Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/October

NASA images and copyright

It began over File:Gliese_581g.jpg being used on Gliese 581 g but applies to all images supplied by NASA.

Basically, is what I've said here right? That an image credit on NASA websites is the same thing as saying this is copyright of the credited person/organisation and not a public domain image? There appears to be a number of images on the Commons that have been supplied either sourced from a NASA website or off a website attributing the image to NASA, but which the original image was credited to a non-NASA entity. If what I've said is true then they would need to be looked at as well.

The NASA policy regarding images states,

NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA.

There appears to be confusion over what "noted" means, people seem to be assuming that anything uploaded onto a NASA site is public domain. Clarification on this would be greatly appreciated. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen this issue previously with some commons images. Some images on the NASA websites are clearly attributed to individuals or organisations and this is because they are not NASA images hence their policy statement. It indicates that all NASA sourced images should be scrutinised carefully to ascertain their true copyright status because just being on a NASA website alone does not mean it is freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete my file or fix it please

Plz help me to fix or del this file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SG-1000_Logo.svg. The logo consisting only of text, not with the font "Zeroes" displayed in browsers as intended. Maybe someone can try to solve the whole. In any case, the current output is incorrect. Thank you :) Abani79 (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You can remove the fair-use rationale and fill in the missing details for the information template I added above because. I inserted the copyright tag {{PD-textlogo}} because the image is so simple it is not copyrightable though it is a trademark. ww2censor (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bride Wore Red

While googling for copyright renewals I came across a strange absence. There doesn't seem to be any renewal for MGM's 1937 effort The Bride Wore Red. This should mean that the copyright lapsed 28 years after first registration. This might be expected for most things in that era, but not for Hollywood films first registed by MGM or Loew's. However my search didn't find anything. What more should be done, if anything, to meet whatever our standard of due diligence is beyond searching the Google renewal record scans? Stranger yet, searching half a dozen couple of random volumes in the 50s and 60s, I found no sign of MGM/Loew's renewals whereas Fox appeared assiduous renewers. I can't help but think that I am missing something here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No opinions? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Some not-quite-aimless googling found this abstract of a widely cited paper entitled Determining copyright status for preservation and access : Defining reasonable effort. The writers discuss searching renewal entries (such as found on Google and Gutenberg) rather than the actual Copyright Office records. The abstract concludes: "The resulting CCE search procedure is suggested as a standard of reasonable effort for copyright searching, which demonstrates a legally responsible reasonable effort to respect the rights of copyright holders while advancing preservation aims and converting carefully selected print materials to build the digital library." Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers photo needed

Hi! I created a small article about an little known actress called Alexandra Powers. The article needs a photo of her. I found one while surfing the net. Here's the photo I found: http://www.tvspielfilm.de/stars/star/alexandra-powers,1571496,ApplicationGallery.html?page=5 Is it acceptable? Please let me know. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not unless you can prove it is a freely licenced image. There is a photo credits notice at the bottom of the source page though it does not say which one applies to this particular image. ww2censor (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):You can not use th eone you listed - it is copyrighted to one of the photographers at the bottom of the page (Frank P. Wartenberg für VOX, ARTE, ARD (2), RTL, Pro7, Premiere, Senderbild (3), Verleih (2), Stuart Franklin/Getty Images, Universal Studios International B. V). As the actress is still alive you most likely will not be able to claim fair use on these types of shots. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur with above. The actress is still alive, so under WP:NFCC #1, a free license photograph of her is considered to be something that can be created. Therefore, a non-free image of her will not be acceptable. It would be considered replaceable fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Old map in 1987 book

Would {{PD-old}} be a suitable licence for a map, plate 44, which is part of a 1987 edition of Astbury? The list of plates on pages vii–viii describes the map as "Hayward's 1604 Map of the Fens". The obverse of the map itself appears to be unaltered by Astbury; it is black and white; it is faint. The map is captioned on the reverse as follows:

This map of the fens, surveyed by William Hayward in 1604 and copied by Thomas Badeslade in 1724, shows the area as it appeared before the seventeenth century period of drainage. Cambridge University Library

— Astbury A K, Astbury, A K (1987) [1958]. The Black Fens (3 ed.). Wardy Hill, Ely, Cambridgeshire: Providence Press. pp. 128–129. ISBN 0903803186. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

--Senra (Talk) 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Being republished in a new book doesn't make old PD materials suddenly under copyright (unless artisitc changes have been applied), so PD-old would be perfect license for it when you upload it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated --Senra (Talk) 12:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Problem with image copyright

I included a photo to my article because of the below disclaimer from the source:

"Disclaimer and Notice of Copyright: All materials posted on this site are subject to copyrights owned by the Medical Library Association (MLA) and other individuals or entities. All material subject to MLA's copyright may be reproduced for the noncommercial purpose of scientific or educational advancement. Requests for other uses should be forwarded to MLA's director of publications for consideration.

The names, trademarks, service marks, and logos of MLA appearing on this site may not be used in any advertising or publicity, or otherwise to indicate MLA's sponsorship of or affiliation with any product or service, without MLA's prior express written permission.

Although the MLA site includes links providing direct access to other Internet sites, MLA takes no responsibility for the content or information contained on those other sites, and does not exert any editorial or other control over those other sites.

MLA is providing information and services on the Internet as a benefit and service in furtherance of MLA's nonprofit and tax-exempt status. MLA makes no representations about the suitability of information or services posted to or linked from its Website."

