment. I wanted that to be sorted before I proceeded to the poss copyvio. Opinions please? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like blatant theft to me. The uploader also has a history of image problems. I've tagged the image with {{db-f9}} as a blatant copyright infringement. In cases where it isn't blatant, it should be taken to WP:PUI. In this case, it's obvious it was stolen. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Wow. This has uncovered a number of other problem images. Two screenshots he claimed are entirely his own work (File:Sian James Tylluan Wen.JPG,File:John Ogwen Tylluan Wen.JPG), several old photos (such as File:Dark Gate 1930 1.jpg) that he claims he took himself, even though he's still in school (according to his Welsh Wikipedia userpage), and possibly more problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to add that there is a sort-of middle ground between speedy delete and PUI. As the PUI tag states, If the only problem with this file is that a claimed release into the public domain or under a free license is not backed up with a statement on the source website or an email to OTRS, please replace this tag with {{subst:npd}}. This gives the uploader 7 days to fix the problem, while the speedy copyvio will be deleted as soon as an admin sees it and verifies the violation. Yeah, our deletion/trouble processes aren't really that streamlined/user friendly.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The problem with this guy is that he's claiming the source is himself. I seriously doubt he's 89+ years old, still in school, and took File:Dark Gate 1930.jpg which he watermarked as from himself, copyrighted to himself. Ahem. :) This is just blatant thievery. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

I am unable to understand why copyright issue is produced about these to images,while I have explained that this is entirely my own work?

File:Grave_maududi.jpg‎ File:House maududi.jpg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaur (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you created the photos, you had a copyright on them, and Wikipedia could not use them without your permission. The {{PD-self}} tags that you subsequently added gave the permission that was needed. —teb728 t c 10:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

add source

where to add source of any image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K1.saurabh (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For File:P L DESHPANDE.jpg you add it to File:P L DESHPANDE.jpg, and for File:Bhalchandra Nemade.jpg you add it to File:Bhalchandra Nemade.jpg. I have added blank {{information}} templates to both. You also need to add image copyright tags to both; you could add the tags in the permission parameter of the templates. —teb728 t c 10:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Which license for a picture from the website http://www.sxc.hu under "standard license"?

Hi,

I would like to know which license shall I mention for a picture a found in the website: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1234386 The picture is under "standard restrictions" and can be used for all purposes except for sell and redistribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveraA (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this is a copyright image and not freely licenced per this page, which is what we require. You could ask the photographer to relicence it into the public domain or under an acceptable Creative Commons licence, but right now we can't accept it. That should be an easy photo to take a replacement of. Did you search commons:Category:Laptops for similar images? ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Image uploaded by mistake

Hi,

I have uploaded an image by mistake: how can I delete it? It is shown in the image history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Multiple_laptops-2009-12-11.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveraA (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

page language

i want to upload my information in Malay language. can i use this link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Upload>? if can't, where should it i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilib0h (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to insert User:Cilib0h/Sekolah Kebangsaan Sungai Tua Baharu (SKSTB) as an article in the Malay-language Wikipedia? If so, go here and follow their procedures for creating a page. The form you linked to is for uploading images, and won't work for text.

If you'd like to translate that article into English, and publish it on the English Wikipedia, go ahead and complete the translation on the existing page. Follow the steps at the new article wizard, to produce a high-quality article. Then use the move function to move it to an appropriate title. Finally, if that article was originally from the Malay Wikipedia, use {{translated page}} on the article's discussion page. TheFeds 05:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What is licence for in this situation please File:Thatcher-ross.jpg

I scanned the head shot of this politician from a larger photo. The photo was in the effects of a deceased person whose effects I possess. The photo was taken in 1969. No idea of who took the photo. Both the subject and the original photo owner are dead. My second question is whether I can/should upload the signature that is also on the photo to the article W. Ross Thatcher and the licencing for it as well. Thanks for any help. --Fremte (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Signature is fine; {{PD-ineligible}} applies. As for the image, it's almost certainly still copyrighted. Who took the photo? Stifle (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since Fremte states, "No idea of who took the photo," does this not fall into the area of orphaned works? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The photo has "Sept, 1969" on the back in pen ink. Signature of the subject on the front. Nothing else known, no other writing. Black and white as scanned and signed on the front. I thought it might have been a promotional item - a meet and greet the politician thing, but that's just my speculation. I read the orphan thing and that does make sense I think. Thanks for your interest and help! --Fremte (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright for a photo

Hello , I apologise for all the questions about this matter, but I have to have permissions in by the 17th for this photo so would appreciate hearing a final ok back from you. Ukexpat graciously said it looked ok but also said he was not an expert in the matter. I have prepared a text for the photographer of the photo of file:James_Thackara.jpg to sign. If it acomplishes the task I will forward it, have it signed and they will send it to permissions. So that I not waste your time, the purpose is to :

give permission for the photo of file:James_Thackara.jpg to be copied, downloaded or used by anyone with no attribution to the photographer but rather to have the name of the subject and the date 2009 attached to the photo. No fee will be required for reproduction. So essentially the photo is being given to wikipedia.

My Questions are: 1. Is the text below what the photographer should use and then sent to Wikipedia 2. Should I then tag the photo with PD-release? 3. Can a scan of this document with signature suffice for the Wikipedia requirements?

SUGGESTED TEXT

I hereby affirm that I hold the copyright for File:James thackara.jpg on the English Wikipedia, and hereby release it, under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License{{PD-release}} allowing for unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including derivative works, subject only to the requirement that it be accompanied with the text "James Thackara 2009" and the requirement that any derivative works be released under a similar license.

I agree to publish that work under the free license {{PD-release}}.

Name and details of copyright holder G Poulden 69 Bramfield Road London SW116PZ England Signature to be provided Date of signing lumenlittLumenlitt (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The above will be signed, scanned and sent to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org an e-mail

I (lulemlitt will tag the image file:James_Thackara.jpg with {{PD-release}}.

I believe I have understood the instructions but there is always a chance for error and I have very little time (form has to be accepted by the 17th) So if I have anything wrong, I would really really appreciate your adding the exact words that should be used. Thanks very much.

I responded on your talk page to the similar question you asked on my talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Images at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The article is currently using File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg, a non-free fair use image. Am I correct in thinking that this is problematic as a) the subject is a living person, and b) a free image of the subject already exists on Commons at File:Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg? I made the substitution, but another editor reverted, and I don't feel like edit-warring over the matter, so I leave further action, if warranted, to people who watch this board. Ray^Talk 06:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your reasoning is sound: if a free image of a living person is available then we need to use that over a copyrighted image. The only reasonable way we could make use of File:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed image widely published in September 2009 -a.jpg is if the article was discussing that photo specifically, such that displaying the photo would add to the discussion in a way that words alone could not. But if the purpose of the photo is simply to illustrate the subject then we have to use the free one. -- Hux (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, when the "other image" is clearly footnoted as having been a propaganda image rather than a true representation, then the Fair Use merits are met to show a true depiction of KSM. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding Information Tag for Photo

Hello, The photographer of James_Thackara.jpg has sent his permission to e-Permissions. He is releasing the photo under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

. On the image information page, I do not see where this information should be added. I would greatly appreciate your help since the photo will be deleted on the 17th if I do not enter this information. Thanks very much LumenlittLumenlitt (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I did it for you (that's not the right licence tag by the way). All you need to do is change "photographer's name" to, well, the photographer's name, including how they expect to be attributed. Jarry1250 12:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Baire image

I have a picture of French mathematician René Baire. However, I am uncertain if it is in the public domain, protected under fair use, or unusable. The picture can be seen at [10]. The picture is not owned by the site; it is seen throughout bios on the internet. I was unable to find the maker of the photograph, or anything about them, but (if important), Baire died in 1932. What do you think? Indeed123 (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay use or derivative work?

Hi. I'm courtesy listing an image question here that needs resolution at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Add color to the drawing. Can textures modified from a copyrighted photo be transposed to a drawing, or does that constitute a derivative work? Please, if you can shed light, answer there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no copyright issues for works in the public domain, since noone holds copyright. You can use them as you see fit with or without credit and without restrictions. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think she knows that. She's asking whether a specific extraction of material from a copyrighted source for use in a public domain source constitutes a work derivative of the copyrighted work (in which case the copyright would follow to the new work). I'm not good at evaluating the threshold of creativity, so I have no useful thoughts. Steve Smith (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's exactly what I'm wondering. With visual work, I share your difficulty evaluating the threshold. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Using a copyrighted source for color inspiration in a painting I doubt constitutes a derivative work, is the copyrighted source very near identical in position/pose of the public domain outline that is being colored? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I gather of the situation, the image was used more than for "color inspiration". The non-free image was used directly, but heavily photoshopped to alter it to match up better with the drawing and to remove scratches, and to filter it so it looks more like coloration and shading, than a superimposed photo. The question is probably similar to this. Was the original altered enough so that it is no longer a derivative work (and while we are at it, was the underlying line drawing simply a trace/"line inspiration" drawing of that same photo? would that be a derivative work as well, or does mechanically drawing a photo transfer the copyright?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the situation as I understand it. Sorry I didn't go into details; it's all set out at the thread I linked. This was more by way of request for feedback there. However, now that it's more fully explained here, you can see the images with and without color at the top of that link. The copyrighted source is at this pdf (which currently is not loading for me, but I know it does work; I've seen it. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really a borderline case. My personal opinion is that it's best we stick with the black and white version and try to obtain a new photograph of it at our earliest convenience. The colored version isn't a substantial enough improvement to justify the risk here. I admit I am being really conservative though. Dcoetzee 07:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who colored the pic. So feel free to ask if you have any further questions. Andrew c summed up pretty well what I did. When I did the coloring, I did not consider it as a copyright violation. If you look at the color of the image (the black lines are public domain), you'll see that it has very little details. It is basically an orange-to-brown gradient for the shell and some shades of grey and blue for the head. I'd consider this to be too simple and vague to deserve copyright status. Then again, I have little clue about those legal issues and where to draw the line of copyright violation. As for the original line drawing, it is most certainly also based on the same copyright image from that pdf. There are very few pictures of that snail around and the line drawing fits almost perfectly to the copyrighted photograph. However, I don't think this is our problem, because the line drawing was not made by an editor here but taken from a PD publication of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Splette, has taken a copyrighted image, altered it and used it. He even said, that that he did it exactly like this. It is definitely copyright violation. (I am sorry to say that, because I proposed to color it. The correct way is like this: Look at it photo how it look like and then draw completely by yourself.) --Snek01 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What admin speedy deleted the image? It isn't blatant copyright infringement and therefore should have been taken to PUF. ZooFari 17:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

DVD Covers and Movie Posters?

I was just wondering if it's all right to upload DVD cover art and Movie Poster images for articles about the movie? I've noticed it being done in other articles, but I just wanted to make sure if it's allowed before I do it. Thanks! Ibrflvs (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• It depends. Follow the model of other movies, generally speaking. You can do too much, if you're not careful. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• One or the other is probably fine. Both might be questionable — you'd have to show each one added something to the article that one on its own wouldn't add. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If the movie poster was first published in the U.S. before 1964, odds are that the copyright was never renewed (and no, movie posters are not covered as derivative works of the movie they advertise). If the poster was first published 1951-1963, its copyright renewal should be in the online U.S. Copyright Office database of registrations. If the poster was first published in the U.S. from 1964 to the present, with a proper copyright notice, it is still under copyright. — Walloon (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use image using in multilanguage wikipedias

Hello. I was translating the article about Boston Celtics from the English to the Lithuanian Wikipedia. And I ran into this problem: File:Boston Celtics alternate logo.svg (by the Team Logos section) is not displayed in the Lithuanian article. I've asked the Lithuanian administrator to check what's wrong and he uploaded the picture to the Lithuanian Wiki (before that the image address was in red). But he doesn't understand either, why this file isn't shown. Plese help. Thank you Shakurazz (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For that to have worked, the image would have had to have been from Wikimedia Commons, the shared media repository. However, commons only accepts free-licensed files, and so all non-free files are hosted locally. Thus, to get a non-free file to show on a different project, you would need to upload it there, just like you did. (Note, though, that not all projects accept fair use images; indeed, many of the biggest Wikipedias outside of ENglish explicitly don't.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about photos/maps in an old book

I have a copy of Sir John Alexander Hammerton's "A Popular History of the Great War", published in 1933 by The Amalgamated Press - as far as I can see, it was never re-published.

There are 6 volumes of this, going into a lot of detail about the First World War. Also, there are about 800 photos of people, ships, battle sites, etc - as well as maps of various battles.

Would it be possible to use these photos on Wikipedia? I've not looked indepth, so I don't know how many I would like to use, but I don't want to go to the effort of scanning and uploading them if they'd just be deleted anyway!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe they are all copyrighted if the author is known. See Commons:Commons:Licensing#United Kingdom The applicable standard if the author is know is life of the author of the works, plus seventy years. However, if the author is unknown, then it's 70 years after creation. So if there's an author, unless you can determine that they died before 1939, they're not public domain, and if no author is known, they apparently are public domain (if they are PD, upload them to the Wikimedia Commons, not here, so that all projects have access to the image [sign up]). You might be able to upload a few locally even if copyrighted if they meet fair use standards (maps would rarely qualify, because they're replaceable), but you would need to determine this separately for each photograph on a one-to-one basis for a particular article, whether is qualified as fair use. So this would not be proper as any sort of mass upload of numerous scans. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought that might be the case (the author died in 1949, so we've got another 10 years to wait!) I'll look through the photos in case there are some for individuals that aren't already on Wikipedia, as fair-use - but the maps are no problems. It might be that there are no suitable photos, so there's no problems here anyway! I only asked, as I knew that the text of the books would be under copyright, but wasn't sure about photos! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do hope you will do me the courtesy of giving me a status update on November 15, 2019:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You won't have to wait quite that long - the author died on 12 May 1949, so I'll update you on the 13th of that month! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary - if it's a magazine, which shows the editor at the front, and some articles are credited with an author but some are not, do the uncredited ones count as "authored by editor" or "anonymous"? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I think the uncredited ones count as "authored by the magazine", which would mean that the copyright expires 70 years after the demise of the magazine! However, if you could find the actual author of the article (contact the magazine if it still exists), then it'd be 70 years after the author's death. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

photographer's name for file:James_Thackara.jpg

Herllo, I really sorry to come back to you who were so nice about placing the right tag for permission use the photo of James Thackara. I cannot recall how I entered the photo and hence cannot enter it the photographer's name. The photographer's name is Gervase Poulden. He does not wish to be credited unless he has to and then by his initials GGP.He would however like to stipulate that the author's name "James Thackara 2009" goes under the photo when it is used Thanks for your help if you can put this in. Lumenlitt (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I updated the attribution as: cc-by-sa-3.0|James Thackara 2009. See the history of File:James Thackara.jpg to see what changes have been made. Hopefully your email will confirm what you have said. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Postcards

I would like to upload a copy of a postcard (which includes a copyright 1905 located on the image.)

Has the copyright expired?

Buckyboot (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What country was the postcard produced in? If the US, then most likely, yes. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I beleive it was printed in New York USA. Thank youBuckyboot (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

PD as per Indian copyright law

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question. I am under an impression that according to Indian Copyright Law a photograph enters public domain after 60 years. I'm not an expert and hence a bit confused with the legalities. Can these images be works of anonymous author or should the author details be known? I don't see why we should need author information for something that is obviously in a public domain. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I asked the above question is to know if these [11] [12] taggings are necessary. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this, anonymous photographs are counted starting with the publication date. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

From ar.wikisource - problem?