According to the source, I am allowed to reproduce the picture as long as it is for "educational advancement". But I received the following message: File copyright problem with File:Frankrogers.GIF Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Frankrogers.GIF. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone please let me know how I can solve this problem.The filename is File:Frankrogers.GIF

Thank you and good day. SBhawk —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBhawk (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• A few things; first, Wikipedia doesn't accept images under a license that does not permit commercial reuse. The license for this image prevents commercial reuse. Now, we DO permit non-free images if no free alternative exists or could be created (per WP:NFCC #1). This image isn't free for our purposes, so we must use it under terms of fair use. Given that he is dead, we presume here that finding a free alternative is unlikely (that's not the case for living people). So, I've tagged the image with {{Non-free fair use in|Frank Bradway Rogers}} and removed the no license warning tag. But, I've added a no rationale warning tag, which makes the image still subject to deletion. You need to write a fair use rationale for using this image in the article in which you've placed it. Information about how to do that is at WP:FURG. Please read that and write a rationale. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

pictures

Can you put pictures on wikipedia and how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.21.107 (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You are best off to read uploading images but you can only do so after you are a logged in user with an autoconfirmed account (meaning that the account must be at least four days old, and the user must have made at least ten edits). If you do not have an account, or you have not been autoconfirmed yet, you can make a request at files for upload. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

File:FSPB_1916_pl.VI.RD.jpeg

Can you tell me if there is a list of PD templates? If so, where are they? I have looked ... I've learned a few but this is the first from a British government publication, so I guessed. :) Please help! --Rskp (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected the copyright template to the proper one {{PD-UKGov}}. In future you may find this page useful and also this commons page. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This wikipedia page lists just PD tags. This Wikimedia Commons page could also be useful.--Rockfang (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

your singing group was reincarsiated to a more younger age 15&14&35&15 years of age old martha wells and the vandrella sits at home with no memories of show business in the year 2010.A&R REPERSENTIVE INTURN STEVEN LAMONT MOORE OF MOTOWN RECORDS.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.54.187 (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

photos of sculptures

I have photos of works from Jens Adolf Jerichau and Denys Puech (neither of which have photos of their works in their articles), which I took at the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek museum. Would I be able to upload these? I have seen other works from the Glyptotek museum here on wikipedia, so I am wondering what determines if a photo of a sculpture can be posted. Thanks. --Tea with toast (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama is usually what applies to sculptures but varies considerably by country. You should first of all consult this commons page that lists the rules for many countries. For Denmark FOP is allowed for building but not for works of art, for which the general copyright period is 70 years pma per the Consolidated Act on Copyright 2010 found here so Jens Adolf Jerichau's works are in the public domain but the works of Denys Puech will not be free until 2012. Goood luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

unsure about copyright license status for specific image

The information for a specific image I plan to upload is listed below.

File information

Description	The many faces of Rage Threads
Source	http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2010-08-18/2dcd74j.jpg
Date	01:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Author	Anonymous poster from Chan4Chan
Permission (Reusing this file)	All Rights Reserved

The image is classified as an image found on the internet. Please tell me what license I need to use.

Hyperhippy92 ^{The Game} 01:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's probably not an appropriate image for Wikipedia. Both for license reasons (it's not a freely licensed image) and for scope issues (it's not encyclopedic). But, thanks for checking before uploading.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Three images not yet uploaded

If you look at the left side of this image, just below the nose of the aircraft, there is the logo of Northwest Territorial Airways (NWT Air). While I was taking pictures of the aircraft I also took one each of the NWT Air and Ptarmigan Airways signs. Both of these airlines are no longer in operation, having been bought out by First Air in the 1990s. What would be the copyright status of these signs? If the images can only be used under a fair use claim would it allow the use in First Air and/or List of defunct airlines of Canada? There is no article on either of these airlines. The third image is again from the Buffalo Airways hangar but is of the original sing from The Gold Range. The same questions as above apply to this as well. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The logos look slightly too complicated for PD-textlogo but could be used under fair use if you included commentary on the logo and not just used for illustration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Artwork by Vinicius Mattoso

File:Janis-Joplin-1969.jpg is signed and has a descripton of "Janis Joplin in 1969, by Vinicius Mattoso". The user who uploaded it is [1]. Is there any way to check whether that user is Vinicius Mattoso and whether he has granted us the right to use this artwork? I would ask him myself, but I do not read or write Portuguese. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your question, but I do think the use of a photograph of Mattoso's work without his permission is a copyright violation, at least in the US. See here. The Commons image is described as a fan-made picture, but I'm not sure whether that means the image is a picture taken of the drawing, or it means the image is the drawing itself. If it's a picture taken of the drawing, then the picture is probably a violation of Mattoso's copyright. For more confusion, but lending some support to your speculation that Whooligan is Mattoso, see here. That image on the Portuguese Wikipedia seems to indicate that Whooligan and Mattoso are the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just my 2¢... but the Commons image should be put up for review for deletion. And if the file on pt.Wikipedia were housed here, I'd make the same suggestion. It would be a good idea to check with someone active both here and on pt to veify their policies and procedures. That may also turn up something, anything, that can be pointed to as a credible source that Mattoso has uploaded his images on Wikipedia using the name "Whooligan". - J Greb (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons. I believe the Portuguese Wikipedia issue will take care of itself. The image is used in many Wikipedias all over the world. If Commons determines that the copyright is unclear and the image can't be used, I would think the various Wikipedias will find out, although I'm not sure if that's automatic. I'll keep this thread posted on what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Image file deleted on Commons. As far as I can tell, it automatically goes away on any Wikipedia that references it (at least it did here).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