Would uploading an image from [13] be a copyright issue? I am under the impression that because it is on Wikimedia it is ok? Supertouch (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily true. Just like how anyone can upload, say, copyrighted content to the English wikipedia, people can do the same thing to other language Wikipedias as well. Because of that, we cannot assume that anything you find is free. You should just be able to verify the copyright/licensing status. If you can verify that the work is freely licensed (or if the copyright has expired), then the best thing to do would be to move it to the Commons so everyone can use it (as opposed to just moving it to en.wiki). I cannot help you identify the copyright status because I cannot read Arabic (and it looks like that image doesn't even have a copyright tag in the first place). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Uploading Non-Free Image For Use In Test Article In Userspace

Is is OK to use a non free image (a book cover) to work on an article I'm currently working on in my sandbox? Eventually, it will be placed in the mainspace, but for now the only place the image will be used will be in my userspace. --Michaelkourlas (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For a short time you should be able to get away with it, but for no more than a week. Otherwise you would use a different bu free place holder image to fill the space. So it is not really OK, but the image will not be deleted immediately. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I go after such fair use violations in userspace, but am considerably more lenient when it comes to work in the userspace where it is obvious it is an article in development. If the page just got created, or has been so in the last few days, I tend to leave it alone. If it's gathering cobwebs, I'll usually comment out the image rather than remove it outright. Your mileage with different editors may vary. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Doubt

How can I get the copyright tag? I have got the pics I uploaded at a couple of websites, I have given the sources, and yet I don't know how I get the copyright tag. Thanks for the help. Grenzer22 (talk) Grenzer22

None of the three image you uploaded are clearly identifiable as being freely licenced. You found them on copyright websites and while the images themselves may not have had a copyright notice that does not mean they are not copyright to someone. You cannot just give an image a copyright tag unless you know it exact status. You may have to do more research to find out who took the photos and what their status is. Two of these people are dead so it might be possible to use them under a fair-use claim so long as each image complies with all 10 of the non-free content criteria. ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At the very top of this page, we have "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". Please read that, and if you have specific questions about doing it, please ask. Thanks! Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Source info for image?

Do we know anything about the source of this image? File:India_CG3.jpg I am wondering, because I'd like to know exactly what the image shows and where it came from. I have queried the user User:Vastu, who added the file to the Chandragupta Maurya article in 2006, but he hasn't made an edit since July 2009, so I don't know whether or how quickly he'll respond. I am not used to working with images. I see that there is a "public domain" template in the image file. I wonder whether that file has information, somewhere, on the source of the image. I am suspicious as to whether the image really is public domain. The colors seem a bit too vibrant to come from a historic painting whose copyright has expired. Furthermore, I am no expert, but the painting is not in a recognizable historic Indian painting style, at least not one that I recognize. It looks much more to me like a 20th-century illustration, which might not be in the public domain. Can anyone enlighten me? I'd appreciate a response to my user page, if possible. Thank you. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

About Copyright law for Images

Hello I am pretty new to Wikipedia and I was just learning how to add value to the website. I was browsing through the Article Sultan Kosen and found that the image was missing. So, I thought to upload the best image. And I found a good image from a Mongolian Website which I do not know the language and so I have uploaded the Image.

My Question is How to know the Copyright laws for different language websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavidson98 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the article for us. It would be helpful to point us at the web site from which you obtained the image. Language issues are usually overcome-able, if desperate one can use Google Translate (though I'm not convinced that such translations would stand up in a court). The country from which the image was obtained is probably just as important, or maybe more important, than the language, to start researching the issue of the copyright. (OT: I note the caption does not match the image, except in the unlikely event that Roker has become a red telephone booth. While plausible in fiction, I think we're talking a factual subject here.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that copyrighted photos of living persons are expressly prohibited except in extreme cases, as they are nearly always replaceable by free content. This would qualify for that image if you simply took it from a random website. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Uploading copyrighted content from owner

Hey, I'm working on a wikipedia article for a tv program, and I'm not sure what to list for copyright info for the photo. The source of the photo is not a website, as I'm doing it for the company the photo was supplied directly. I was not given any written permission, just the photo for the purpose of putting on the website. I have read that specific permission for wikipedia is not allowed, do I need them to write me an official statement declaring that it is a promotional photo? I have direct access to the owners, so I can pretty much get anything... Whatever's easiest I guess. Thanks in advance BunnySound (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can get whatever you want, I would suggest you get them to send the following e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org: "We hold the copyright for File:NAMEOFFILE on the English Wikipedia, and hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, allowing for unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including derivative works, subject only to the requirement of attribution and the requirement that any derivative works be released under a similar license." Then, tag the image page with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Steve Smith (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot one thing, however, and I'm not sure how it affects things. I and the company are in Canada, does that mess with the creative commons stuff in any way?BunnySound (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in the least (so am I, actually). Steve Smith (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you. One last thing, the photo is of characters which are of course copyrighted. Would sending that letter simply mean that the specific photo could be used, without undermining any other copyrights? This may be a silly question, but this whole world of copyright and fair use is fairly new to me. I'm just an assistant making this page as a side project, so there's lots to learn.BunnySound (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the copyright of the characters is held by the people you're working with, there's no problem; the licensing would only be for the specific image (and works that can be derived from that specific image), and not for the underlying characters. If the characters are owned by somebody else, then depending on the nature of the picture and the characters you might need permission from those owners too. Steve Smith (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, you've been extremely helpful!BunnySound (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I should also mention that if the owners don't want to release the image under that license, it would probably be possible to use a single shot in the article even without them needing to release it. I can give you more details on that approach if you like; the downside is that it's more complicated and the terms under which you can use the image are more strict, while the upside (from the owners' perspective) is that they don't relinquish any control over the image's use. Steve Smith (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That might be worth it, if you don't mind. Then when I talk to them next I have a couple options... As long as I've got you here. Very appreciated!BunnySound (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, American law includes a concept called fair use (which is similar to the Canadian concept of fair dealing) which allows for copyrighted works to be used under certain conditions without the permission of the copyright holders, so if we went that route we wouldn't need the owners to do anything by way of permission. Wikipedia voluntarily uses fair use images only in very narrow circumstances, defined by our non-free content criteria. In brief, this means that in the article about the show we could probably only use a single low resolution image, and would have to make the case that the use of that image significantly increased the reader's understanding of the article. If we go the CC-BY-SA approach, on the other hand, we could use as many images as the owners were willing to license, and at whatever resolution we could get (but, once the owners licensed those images, anybody else could also use them for any reason). If you decide to go the fair use route, let me know (either here or on my talk page), and I'll help you jump through those hoops. Steve Smith (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm disconcerted at the practice of recommending CC-BY-SA as a "default license." Many copyright owners are happy to release their media under more liberal licenses, without regard for the license of derivative works. Shouldn't we be encouraging these works to be as free and unconstrained as possible? Dcoetzee 10:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion

Two images File:Garrow'_Law_title_screenshot.jpg and File:Department_S_title_screenshot.jpg are up for deletion by an editor I have upset. I followed the guidelines for TV infoboxes that request an image for infoboxes. Needs ajudication. Incidently the first image is not mine, but the rationale is.REVUpminster (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just these two images, TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) has been on quite a spree.

The general practice has been to apply the standards of logos for TV series title-cards, on the similar grounds that (i) they help users identify that they have come to the right page; (ii) they show the image the programme makers have crafted to stand for the whole show, information which does add something material and significant to the understanding that article readers get about the subject. Additionally also (iii) the copyright taking, per the U.S. four-factor test, is relatively slight, since such images are deliberately crafted with the intention that they will be memorable, and be widely used by third parties as identifiers for the shows.

For all those basic reasons, it is long-established that we are quite content that such title cards pass the standards of WP:NFCC and of U.S. Fair use. Perhaps wording could be altered in the examples section NFC to make this clearer; but there can be no doubt that it is the longstanding interpretation of WP:NFCC.

Speedy deletions, in the face of long-term customary usage, are not appropriate. Jheald (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As User:Jheald will attest, I'm very keen to remove anything that fails even one of the criteria of WP:NFCC, but even I can't see anything wrong with these. It is a long-standing consensus that a single non-free image to illustrate the subject of an article (as long, of course, as it is not replaceable with a free image) is allowed. Black Kite 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of this convention, and the "purpose" fields were not adequate, and did not describe this. Things are fine now. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Artwork commissioned by the US federal government

Ammodramus asked my opinion about a photo s/he has ready to upload, but I'm not sure of the answer. Ammodramus visited the post office in Minden, Nebraska, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places partially because of a mural inside the building that was commissed by the federal government in the 1930s as part of the WPA. I get the impression that this contract made the painter an employee of the federal government (thus making the mural PD) while making the mural, but I'm not entirely sure. Moreover, I don't see a copyright notice on the mural; if it's not PD-USGov, is it PD-no notice? You can find details about the mural in this document; its final page is a non-free photograph that I was looking at when I said that there's no notice. You won't find any photos of this mural here, because (I believe that) Ammodramus is waiting for advice before uploading anything. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

File:AwabiCastel2008.JPG and File:AwabiCastel.jpg

I have received a message regarding my first two images, which were named File:AwabiCastel2008.JPG and File:AwabiCastel.jpg . Honestly, I'm not yet too familirised with Wikipedia. However, I wanna declare that I have written the article named "Al Awabi" by myself, and I have uploded the two photos of its Castle from a friend who is happy with posting his photos.

So my Q here is how can I fix this problem with "information on its copyright status" of the tow photos, so I don't have the problem again ?

I would love to know the answer. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AwabiWriter (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your friend should follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to release the images for use on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

???

I have uploaded a map onto The Salvation Army Australian Eastern Territory page, it was a blank map, that I updated with the info myself. It is now tagged with a copyright issue notice. Can I get a bit of help verifying that it is not in breach of any copyright laws... --Parradudes (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to tell us what permission you are giving people to reuse it; select one from WP:TAGS and copy and paste it onto the file description page. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

help :S

hi, im completely new to wikipedia so i am a bit unsure. how do i find whats needed to keep the pictures up i posted. where do i find you the copyright information you need?? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom darkness (talk • contribs) 08:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All images need source information (i.e. where you got it from) and an “image copyright tag” from WP:ICT or one of its subpages. For free content (i.e. that which is licensed for reuse by anyone for anything) the tag indicates what license allows Wikipedia to use it. For non-free content it is a non-free tag from WP:ICT/FU. Non-free content also requires a non-free use rationale, explaining how the use conforms to Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content criteria.

Using File:PhysicalRTR.jpg as an example, is it a game cover? If so the tag would be {{non-free game cover}}, and you could use {{video game cover fur}} for the use rationale (which also provides the source). However there is a serious problem: For it is a non-free image that is not used in any article, which violates the policy WP:NFCC#7. If it were used in an article presumably it would be in Mystery Case Files: Return to Ravenhearst. But there is already a non-free image (is it a title card?) being used for identification of that article. WP:NFCC#3a allows only one non-free image to be used for identification of an article without a strong explanation of why showing a second image is necessary for reader understanding. So I'm sorry to say this image can't stay (unless it replaces the other image in the article.) —teb728 t c 10:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Permission to use photo

Would like to request permission to use ticket #2008071210006748 for an article about knitting on Examiner.com. Thank you. examiner.com/x-23677-Providence-Knitting-Examiner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatterson (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

First, see Wikipedia:REUSE#Images_and_other_media. Then go to the image page, and look for the licensing information. If it is a free license, such as the GFDL, or one of the Creative Commons licenses, you are welcome to use the image, without explicit permission, as long as follow the terms of the license (which is often attributing the author/source, and noting the free licensing). Hope this helps. Keep in mind, we cannot offer you legal advice, so you should consult your attorney if you have more specific questions about whether your reuse is legal. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to use "approved" Jonas Salk portrait as non-free image

This question has been posted to User talk:Infrogmation but the answer is still undecided, so I'm asking here also.

Last week, [File:Jonas_Salk1.jpg] was removed from the Commons as it was originally taken by a well-known photographer, although not realized when uploaded. However, I think it would be worth considering whether using the image as non-free would be OK. Note that the photographer's estate spokesperson gave their OK, in the deletion discussion, to use it, so long as it was not PD and was attributed. The use of the image on Jonas Salk as a lead portrait image would obviously help everyone, including the copyright owners. I also just came across this notice on acurator.com, the website of the photographer:

"We were able to locate this image of Jonas Salk. The client originally requesting it had found it on Wikipedia, regrettably marked as being in the public domain. Wikipedia decided to take the image down even though I would have liked them to just make sure it was properly attributed and keep it on the Jonas Salk page. One of Dr. Salk's sons got in touch; also a doctor, even he felt the injection shot was a little discomfiting. Dr. Jonas Salk, 1956 © Yousuf Karsh" [14]

As Creative Commons "permits free use, including commercial use" and permits "any derivative creator or redistributor," that won't do. The copyright holder said they want it used only in the Jonas Salk article and with attribution. I feel that because it is the only portrait of Salk available, and would be valuable to the lead, that its use as a pre-approved non-free image should be acceptable. You can see the photo in question at the link above. Anyone in favor? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We have free images of the subject, and so we should not be using non-free images in the article infobox. I'm afraid non-free is non-free, regardless of whether Wikipedia has permission to use it or not. J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to play with words, but when the owner of an image tells WP they can "freely" use an image on a particular article, wouldn't that make it an exception to "non-free" limitations? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. So when Wikipedia talks about “free content,” it means content that is reusable by anyone for anything. So an image that can be used only on Wikipedia for one article is not free at all. As for exceptions, Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which allows Wikipedia to use any non-free content, says explicitly that any non-free content “must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.” —teb728 t c 07:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of an image of a painting given to me by a deceased artist

A painting by an artist featured on Wikipedia was given to me by the artist in 1985. The artist, now deceased, painted the picture in 1944.

At the same time, he gave me a photograph of himself, together with an unknown person, taken by an unknown person in a village High St in the late 1950s or early 1960s.

I wish to upload scans of the painting and photograph. What is the copyright situation? Tomintoul (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In the vast majority of imaginable circumstances, it is probable that the painting is still copyright by the artist, and that you will need to seek permission before using it; I have no experience as to who may be able to help you there, copyright is inherited like any other possession, maybe an executor of the artist's will? For the photograph, mmm. Probably the same. Someone else may be able to comment further. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

An unpublished photo is almost certainly unusable, as copyright restriction on these are more rather than less restrictive. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works) Under U.S. law, if the image was created before 1978 and not published prior to that year, it is covered under current standard copyright duration, which means that in the absence of a known photographer it is protected until 95 years after the date it was first published or 120 years after it was created. Presuming it was never published, we will likely be dust before it's free for use. :/ (Or at least I will. I will not speculate about anybody else's longevity. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If the article about him, if there is one, discusses his style or subject matter, or otherwise covers his artwork, then uploading as a "fair-use" non-free image should be acceptable. Possessing a piece of art does not transfer any copyrights to the art, however. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe: the non-free content criteria require that there be no free equivalent (e.g. a work by the same author that is out of copyright, that serves the same illustrative purpose), and that the inclusion is important in context. TheFeds 16:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

tagging photos

Can anyone tell me where to go to tag a photo on my blackberry curve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.235.125 (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what sort of thing you are asking. For example, are you asking about a photo you you took of you blackberry or one you took with it or what? And are you asking about a tag to put on Wikipedia or one to put on the blackberry or what? —teb728 t c 11:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Bates image status

Is this photo of Barbara Bates in public domain? I can't figure out in the internet. Brand[t] 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can’t think of any reason to suspect that it would be public domain. Most stuff you find on the internet is not public domain. Some categories of things that are public domain include: really old stuff (like stuff published before 1923), stuff created by the US federal government (but not stuff created by state governments or stuff acquired by the federal government), and stuff where the creator has explicitly given up his copyright. —teb728 t c 01:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sculptures and murals on a cathedral