File:SonsOfMIT.ogg

File:SonsOfMIT.ogg is a recording of a song marked as PD-self, but since the recording was digitized from an old record, that is certainly not the correct tag. As far as I can tell, the music and lyrics are in the PD, but I'm not sure about the recording. The upload description lists the recording date as "Recording date unknown, but early 20th century." I'm not familiar with record copyrights, so can someone please figure out what kind of license this requires? How can we determine the recording date? Or whether the original copyright is still in effect?--GrapedApe (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My reaction is that the "kind of license" doesn't matter, only your questions about the recording date and the original copyright. If the original work is still protected, then the digitalization violates the work's copyright. Unfortunately, I can't answer the relevant questions. I have trouble believing that the person who digitalized the 78 doesn't know the recording date,though. Wouldn't the 78 itself have a date on it (I don't have any 78s handy)? I also find the phrase "early 20th century" to be remarkably vague. I don't quite understand how Wikipedia evaluates these claims, but wouldn't it be the uploader's burden to demonstrate that the original copyright has expired? Not sure how much any of this helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I have listed the file at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 October 4#File:SonsOfMIT.ogg.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Janis Joplin Image

The following image is here but comes from Commons: File:Janis Joplin.jpg. I was going to nominate it for deletion on Commons, but I thought I'd first see if anyone here can shed any light on the issue. The image is of an oil painting by Patrick Pearse (AKA Pappi). The image is a photograph of the painting and the photograph was taken by Pearse and put on Flickr. A Commons bot uploaded the image in conjunction with a real-life editor named Alison. Then, it says that it was licensed on "that date" (I'm assuming the date of the upload), but by whom? Because the author of the painting and the author of the photo are the same, the licensor should be Pearse. Am I supposed to infer from the the green check mark and the passive voice ("it was licensed") that Alison verified that Pearse licensed the image? I supposed I could just nominate it for deletion and find out that way, but I thought I'd save myself any embarrassment if I'm wrong and someone can explain why here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is really a commons question but the image and its licencing look fine. Alison, a long time admin here and on the commons, just used the Flickr upload bot and this is why she is listed in the history but the bot does the actual upload and places the Flickr links into the upload file. Patrick Pearse is listed as the author and during the upload the bot transcribes the licence from the Flick page, so unless you think the validity of the licence on the Flickr page is false, I see no need to nominate it for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Edit conflicted, concur with ww2censor, and adding on: It looks to me as if the bot confirmed the licensing immediately after upload. Though, the licensing isn't available now without logging into flickr. The bot frequently checks flickr licensing because sometimes rights holders attempt to change licenses after the fact, doing so often in ways that directly contradict the license they previously released them under. The bot gives a point in time in which the license was confirmed as being that which the uploader listed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So Pearse's license is on Flickr. At one time, it could be seen, even by a non-registered Flickr user, but now it can only be seen by a registered user. Because I'm not a registered user, I have no way of verifying the license. Not very satisfying not to be able to see the license, but I guess I'll just have to get used to it. What do you mean by "transcribes the license", Ww2censor?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I just checked it--the license is CC-BY-2.0. I'm also inclined to believe that the owner of that account is the actual author. There are lots of similar photographs of similar paintings. --GrapedApe (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I agree that it looks like the Flickr account owner, painting author, and photo author are all the same. I just couldn't follow the licensing part. The good news is all of this adds to my knowledge of how Wikipedia copyright licensing issues work. Thanks, everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Three things I need to discuss

1. Britney_Stevens is the sister of Whitney_Stevens. It's listed on Whitney_Stevens that she is listed under the categories Panamanian_Jews and Panamanian_pornographic_film_actors. Since Britney_Stevens is she her sister and a pornstar; should she be listed under those 2 categories as well?

2. Qumunity is an article I want to create. It fits under the category LGBT_culture_in_Vancouver because Qmunity is Vancouver's centre for gay, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual people. I think there should be article for it. Here's the link: http://www.qmunity.ca/

3. Naturally Autistic is another article I want to create because it fits under Autism_related_organizations and It's been around since 1995 and it is run a couple in Gibsons,_British_Columbia and I have a link for it: http://www.naturallyautistic.com/founders/297/

Please let me know about doing these articles. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply:- 1 - post a question about this on the relevant article talk page, 2 & 3 - You cannot just copy text from the links you provide as it is copyright, either start a new article yourself using reliable third-party sources or make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles if the topics are notable. ww2censor (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

reporting possibly unfree files

Hey, I found some pictures on wikicommons which were obviously just copied from the web with somebody claiming to be the creator. I tried to report them at the possibly unfree files page, but as the pictures are on commons I can't even do step 1 properly (puf template does not work). Some help would be appreciated. File in question is File:Masiela Lusha Pantages.jpg (original source here: [2]). I have a very strong suspicion every picture user:PeterRoyce "created"is just copied from the web. How to proceed? Yoenit (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree about this editor's uploads. I nominated this file for speedy deletion. In general, if you can find the source I would say the best thing to do is to flag it for speedy deletion. On Commons, you can either user something like {{speedy delete|copyvio, see http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/OpstkUzvEAT/Opening+Night+Phantom+Opera+Pantages+Red+Carpet/cUSTlbfnAnn/Masiela+Lusha}} or {{copyvio|Also found at http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/OpstkUzvEAT/Opening+Night+Phantom+Opera+Pantages+Red+Carpet/cUSTlbfnAnn/Masiela+Lusha}}. If you don't want a speedy delete there is no equivalent of PUF, so you would just open a deletion discussion by clicking on "nominate for deletion" in the toolbox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This could be a lot of work. I read the discussion here and PeterRoyce says he's uploaded 544 images, and he denies the allegations as well. User:Noq has confronted him about this and User:HJ_Mitchell has blocked him for persistent copyright violations. Either the editor is actually right (quite unlikely) or it's going to be a tough time finding the source of each uploaded image not yet reviewed. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For more help, try reporting the situation at WP:CCI.--GrapedApe (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've opened an investigation there. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My pictures

I've recently added some pictures and wikipedia is saying that i need to put the source? how can i go back and add the source so wikipedia doesn't delete my pictures, —Preceding unsigned comment added by D400j2000 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That would appear least of the problems in this case. The problem is you are uploading pictures with websites as the source, and claiming to be the copyright-holder who is placing them in the public domain. Unless you can prove they are pictures you yourself took then this is likely copyright violation. The person who owns the copyright to an image is the person who created the original. ChiZeroOne (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate image license tag does not exist

For File:Minecraft title.png, there is no appropriate tag for the actual permissions, as far as I can see. Technically, the Minecraft project has allowed users to do anything with screenshots, but has not actually disclaimed copyright in them (there is a legal distinction between the two things, even if there is little distinction in practice.) Should I create a new template?--greenrd (talk) 09:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the CC-0 license, although details may differ. Or like the public domain waiver in case public domain cannot be assigned. see Template:All rights released but this redirects to the PD-release template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Posting Photo

Dear Wikis, I am Irving Fiske's daughter and live at Quarry Hill Creative Center in Vermont. I'd like to post a photo of Irving to the Irving Fiske and QHCC pages. How can I do this without somebody coming along, fussing at me, and removing it? Can't I add an image if I own it or if the person that does is ok with it? Thank you. Isabella F. McFarlin <e-mail redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.173.27 (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you took the photo yourself then you can create an account and upload it at commons:upload. Just because you have a physical photo does not necessarily mean that you own the copyright, and if you don't know who took it, then you don't know who can grant permission. If you know the person who took the photo, it is easiest to get them to upload it, otherwise follow the procedure at WP:PERMIT. Wikipedia follows the letter of the law when it comes to copyright, so that everyone who copies it can be confident of the material in it. You can also place a request at WP:FFU if it is all too hard, but copyright ownership still has to be proved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wheatland floor plan

Would I be able use one of the floor plans of Wheatland from the Library of Congress [3]? I seen similar ones used before, as there are usually drawn by the employees of the National Park Service, however the ones for Wheatland have in the bottom-left corner "Drawn by: Thaddeus Stevens Trade School 1965, Under direction of the National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior". Would they still fall under PD per being a work of the NPS, or does the school hold the copyright for actually creating it? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 18:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing Image from Wikipedia and Posting to Wikimedia

This is my first attempt to post photos and it has been frustrating, sorry. A whole day has gone by with problems posting. I would like to remove this image and post it on Wikimedia instead so it can be viewed globally. Please let me know how to do this. The same goes for the remaining three photos I posted today to Wikipedia. Thank you! Enviromet (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

answered on talk page, but use {{mtc}} to get someone else to do it, or do it yourself at [[:commons:upload]] and {{db-user}} to get rid of things you don't want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Using an old family photo, a photo of a painting, a photo from a book dust jacket

I have an old (as from later 1920s early 1930s) photograph of a relative. It is a photography studio portrait. There is no copyright notice connected with it. The person in the picture died in the 1940s. Can I consider it public domain?

Also, I have a portrait of someone else (now deceased) painted by this person before 1920. It would be, as I understand it, in the public domain. If I take a photograph of the portrait to use, I suppose I own the copyright to the photograph and can license it to the commons.

Finally, I have a photograph taken in 1963 of someone. It is a publicity photo on the dust jacket of a book the person wrote. There is no copyright notice for the photograph. My presumption is that the photograph is in the public domain. Is that correct? If I use a scan of this photo do I have to mention it is in the public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashikom (talk • contribs) 02:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding #2: Photographs or other faithful reproductions of 2-dimensional artworks carry the copyright of the original artwork. So, if you take a picture of a public-domain painting, your photograph is also in the public domain (assuming your photograph to be simply a picture of the artwork and nothing else).