Two images are being used for the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels#Design article feature two public artworks, a sculpture File:The Virgin Mary by Robert Graham.jpg and a tapestry File:Los Angeles Cathedral Tapestry.jpg. Am I correct in thinking these two images should be marked as non-free with accompanying criteria and shrinking? Since both pieces of art are mentioned in the discussion section I'm guessing they could be used, although they should probably have their contextual significance reasoning strenthened, correct? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The sculpture photo is fine: a photograph of a copyrighted, three-dimensional work is itself considered a copyrighted work - the copyright being owned by the photographer - provided the sculpture is permanently on view in a public place. So the license on that is correct. The tapestry photo, however, is not properly licensed. The rules apply differently to what in law would be considered a two dimensional work: photographs of such works retain the same copyright status as the original, so that image needs to be licensed as a copyrighted work, with a non-free use rationale. In the case of the tapestry photo, you're right that the contextual significance needs to be better than it currently is. -- Hux (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about the sculpture being unique? That may be true in other countries, but as this is in Los Angeles, CA I would assume Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States. I was wondering more along the lines that if there were any Public Domain related to either the Catholic Church, or to sculptures mounted to buildings being considered under the architectural aspect of the FoP exception. A question I had earlier this month (link) came back as FoP does not apply to sculptures. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Commemorative plaque

I have a supplementary to that: in L. T. C. Rolt#Biography it mentions a canal bridge named after the article's subject. There is a plaque attached to the bridge explaining this; I have taken a photo of that plaque, and would like to add it to the article. The plaque is cast iron with raised lettering, dated 27 July 1999, mostly text but with two logos (those of the Inland Waterways Association and British Waterways). I'm not sure whether this counts as two-dimensional or three-dimensional art, or something else. I (verbally, off-wiki) asked User:Geni, who knows about canals but wasn't at all sure about suitable licensing. I understand that the rules differ significantly, so I would like to know what licensing would be suitable, please; further, would it be suitable for Commons, or just English wikipedia? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The bridge in question is located in the United Kingdom. Having now been directed to Commons:Freedom of panorama, would {{FoP-UK}} be applicable in this case - could it be considered to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship"? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Proper license for image from US government website that's older than the government agency?

File:ExperimentalMinePA.jpg is taken from this webpage operated by NIOSH, a part of the CDC. As the photo was taken in 1910, it can't have been a work of NIOSH (formed 1970) or of the CDC (formed 1942). Since the page doesn't say anything about publication information, should we simply assume that it falls under PD-US? Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clear from the description that the image is (under U.S. law) the work of the United States Bureau of Mines, so PD-USGov and probably PD-US as well. Physchim62 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the description on the page that I linked? I couldn't find anything on that page to that effect; if I missed it, please say that :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I figure it would be a "public use" type of image from the United States Department of the Interior. "PD-USGov-Interior". The reason I think that is because the National Energy Technology Laboratory page says, "1910: The U.S. Dept. of Interior (Bureau of Mines) established the Pittsburgh Experiment Station in Bruceton, Pennsylvania." Well, that's the Experimental Mine they're talking about, and that image is dated 1910, and the image was found on those government web sites associated with Interior - Mines - CDC - NIOSH. The U.S. Department of the Interior was established in 1849, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines was established in 1910. The main agency, of course, being the Interior. So, I would say that's the logical source of the image. Leepaxton (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Public domain status in question

Do we know anything about the source of this image? File:India_CG3.jpg I am wondering, because I'd like to know exactly what the image shows and where it came from. I have queried the user User:Vastu, who added the file to the Chandragupta Maurya article in 2006, but he hasn't made an edit since July 2009, so I don't know whether or how quickly he'll respond. I am not used to working with images. I see that there is a "public domain" template in the image file. I wonder whether that file has information, somewhere, on the source of the image. I am suspicious as to whether the image really is public domain. The colors seem a bit too vibrant to come from a historic painting whose copyright has expired. Furthermore, I am no expert, but the painting is not in a recognizable historic Indian painting style, at least not one that I recognize. It looks much more to me like a 20th-century illustration, which might not be in the public domain. Wouldn't it be easy enough to paste a public-domain template into a file if a user wanted to protect it from deletion even if the user could not prove that the image is public domain? My apologies for asking this question twice, but no one responded to this question the first time, and I think that it is a serious question that involves some risk to Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a tag to the image that requests a source. If none is supplied the image will be deleted. (If the user returns later to explain the source of the image it could be undeleted.) All images require a source so that their copyright status can be verified. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Konysheva Natta portrait 2009.jpg

I uploaded the file which I made/took (produced) myself and I downloaded this file to Wikipedia. I want this uploaded file be used for the article in Wikipedia and I don't want any other usage of this file. What I should add in the file description in order to have this file in Wikipedia article. Andrey Kryuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by VArtC (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For living people we only accept freely licenced images which means that your limited permission for Wikipedia only is not acceptable to us. You might consider using one of these Creative Commons licences which are not as restrictive but allow other usage as well but with attribution. If you don't choose one of these the image will be deleted shortly. ww2censor (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated wiki, a member has uploaded some of my pictures (from WP) as his own

Forgive me if this is the wrong lplace to ask this - it's difficult to work my way around the copyright pages here... I have uploaded a large number of photographs to Wikipedia over the last few years; today I discovered that a user on an unrelated wiki, VirtualTourist.com, has uploaded several of my photos there, claiming them as his own work. This page shows "The Brook" and On the Bay Road, for example, which are in every way identical to File:Carisbrook.jpg and File:PortobelloNZ.jpg. I don't mind my photos appearing on the site - but they should, by the GFDL license they are under, be credited to Wikipedia and to me. What do I need to do to achieve this? Grutness...wha? 06:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfectly valid complaint to make at VirtualTourist.com, Inc. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have the same problem here where people steal images from elsewhere and claim them as their own. There is an abuse email on this page that you should probably follow up with. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos of copyrighted images

Hi, I've taken a photo of a commercial logo - see File:Emu_Export_Logo.jpg, but I'm now confused as to what copyright status it would have. Normally I label my photos with the Cc-by-sa-2.5 template. Any advice? If there's a problem, I'm happy to delete the photo. BoundaryRider (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• The copyright is in the logo, not your photo. This should be labelled using a fair-use criteria. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have added a fair use tag - but I would be grateful if someone could just check that I got it right! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I added also {{non-free logo}} and {{non-free reduce}} tags to File:Emu_Export_Logo.jpg. —teb728 t c 08:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have downloaded, resized and re-uploaded the image. I trust the new version is sufficient? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

hi

[15]. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superaryan85 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed your link above. So, yes, what exactly is your question? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fairfield Lacrosse png

Hi, I have an email from the image owner granting permission to post this image Image:Fairfield Lacrosse.PNG. How do I go about reestablishing this deleted image? Thanks, Stagophile (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The instruction were clearly posted on your talk page in the image problem notice User_talk:Stagophile#Image_permission_problem_with_Image:Fairfield_Lacrosse.PNG, so just follow those by having the copyright owner email their permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org giving the image name and the image will be restored when the permission arrives. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: "I am the copyright owner, but another site hosts my text and photos"

I have been in conversation with Nick0Name (talk · contribs).

The conversation is here, but the essence is in this quotation:

the text/photos on the goldstar link , i own the copyright to. I gave them to goldstar to put on there site

The site apparently contains a few examples of Nick0Name's work, such as this entry about Lark.

The actual notice on the site says You’ll find biographys, press clips, promo photos and release art for use in magazines, fanzines etc. The photos are free to publish in magazines, fanzines and other printed or web-based media. - but Nick0Name says that he owns the copyright to the text and the picture.

Firstly, can we use the photo on Wikipedia (or even on Commons?)

Secondly, does this notice allow us to use the text on Wikipedia - and if we can, how do we prevent the 'bot from claiming that it is a copyvio?

Thirdly, if we couldn't use the photo and/or text, how could Nick0Name prove copyright ownership of the text?

Any answers would be welcome! I am mentioning this thread to Nick0Name - I think I've done as much as I can on this one, so if you want to advise him, could you respond here and leave a talkback on his talk page?