Regarding #1 & 3 I am not a copyright lawyer, but according to Copyright notice, any work published in the U.S. before 1989, and lacking a copyright notice, is not under copyright protection, so both of these should be in the public domain as well. Please note, however, that all works created after 1989 are, in the U.S., automatically under copyright regardless of whether or not a notice is displayed. The pre-1989 loophole is how lots of screen-shots of old movies end up being used in our articles; while the movies did display a copyright notice, sometimes the trailers did not, making the trailers public domain works. --Jayron32 03:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In general you need to be on the side of caution. Simply saying "personal collection" or "photo album" is not the best idea when uploading images. If you do upload anything try to read Wikipedia:Image use policy and use the format given in the Mini how-to. As for copyright issues - There is a high probability the book is under copyright. For Wikipedia a scan of the books cover could be used in an article about the book, but you can not use the back cover (Or inner sleeve) of a book to illustrate the author. It is suggested to read the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy and it may help to read plain English examples found at Non-free content - Unacceptable uses - Images. Take note of number 9 and 10 on that list of examples. The "pre-1989 loophole" mentioned above is a general comment, obviously a book would not have a copyright notice on every page, nor would a film have a copyright notice on every frame. If the book is from 1963 and carries a copyright than the entire book is under copyright, that includes the cover(s). A scan of any part of that book could only be used under a claim of fair use.

In regards to the studio portrait and the image of the painting I would use caution simply because the author (Artist who painted it) of the painting, or their family, may still own copyright on it and many studios retain copyright on their images. It would help if there was a paper trail - a contract saying it was a work for hire for example, or a proof sheet for all the photos or the negatives. I know someone is reading this slapping their head thinking "Oh come on!", but it is very true. I like to tell the story about a little song most everyone knows and just assumes it is PD - "Happy Birthday". The music is from the late 1800's and the song itself was copyrighted in the 1930's. It is still under copyright and if somebody wanted to use it/sing it they need to pay for it's use. All I am saying is to use caution if you are unsure, and as you are asking here it means you are unsure. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but they said the painting was from pre-1920, all works created in the U.S. from prior to 1923 are public domain. The Happy Birthday issue is a red herring, since its lyrics date from after that year. If the painting was from prior to 1923, it is in the public domain, and any photograph or scan or digital reproduction of the painting itself would also be so. You may very well be right to be leary on the other two examples, but I think the painting may be in the clear. --Jayron32 04:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For the dust jacket photo, it's possible the copyright notice for the book might apply to the dust jacket too, in which case the copyright is probably still in force. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series)

Hi! I think The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) should go under the category Category:2008_Botswana_television_series_debuts because it is a Botswana television series and it is filmed and set in Botswana. I also think it should go under the category Category:Botswana_LGBT-related_television_programs because there is a gay character in it called BK_(The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency). Let me know what you think. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, use the talk:The_No._1_Ladies'_Detective_Agency_(TV_series) to discuss this, as this page is not intended to discuss categories! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This has also been asked and answered at the Help Desk. – ukexpat (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Image Copyright Question regarding book cover

I have a book cover of a book to be released in March 2011. The image is from the publisher in a .png file and is used on Amazon and their own website, Zondervan. I'm not sure what copyright tag to use. File:Revised Dangerous Church Cover.png

Thanks in advance for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlyGod7 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless the copyright holder releases the image under s free licence, it is still a non-free image and must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria which also means there must be a completed fair use rationale in the file. Non-free book covers are usually not permitted in author articles without critical commentary about the cover itself, which is where you placed it, but in articles about the book itself per WP:NFCI & WP:NFC#UUI. For these reasons I am nominating it for deletion but you may be able to get permission from the copyright, in which case you should follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. Soundvisions1 has added the proper licence to the image. ww2censor (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on recent uploads

I am showing the below note on all of the images I have uploaded. They are for gernal use and no copyright infrictions. Please tell me what tag I need to use? Also, the images on the page I am designing show a red X in the corner instead of the image, I am assuming it is because they are cited wrong, correct? This image does not have a copyright tag. Copyright tagging is required in order to provide a consistent way to identify the copyright status of images, and to allow for automated classification of images. This template should be replaced with the appropriate copyright tag. Failure to tag an image may lead to its deletion. If you have any questions please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evaporation Expert (talk • contribs)

I have reviewed your uploads. Its a little unclear where these pictures have come from. If you created the pictures yourself and have clear rights to the pictures, they need to be uploaded with a Wikipedia-compatable lisence OR released into the public domain. If these are not pictures you created, then they may not be eligible for uploading or use at Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Help:Files for some more info. --Jayron32 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Logo question

How do I get an non free, fair use logo image into a document as the copyright owner, after I have uploaded it using the image link from within the document? Cwestllc (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Cwestllc (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:IOWN for guidance about releasing copyright images. To link to an image, follow the guidance at WP:IMAGES. – ukexpat (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Press photo for product line

Hi - I've never added media to a page before. I wanted to add a publicity photo of a product line that has its own Wikipedia page. I have access to the photo and the company's permission to use on Wikipedia. How do I make this permission formal so I can add the photo to wikipedia without being in violation of copyright? I tried reading up on this but could only find info about press photos for a person, not a product. the company said they are willing to fill out the appropriate form or license to help the process. thanks. -image uploading newbie. Lambadical (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If the company agrees to "fill out the appropriate form or license," then tell them they need to release it into the public domain or under a Creative Commons license that allows the work to be used for any purpose (e.g. CC-BY, CC-BY-SA...). Then you can upload the image with the tag of the license they've released it under. Note that just having the company's permission to use the image on Wikipedia does not allow it to be used properly here if the company still has all rights reserved to the image. And to upload, see Wikipedia:Upload or the Commons upload form. Hope this answers your question! Jsayre64 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The company must also own the copyright for the photo (as opposed to the photographer).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

ball of century photo

can i use the photo on http://static.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/7800/7870.2.jpg on wikipedia ? it is stated as (c) Getty Images —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar1996 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's copyright, you cannot use it unless it passes all the requirements at WP:NFCC--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We generally bar images, even as fair use, made by services such as Getty or AP as any use by us diminishes commercial opportunities of theirs.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Details on Non-Free Use of a photo

I uploaded File:DuelJewel 05-2010.png earlier with a higher resolution, and was directed here.

Since then I resized the photo to a lower resolution, and I believe that I meet 9 of the criteria for Non-free content. (Referring to Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria) But making a mistake once made me worried, so could someone check for me?

The band tours in venues with limited photo-passes, and all recent live photos are from media outlets like Combat Guitars (which posted this image in their blog back in May of this year). I only plan to use it in the namespace of the DuelJewel article, though the other countries' editors may eventually use it for their DuelJewel articles as well.

And if I can use it, would someone point out how to edit the image description to suit the last criteria? Thank you. Suicidethrone (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This image has a number problems. Currently the image is attributed to "Combat-Guitars" with a CC licence but there is no evidence the copyright holder has given this permission. If they did, you need to get them email us their confirmation of a free licence by following the procedure at WP:CONSENT. However, you mention "non-free content" which may be how you want to justify using the image but there is no fair-use rationale for the image (just a regular information template) and even though making free images may be difficult, it still fails WP:NFCC#1 because a free image could be created. Unfortunately, unless you can get permission, I think you are out of luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's really hard to find a random pic like that that would meet all of WP:NFCC. Mostly images like logos are often able to pass all the criteria, because it's almost certain that there can't be a free equivalent. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I understand the non-free criteria better now. I appreciate your answers. Suicidethrone (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I should add here then, could I use the photo on the band's official home page? And if so, what rationale would I use? I got the idea from the MaliceMizer page, which uses a photo from their homepage. Suicidethrone (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that MaliceMizer are no longer active so no replaceable image could be made, making a fair-use justification possible, however, DuelJewel are still an active band so a replaceable image could be created, as mentioned above, so such a use will fail WP:NFCC#1. Sorry but you are out of luck. ww2censor (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

copyright status of this image: File:My Lai massacre.jpg

What do the experts think about the copyright status of this image: File:My Lai massacre.jpg?

I note the description says:

Image is arguably in the public domain. Otherwise, is included as fair use

This is quite unsatisfying. If it does qualify for fair use, it should not be on Commons, should not be present on user pages, and the usage on article pages needs to be examined to make sure it is in compliance. Obviously, if it really is public domain, none of those concerns apply. The photographer has a Wikipedia page Ronald L. Haeberle and has asserted ownership of the copyright. Obviously that assertion isn't controlling, but if Wikipedia is going to insist that it does qualify as public domain, we need to be right. We care about the copyright status in all cases, but when a photograph has been sold, thereby establishing existence of commercial value, we need to be especially diligent.

I don't know whether the facts of the situation support the claim of PD or of the photographer, but I know that regulars in this forum have considerable experience in this area, so I'd like to make sure that the image either clearly qualifies as PD, or if not, we take the appropriate action.--SPhilbrickT 20:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been some discussion about this at a Commons deletion discussion. – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It occurred to me that it might have been discussed, but I looked on the talk pages of articles where is was included, which also included some concerns, but I didn't know about the page you listed. If the issue is settled, shouldn't the page reflect that? It currently is wishy-washy, leading to my question.--SPhilbrickT 21:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree it's wishy-washy. Maybe the Commons file info page should be edited to link to the CDR discussion? – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, and done.--SPhilbrickT 13:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Info copyright/license tag

How can I tag file File:Francisco serrano poet.jpg to prevent deletion? Image comes from a personal collection of photographs owned by the poet described in the Wikipedia article currently linked to it. He himself released it in order to include it in Wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montagnard27 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're saying in the information template on the file description page. You say that the image is self-made, but then you say that the author (who took the photo) is the poet in the image. Perhaps you mean that you just uploaded the image. You don't need to say that in the information template. For the author, write the name of the person who took the photo. If you took the photo yourself, use Template:Own as the source and your username as the author. Otherwise, write the URL of the website where it came from for the source, with proof that it is under a license appropriate for use on Wikipedia. And you must specify what type of free license the image is released under. If you took the photo, you can choose any free license you want. If someone else did, and say for example, that that person released it under the license Cc-by-sa-3.0, use that template in the "licensing" section. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Montagnard27, if the poet owns the copyright and wants to release it to Wikipedia, he can either upload it himself, or he or you can follow the steps at WP:PERMISSION. Make sure he understands that he is not just releasing the photo to Wikipedia, he needs to release it under a CC-BY-SA license. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

2 articles that need cleaning up

Hi! Could someone please clean up 2 articles I've created? The first one is about an young adult Novel Called More_than_Weird. The Second is a Israeli-American movie call The_Seventh_Coin. Someone please clean them up. Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

NO. And post on the right board why don't you (lest anyone think I'm being cruel, this guy has been spamming requests all over every board and every admin's talkpage all week). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, the first article is about a non-notable book, and the article about the author (which you also wrote) is a copyvio. I haven't looked at the other one - it's probably for the best. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And guess what, the second article contains a large copyvio by Neptunekh2's previous account User:Neptunekh also. Fortunately there was enough article left to survive its removal.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of photograph of road sign

There is some debate at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Volcano evacuation route sign.jpg about the copyright status of File:Volcano evacuation route sign.jpg, used at Mount Rainier.