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He should contact permissions-commonswikimedia.org, which is a confidential channel where he can provide non-public documentation if need be to help verify his claims. If necessary they can contact someone at Goldstar to verify that they are using the images by permission from him rater than owning them. Also if he is the copyright owner he would presumably have access to original versions in higher resolutions than the ones used on that website. Note that if the images where originally commissioned by Goldstar there is a chance that they do own the copyright as work for hire though... But the permissions queue rely is the best place to work all this out, so have him e-mail them with as much info as possible and they can take it from there. --Sherool (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Image copyright and/or source

I uploaded an image - "File:Laurance Rudic as Don in Tennessee Williams THE PARADE Glasgow Citizens Theatre Oct 2008.jpg"

I was given a choice of copyright tags when filling out the file info. I now have a warning that the file will be deleted unless I apply a copyright tag to it. I tried uploading the file again in the hope that I could refresh all the information attached to this image but it didn't work. Then I tried deleting the file in order to start again, only to discover that it was protected by the administrators. I really don't understand how to add a copyright tag and I would appreciate your advice as to how to do this.

I created the image. The image is of me during a performance of the above play. I have no objection to it being used on other sites as long as the original file information remains intact and it is attributed to me as the performer in the above play. What I don't want is for others to use the image other than as an image of me with my name attached, and in the above production. Is there a tag that covers this?

Hope that's clear

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rix2009 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• What you probably want to add to to the image description page is {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} (and ignore the "nowiki" parts if you're reading this in the edit window). This license is the Creative Commons 3.0 license, with attribution of the author of the original work required and if it is used for derivative works by someone else, it must retain the same license. A more thorough description is available. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You don't need to re-upload the image; just go to the File:Laurance Rudic as Don in Tennessee Williams THE PARADE Glasgow Citizens Theatre Oct 2008.jpg page, click the "edit this page" tab at the top, and add one line beneath the existing stuff. That line should consist simply of {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} as mentioned above; the double curly brackets are important. Click on "Show preview" to make sure that, beneath the box beginning "Description Laurance Rudic as Don in Tennessee Williams 'The Parade'. Glasgow Citizens Theatre October 2008", it now shows the grey box summarising the license; and then go for "Save page" in the usual way. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • We would do this for you, but we can't release the rights you hold. You have to do it yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsure of an image license

Could someone please take a look at the rationale provided for this image? The image was taken from this website and is copyrighted; however, a disclaimer at the bottom says (in Russian) that "when any of the images are used, a link to the foto.chukotken.ru website is mandatory". I read it that as long as the source is linked to, we can use these images under fair use (which is what the Mys Shmidta image is tagged as right now). Is that interpretation correct? There are many more images on that website that would come very handy for illustrating the articles about Chukotka. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

• Given the translation, there does not appear to be a specific release under a free license. If you can speak Russian fluently, you might consider contacting them and obtaining release of the images under a free license. See WP:COPYREQ for instructions. However, just using the images as is, copyrighted with attribution required, isn't going to gain much traction here. The image is marked as a replaceable fair use image. It is replaceable. It might be difficult to obtain free license imagery, but it's not impossible. For example, the image could be replaced by a NASA satellite image showing a satellite view of the location. Simply because something is difficult to obtain does not mean we permit fair use here until we can get a free alternative. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Hammersoft, Ezhiki posted this to help me out as I uploaded the pic. I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying though, your argument rests on whether it is possible / impossible to get a replacement image however, possibility has nothing to do with the fair use arguement. Wikipedia's guidelines on fair use when uploading from a website state specifically here that,

[uploading from a website] is only acceptable for images that are not replaceable, meaning that no free alternative could reasonably be created.

Possibility is not discussed, only reasonableness. If this was a picture of a part of Paris taken from a website, I would understand entirely, it would be perfectly reasonable to expect to find or create a free-use picture that would be similarly illustrative. However, I do not think that it is reasonable to expect that a free-use image would exist of such a place as Mys Shmidta, particularly given the fact that it is effectively out of bounds to all foreigners.

The last thing I want to do is breach anyone's copyright, which is why I only uploaded one image as a test, but I don't think your arguement answers the question as the "possibility" of being able to create / obtain a free-use image is not relevant from the guidelines I have read. Fenix down (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I noted a case where a free alternative can exist, with NASA satellite imagery. Further, the article itself seems to indicate there is some tourism. Mys_Shmidta#Culture_and_sights. The image is blatantly replaceable. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well a Nasa image from several hundred feet and a detailed shot of specific climactic conditions, or a panorama taken from the ground is simply not comparable as an alternative, since they illustrate things from a completely different standpoint, perspective, scale, level of detail and satellite images are frozen at one point of time and cannot be used comparatively in the way photos can, but if you can show me where wikipedia has reached concensus on this then I will be happy to accept it (ie that satellite images are always preferable to fair use images).

Secondly, and maybe i should mention I also created the article - not that that means anything other than that I have a slight knowledge of the subject - the mention of tourism is as a result of Mys Shmidta being an HQ (not even the HQ) for Wrangle Island, you have assumed that this somehow means people pop along there all the time, when the exact opposite is true. There is in fact to my knowledge, only one tourist ship that will be passing Mys Shmidta in the next twelve months, the Kapitan Klebnikov with Quark expeditions, it will not be stopping at Mys Shmidta, a town that is not connected to the outside world by road. It is not reasonably possible that an individual would be able to go to Mys Shmidta as an independant tourist. Yes, the photo is technically replaceable as both cameras and the settlement still exist, however, it is not reasonable to expect that it can be replaced. Again, I am happy to bow to concensus here though.

Based on your arguement, could I ask what your thoughts are on historical pictures of the same settlement that show it in condition (either social, political or aesthetic) other than that which it is in today being used under the same rationale and license? Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't that satellite images are preferred to ground images. It is that free content is always, always preferred over non-free wherever possible, and even if free content does not yet exist but it could exist, we don't accept non-free content. You note a ship coming by with tourists on board. You're inadvertently highlighting a case where a free image can be created; one of the tourists may very well photograph the location and freely license the image. It is entirely reasonable to expect this could happen, or happen on some other excursion. As to historical photos, it depends. If there is something historically significant about the photo that is discussed in the article such that the article's meaning is negatively affected without the non-free image, then yes we could include it. If it's just an image of no particular signficance that happens to be a few decades old and still copyrighted, then no we would not want to include it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, hopefully we'll get permission to use the photos anyway, as it is a very useful record for the relevant articles. Fenix down (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The images of a British aircraft from 1920s are in the public domain license?

I want to use three images of this aircraft that are available here.--Cannibaloki 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Any idea who created them, and was it before 1923? Stifle (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The photos were taken around 1920, see Parnall Puffin. At the bottom of that webpage [airwar.ru], there are three different sources (Список источников). Do you know any official website related to this type of images that I can do a specific search?--Cannibaloki 18:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the photos appears to have been published here in the 14 December 1922 issue of Flight magazine and so should be OK. More photos here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Copywright status of 2 images

Hi, I recently uploaded 2 photographs to Wikipedia:

1. File:RaminPourandarjani.jpg and
2. File:Kian2.jpg

I'm pretty sure that both come under the category of "fair use." File:RaminPourandarjani.jpg is the facebook photograph of a physician who recently died, and appeared repeatedly in news articles such as this without attribution. Since it was appropriate for these many reputable news agencies to use this Facebook photograph without attribution, I'm guessing that it should be allowed on wikipedia too.

The second photograph comes from the website of the "Campaign to Release Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh from detention." (Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh is a dual Iranian-American citizen and scholar who is currently imprisoned in Iran). I suspect that whoever owns this photograph and gave the web page http://www.freekian09.org/ permission to use it would also have no objection to the photo being used on wikipedia.