The sign itself is likely copyrighted. The question is: because the sign is utilitarian, does a photograph of the sign retain the copyright of the sign? The photograph does not substitute for the sign itself. But, this is a subtle point of copyright law, so I would like to get expert help.

If the photograph itself retain the sign copyright, is it still acceptable for fair use at Mount Rainier, even if it must be deleted at Commons?

Thanks for any help you can provide. —hike395 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the precedent cited by Pieter Kuiper, it is likely to be retained on Commons as PD-ineligible, i.e., ineligible for copyright because it doesn't meet the threshold for a creative work. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Doodle Jump images

File:Doodle Powerups.png, File:Doodle Platforms.png and File:Doodle Monsters.png were all uploaded by Special:Contributions/Wikisergiowiki under PD tags and an image description claiming them to be the user's own work. Seems to me they must surely be fair use or derivative works, or else completely not illustrating what the Doodle Jump characters look like. In any case either the tags (and misleading image descriptions) should be changed or the images should be deleted. I'm not familiar with the subject matter and don't have too much free time to look at this right nw, hoping someone here can help out. Thanks. Zunaid 11:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I tag um all for speedy deletion as copyvio. That fix um. (None of them were in use anyway). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Birch Gun copyright tagging - For File:BirchGun.jpg

Hello, Could anyone offer some assistance with this copyright tagging? I'm having difficulty finding out how to physically tag the file I uploaded, and what tag to add. The image is scanned from an antique book in my own collection (published approximately 80 years ago in the UK - circa 1930). the photo itself has to be a minimum of 79 years old, as the vehicle was scrapped in 1931. The photo is credited to Gale & Polden - A printing/postcard firm that no longer exists, having being bought by Robert Maxwell's media group which went into liquidation in 1992 - almost 20 years ago. The photographer is not named - As was standard at the time. He'd have been on the G&P payroll. Given these factors, I would have thought it was free to use, and could be placed in the public domain, as many similar images are. Otherwise much of the historic subject matter on Wikipedia would have to remain unillustrated. I'd appreciate some help/advice/step-by-step instructions, as I'm finding this system less than intuitive! Regards, ByTheirWorks —Preceding unsigned comment added by ByTheirWorks (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on this information and UK ordinary copyright it would seem appropriate to apply this copyright template {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} which is for a basic 70-year copyright period. ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Noncommercial, or copynoia on my part?

Right now the image File:Alex Vega after being rescued cropped.jpg is on the main page (of the english wikipedia) . It looked to be correct, until I noted *** MANDATORY CREDIT: HUGO INFANTE/GOVERNMENT OF CHILE *** NO SALES. EDITORIAL USE ONLY. at the bottom of the page, suggesting non commercial. Although I think noncommercial images should be allowed (pure opinion, and is not policy) I think that this doesn't seem to be allowed. Any other thoughts? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It also states that the image is licensed under the CC-BY license. I don't know if that was the uploader's intent, but that is what the Flickr page says. Reach Out to the Truth 03:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but generally in law the most stringent case occurs: in this case their self-enacted modification :/ NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that all of the images for the miner's rescue is all CC-BY 2.0 and this modified statement. The only way is to contact the Flickr account and see which one is correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

correct tag for image

i need assistance in finding the correct tag for the new uploaded image "20100912161340-christine_corday_ahn_3952s.jpg" the image used was found on a website (http://www.artslant.com/global/artists/show/178660-christine-corday), wherein all images are not copyrighted unless specified. i can also get permission from the artist, and she gave me as user, permissions to update the site in my last uploaded image.

the image "20100912161340-christine_corday_ahn_3952s.jpg" by uploading images to public webpage artslant, the uploader, artist, renders permissions their uploaded images "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed," (this was taken from artslant terms page)

i referenced artslant in the information box of the image i could also reference it within the article somehow.

thank you for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brieanne821 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What permission did she give to you to use? That site, contrary to your assertion, does not say that images are not copyrighted unless stated otherwise; in fact it says "All images and content remain the © of their rightful owners." If you got permission from the author, please let us know exactly what license s/he permitted you to use, and forward the email exchange per the instructions at this page. In any case, there is no need to reference the creator's name in the article; all that information can be found just by clicking on the image, which will bring the reader back to the copyright page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

sent message to the image author/owner/artist and will forward permissions@wikimedia.com the moment i get the return. thank you magog for your help. Brieanne821 (talk

Note: i forwarded noted permissions email to permissions, oct. 14. thank you for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brieanne821 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

adding a photo from the Library of Congress

Can you tell me how to create a link with photo number 41 of Album 13709 of the Library of Congress's Photographs? The image was made by the American Colony (Jerusalem) between 1914-1917 and the Photo album Call Number is LOT 13833. It would be really nice if this image could be added to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign article. --Rskp (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the image is in the public domain, which it may not be, you can upload the image yourself. Just check out the upload link in the toolbox on the lefthand column. If you need further help, see WP:IFU.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect copyright permission

I uploaded the "Ivy Hall" image in the article entitled University Village Chicago, and tagged it non-free fair use in| etc. It has now been permitted but by the wrong holder. My Ivy Hall has Chicago in the background, while the copyright permit relates to Ivy Hall Georgia, a different building that is also pictured in Google Images.

How do I correct Wiki's own mistake? My image is correct - the copyright permission relates to a different building in a different State.