Would someone please look into the copyright status of these 2 images before they are automatically deleted? Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the photograph of Ramin Pourandarjani is acceptable here under terms of fair use. I've tagged this image as a promotional photo, it coming from his own facebook profile (now closed, due to his death). It still needs a fair use rationale for use in the Ramin Pourandarjani article however. See WP:FURG for instructions. The photo of Kian Tajbakhsh, however, is not acceptable under our non-free content policy (see WP:NFCC) as it fails point #1, replaceability. He is, in fact, in prison. However, the time is indeterminate. It is very rare that we accept fair use images of people who are still living. If it was known that he would be imprisoned for life, we'd probably accept it. But, we don't know that. So, this second image I think needs to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• You could of course make a request to the freekian09 webmaster if there are any freely licenced images of Dr Kian available that we could use, but they must clearly be free images. ww2censor (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Instructions to do that are located at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Civil War era photos

Have all Civil War era photos now entered Public Domain? Have found photo taken in 1864 that I'd like to use in article. It is on Federal Government web-site, but it's unclear wheather it was actually take by/for the Federal Government. Also, there's nothing that shows that photo was published before 1923. Finally, rule that allows photos to pass to Public Domain ~70 years after authors death can't be calculated because photographer is unknown. Image could definitely be use under Fair Use rule since person in photo is dead; however, that would prevent its use in other articles. Is there specific rule (or generally accepted rule-of-thumb) that covers when old photos pass into Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything created before 1889 (in the US at least) is definitively in the public domain now even it it was never published. Works by unknown authors that has never been published lapse into public domain 120 years after it was created [16]. Also if a work by an unknown/pseudonymous author has been published the rule is whichever is shorter of 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation. So a photo from 1864 should be safe. --Sherool (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent--thanks!--Orygun (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we use an image of a video game from a game news site?

This image of an unreleased video game was added by a new, well-meaning user who seems to have run afoul of our policies or our markup in anything he's tried to do. It'd be nice if he could catch a break. Can we use it? --Kizor 10:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• For one, this is a Commons issue as the image is located there. There's nothing we can do about here on Wikipedia. For two, Commons does not permit copyrighted material, which this blatantly is. For three, if it were here, it should be deleted as the software is not yet published, and therefore fails WP:NFCC #4. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The first two are fixable problems. But NFCC #4 is that "Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia," so could it count that this particular content has been published and publicly displayed, even though its subject has not? --Kizor 15:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the image should not be on commons, it's clearly non-free. But as for NFCC#4, most game companies seed screenshot images of games in works to gaming press sites; that's "previously published" enough for our needs. Remember, its the image itself that is of concern, not the work behind it. (The alternate case would be if a user got a pre-release copy of a game well before release by illicit means, and published a screenshot from that and not through a gaming journalism website. That's a NFCC#4 there). --MASEM (t) 15:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • 'lo, Masem. Thanks, I saw the rules but didn't know our practices. Now that the image's been speedied, though, I need to ask if it can be used with the logo of the press site in the lower right corner before I go bug someone on Commons for a copy. --Kizor 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

File:MISC27x.jpg

Hey, could somebody help me out with a situation? I deleted an image that somebody scanned, and they got it as a gift (a christmas card given to them or something), and now the uploader is petitioning the deletion. Could you see the thread on my talk page on User talk:Killiondude#Deletion of photo MISC27x.jpg? I consider myself somewhat knowledgable about image copyright stuff, but now I'm second guessing myself. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For a former curator for a scientific library User:Puzhok seems surprisingly confused about copyright law. In that capacity Puzhok should know that a work is copyrighted simply by being created; there is no need to claim copyright; a newly created work is in the public domain only if the creator has explicitly released it into the public domain. Puzhok also seems to confuse fair use with public domain; they are not the same. It is possible that the use of the photo on Allan Sandage may have been fair use, but Wikipedia policy WP:NFCC#1 effectively forbids a fair use image of a living person. —teb728 t c 01:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

General Image question

Hi,

I'm publishing a book (not a big corporate thing but just a few hundred copies) and I'm confused as to whether I can use certain images that I find on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that I can't use the Fair Use pictures but the rest of it is flummoxing me.

I'm assuming I can use pictures in the public domain but am unsure whether I need to make any acknowledgements. I am also very confused about pictures in the GNU Project - I read the Wikipedia page on this and some of the answers here and could not make head nor tail of them. Can someone tell me (in very simple terms as I'm a bear of very little brain) what I can and can't use and whether I need to make acknowledgements and, if so, who to?

Thank you very much and apologies for my complete ignorance and stupidity. Pantscat (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use depends on what you're planning on using it for. Public Domain you don't have to make any acknowledgments, but you probably should anyway, so you're not accused of plagiarism. By GNU project, I assume you mean images under GPL/GFDL -- yes, you can use them for any purpose, but if you use them, you will probably have to make the whole work under GPL/GFDL(it's a matter of some debate). The acknowledgements should be to the person who uploaded the image(unless the image description specifically says acknowledge someone else. You could tell us specifically which images you want to use, and while we can't give legal advice, we can point you in the right direction. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What does making a work under GPL/GFDL entail? Pantscat (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're the sole copyright holder, then you just have to say that you're putting it under GPL/GFDL. Include a like to it to people know the terms. If you're building on a GPL/GFDL work, you're obligated to put it under GPL/GFDL. It's even a matter of debate how GPL/GFDL might apply to a combination of text and pictures. Even though I've we've been using GFDL/GPL interchangeably, their not the same. Here's a link to a guide on specifics. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nokia tune

The piece the ringtone is derived from is PD, but the tune, is the trademark of Nokia. Trademarks are intellectual property if I remember correctly, does that mean I cannot use the actual ringtone from a cell phone, but use a piano version? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 19:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is public domain you could use it, but not as a trademark sound for a phone brand because it would be too similar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So for a piano version I made from the PD score I can release it freely (dual-license GFDL and CC-BY-SA)? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded, but in the public domain. File:Nokia tune - piano.ogg. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between trademarks and copyrights. The tune itself is in the public domain - i.e. nobody owns a copyright on it - therefore you can use it almost any way you wish, including commercially. The only thing you can't do is use it as a distinguishing audible representation of a competing commercial or non-profit enterprise, because Nokia owns a trademark on the sound. -- Hux (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I get a bit confused when it comes to trademarks. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 06:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of Photos / Diagrams From Canadian Medical Journal 1946

Hello. I'd like to use some diagrams and photographs contained in this article: Bilateral Frontal Lobe Leucotomy in the Treatment of Mental Disease. It was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1946. The article is hosted by the NCBI. Would American or Canadian copyright law apply?

On this site it states:

Copyright comes into existence automatically, at the time the work was created, and, in the case of most works, it continues until the end of the calendar year in which the author of the work dies (regardless of whether the author has sold or assigned the copyright in the work or not), and continues for an additional period of 50 years. There are some notable exceptions to this rule however. One such exception relates to photographs, which are protected by copyright from the time the photograph was taken, up until the end of the calendar year in which the photograph was taken, and for an additional period of 50 years (that is, the termination date of copyright protection for photographs is linked to the date the photograph was taken, and not the date of the photographer's death).

Is it possible that the copyright on these images may have expired? The authors of the article have not yet been dead fifty years. Would they have held the copyright or would that have been held by the journal?

On the assumption that these photographs and diagrams are under copyright what is the likelihood of the relevant authority granting a release? Is contacting them (presumably the journal itself?) a worthwhile exercise or am I better off searching elsewhere for appropriate images.

Thank you. Freekra (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, could anyone enlighten me on the copyright of the photograph at this location? Freekra (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Any work first published in a foreign country before 1978 with a proper copyright notice receives the same copyright term in the United States as works published in the United States during those years. A work first published in 1946 would receive a 95-year copyright term in the U.S.A. (thru 2041). The major exception: works that were in the public domain in their home countries as of January 1, 1996. If the photographs in the article were taken before 1946, they would have been in the public domain in Canada on that date. But if the photos were taken in 1946, the year that article was published, they were not in the public domain in Canada on that date. So, first you would need to know if that issue of the CMAJ had a copyright notice (your link is to only the article, not to the issue as a whole). Then you would need to know when the photos were taken. If the work was published in Canada without a proper copyright notice, the Ninth Circuit (where the Wikipedia Foundation is headquartered) considers the work as unpublished for U.S. copyright purposes. Which means that the work could be treated as being in the public domain only if (1) the author(s) had been dead more than 70 years; and (2) the work was published before 1923. Neither of those is true for that journal article. To sum up: Your only hope for public domain status is if the journal was published with a proper copyright notice, but the photos were taken before 1946. Or maybe you could get the CMAJ to sign a release. — Walloon (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain Walloon. Much appreciated. Freekra (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Chuch Bulliten - Please Help Me Choose a License

Fellow Users of the Wikipedia:

I wish to upload a scanned copy of a bulliten from my local church to help illustrate a particular article on the site.

The contents of the item are an outline of a Chrismon service held at my church.

Now, churches, at least my church, are 501c3 religious organizations in the USA, and may or may not be actually incorporated, despite holding mortgages and loans, etc.

I feel I have implied permission from the church to upload this document. The bulliten states that the church's copyright is "granted under License #992533", and nothing else. There are no trademark symbols, no registered symbols, nothing else. This is where the issue lies. You see, I'm the only editor of Wikipedia in my church, so asking for expressed permission to upload a document would be pointless. Therefore, I didn't ask anyone directly for permission. I did tell my father, who is a deacon, that I wanted to do so, and he approved, so that may count. You see, my church is Protestant Southern Baptist. We don't have any hierarchy outside of the pastor, deacons, and minisers of youth, music, etc. Deacons considered part of the clergy, but the entire membership votes on resolutions and meetings, like budgets. I am a member of this church, and by this interpretation of Baptist doctrine, I myself hold a lawful claim to the church's published materials, as a member of its congregation. I am also an usher, and as stated, my father is a deacon, and thus amongst the clerics.

I didn't ask anyone for permission to upload the bulliten, so I can't use the Copyrighted With Permission claim. HOWEVER, I still feel liable to upload the document on implied grounds, as anyone who could hold copyright on the bulliten, including the pastor, who saw the bulliten, would be absolutely fine with it. I am extremely close friends with many of the older church members, particularly the elders/senior citizens, choir, the clergy, and the pastor, all of whom would approve and enjoy the use of this item online. I know for a fact the pastor would, as the pastor is a good friend of mine, for example. I am certain and I am sure of their universal approval.

The bulliten was a special issue on November 29th, 2009 (that's today as of writing), distributed to cover the Chrismon service. It included a list of various items considered to be Chrismon items, something which would benefit the article as a source. It is a portion of it, being the interior third fold (to the right) of the item. Its purpose is for article citation and further illustration of what is considered a Chrismon item.

As stated, though, I only have the implied permission of the church. I know for a fact that they would say yes if I called anyone up and asked, but it's late in the evening and everyone is at home. It would be socially awkward to call someone up on a copyright query on something that no one really cares to attribute (no one takes copyright seriously in my church), so that is out of the option.

Does implied permission with certainty that they would approve count as permission given, and if so, what license would that bear on the image? If it applies as some other form of copyright, could you direct me as such, to the license I need? Does it even need a copyright?

Here is a recap on reasons for approval and notes for a license decision:

1. This is a Protestant Southern Baptist church bulliten outlining a Chrismon service.
2. The distributors do not have any concern or care about copyright and would not really understand why I need to ask for permission to upload it online. They would be okay with it.
3. I am extremely close friends with the church clergy and anyone whou could possibly hold copyright, including deacons, the pastor, the ministers, and some of the general congregation.
4. All church members and potential holders, knowing me as a close friend, would universally approve of this item being on Wikipedia.
   1. I am certain of the following statement because I know these potential holders very closely.
5. The distributed item is an outline of a service and does not contain any possible copyright information that would demand direct attribution.
6. The document does not contain any registered or trademark symbols, nor any attribution to businesses or holders of any work used. Its only copyright reference is the bulliten being "granted under License #992533".
7. I have implied permission to uplaod this document, as I am certain that any possible copyright holder would approve this on the spot.
8. All potential holders would enjoy their work on Wikipedia and feel grateful to help the Faith online.
9. All potential holders would consider uploading the document a positive move relating to the Christian faith and would fully support it.
10. The Baptist doctrine encourages sharing of religion regardless of method, and nothing incorporated under said doctrine demands attribution for sharing the Christian faith.
11. I am the only user on Wikipedia and the only man who can upload this item.

Please help me with this issue.

Thank you, and regards: --TurtleShroom! :) NOODY BRANCH! ^{Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food.} - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 01:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A basic question first, for what purpose would you use the scanned image in the article? As a reference? – ukexpat (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

TurtleShroom: Without being able to see the scan in question it's difficult to provide advice. It might be that the image is comprised only of simple text and symbols that, together, do not constitute an original creative work. If so, then the scan would be in the public domain by default and you could use it however you wish. If, on the other hand, the scan does contain what the law would consider to be original creative work then it is copyrighted by default and owned by the church, in which case you would have to obtain a free use release from someone in the church who is legally authorized to do so (see WP:COPYREQ for details on how to make such a request). Hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair-use

Resolved

Hi there, can someone explain this to me? Thank you!!! --Kozuch (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Read this and before proceeding further, please ask yourself two simple question "What is a copyrighted file?" & "Can I reuse it here on WP without the written permission by the publisher?". Other than that, I'm proceeding to tag all your uploaded images with it, Wikipedia doesn't want to be sued because of some irresponsible uploading by any individual editors. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 08:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but it still seems to me like you are largely ignoring Fair-use possibility. I dont undestand the difference between my images and File:Windows_7.png for example. Does the Windows screenshot have a permission? Does providing source URL solve the problem for you??? --Kozuch (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft are not (primarily) in the business of selling pretty pictures. The artist producing these cutaways is. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if I try to create a derivative myself of the disputed file, is it okay then? I have seen files being deleted, because the were derivatives of non-free content.--Kozuch (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any derivative of a copyrighted work inherits the copyright status of that work, so anything you created would have a same issues. Black Kite 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So how can be these images ([17], [18]) replacable when I can not create a similar one? How do I asses what is a derivative and what is not??? What if I create an image that is similar by 90% to the original image? Is that a derivative? What about similarity by 50%? Where is the border??? I would really like to replace this file... but like this it just seems to me it is not possible. --Kozuch (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• By definition, a derivative work could mean any work that's derived from an original work not done by you, so it's still considered as such even if it bears 90%, 50% or 10% similarity, period. Kapish? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Uploading image to Wikipedia page

Hello Wikipedia,

RE: File:Paper Bag Records Record Label Logo.jpg

I would like to upload the above image to the Paper Bag Records Wikipedia page, so that it is viewable in the text box (in the upper right hand corner of the page) that contains the information that describes the Founded, Genre, Origin, Location etc.

When I click on 'Upload File' under the toolbox options, I receive a message that reads that I must be an auto-confirmed or confirmed user, despite being logged on.

Also, I had previously been editing the page with a different user name, (same as the Wikipedia page name) however, received a warning/request to change the user name. Since the new user name has been requested and approved, I have been unable to log in - which, for continued editing purposes, is a second account was created.

I have been successful at uploading the image to the WikiMedia page, however, I am not certain as to how to link the WikiMedia file to the Wikipedia page, if even necessary  ?

Please assist on how to upload the image in the desired area on the page. Please respond to my talk page.

Thank you.

Beaudanal (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To become a "confirmed" user may mean you waiting a day or so, possibly making a few more edits (see WP:AUTOCONFIRM). Then you should be able to upload.

If by WikiMedia you mean WikiMedia Commons, don't worry. No special method is necessary to use the file in Wikipedia.

To add the image to the article Paper Bag Records is not difficult, once the image has been uploaded. Edit the page; you will notice that the article begins with a {{Infobox record label}} template. Inside that there is already an |image= field, which is empty, but wrong. Change it to |image_name=, and add your image name after that, thus:

|image_name=Paper Bag Records Record Label Logo.jpg

preview it, and if it shows as red text there's something wrong; if your image shows correctly, go for the "Save page" button. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't upload copyrighted logos to Commons, they should be uploaded to Wikipedia with an appropriate non-free use rationale, see WP:LOGO. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations

Do we have an SOP for the copyright status of media produced by the Commonwealth of Nations organization itself? I can't seem to find any specific criteria on either their website, Wikipedia, or Commons. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing this recently, but they certainly claim copyright over their website [19] (for commercial use at least). Which would unfortunately be indicative of other publications I guess. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)