Thanks

Mark^Dask 11:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you link to the images in question please? If I get this right, OTRS permission was added to the wrong photo? -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Which copyright tag?

You have messaged me that I need a copyright tag for the photo of my mother, Jennifer Maiden, taken by me and inserted by me into the Wikipedia entry about her. I own this photo and no one else has copyright and both she and I permit its use on the entry. I do not, however, wish to allow it to be used or altered by other people, unless that permision from me is necessary for it be used in the entry. Could you advise me which tag to use?

All content* on Wikipedia needs to allow third party reuse, modification, and possible commercial use. The recommended license for images is the creative commons attribution share alike 3.0 license ({{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}) But you can look at all the tags and choose for yourself WP:ICTIC. Good luck. The instructions at the top of this page clearly outline how to add a copyright/licensing tag to an existing photo.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

image help

How do you get an image onto a page you made yourself!?

(Please answer!) From Kool Kid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.2.93 (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The help desk WP:HD is a better place to ask. That said, did you read WP:IMAGE? Instructions should be there.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Help determining status

I have found this collection which may contain some useful images for my work on Kentucky politicians, but I am having trouble determining its copyright status with certainty. All of the photos appear to have been taken by H. G. Mattern, who was apparently a leading photographer in Frankfort, Kentucky around the turn of the 20th century and worked at one time with Paul Sawyier. I cannot determine his year of death, however. If I could determine it to be prior to 1940, I believe the collection would be public domain in the U.S. by virtue of the creator having been dead for more than 70 years. Alternatively, I know the photos were taken at the 1890-1891 Kentucky Constitutional Convention, but I can't say for sure that they were "published" at that time. The source of the photos is said to be the photo and autograph album of C. J. Bronston, one of the delegates to the convention. If this was a book that was published and given to every member to collect autographs in (think "high school year book"), then its publication date would be prior to 1923, and it would be public domain. If this was a personal collection by Mr. Bronston, however, what would constitute "publication"? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

From looking at the phrasing, and content, I'd assume that this is something that was published, like a yearbook. It seems unlikely someone would have personal studio photographs of all the delegates as such, and it seems much much more plausible that this was something that was part of being a delegate (like a yearbook). I think it is safe to assume the content is PD, as it was published before 1923. That is just my personal guess, so I could be wrong. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use of Richard_Estes.jpg image

Hello Can I use the following image on a text book that talks about this artist and his work? I need to exemplify what I'm talking about. It seems that under the "fair use" clause I can but I want to make sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Estes.jpg

Thank you

Maria Ortiz Monasterio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marymonasterio (talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You want to publish it in a textbook? I think you probably need to talk to a copyright lawyer in whatever country you wish to publish the book. Wikipedia cannot give advice on copyright materials pertaining to third party publication. Content licensed under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license, that you are free to reproduce in your book. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

HOW DO I DELETE AN IMAGE FILE?

Resolved

I would like to delete this file: File:SFBBirmingham-1.jpg

I am not sure how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bro1041 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've tagged it for deletion, as {{db-self}} --Hammersoft (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Excessive amounts of Fair-use Audio Files at Emo

I count 12 fair-use files for this subculture's music in the article which I find excessive number of Fair use files in an article about a realitivly small subculture and pushing the boundires. Any one else think so? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Not to mention there is probably free emo music on the internet. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I took eight of the files out, those being ones where the title of the music wasn't mentioned at all in the article prose. Seven of them were orphaned as a result, and I informed the uploader of the seven files. I still think more of the files could go, as their importance and relevance to an encyclopedic view of Emo is questionable. Further, as Magog said, there probably is free alternatives available for crucial demonstrations of style. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is pleasant. I was reverted by the uploader [4]. Anyone else care to take a stab at explaining the issue to this person? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for my terse edit summary when I reverted Hammersoft. I'd just gotten out of bed & was quite surly. That's no excuse for my attitude, but it's the reason I was a bit uncivil & swift to revert. Anyway, to respond to ResidentAnthropologist's original statement, whether you think this is a "relatively small subculture" is irrelevant to its encyclopedic coverage. And if you read the article, you'll see that it's far from a "relatively small subculture"; it's a musical style that has a 25 year history, has been the topic of significant media attention in the last 10 years, encompasses a number of chart-topping platinum artists, and has been widely discussed in the music press. In response to Magog, whether there is "free emo music on the internet" isn't relevant to Wikipedia (I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, really). And no Hammersoft, there aren't "free alternaties available for crucial demonstrations of the style". Again, this is a style with a 25 year history. All of the "crucial" recordings of the style are copyrighted (even the stuff you'd find "free on the internet" aka Myspace samples by present-day garage bands, which certainly aren't crucial demonstrations of the style) would likely still be subject to copyright. How many recording artists do you know that license their recordings under free licenses? Certainly none that are discussed in the article. There are no free equivalents for these samples. I've given some more detail in my response to Hammersoft on my talk page, but basically each of these artists' musical and lyrical style is directly referenced in the article, with sources. The samples significantly increase readers' understanding of that musical style and the evolution of the genre's sound (which has gone through many permutations over 25 years), concepts that cannot be illustrated in text alone. I should also point out that punk rock, which is the only FA on a music genre, has 21 non-free audio samples in it (and had 17 at the time it was promoted to FA). I should also point out that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples) specifically says that there is no limit to the # of samples that may be used in one article, so long as each individually meets NFCC #8. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

So let's just liberally include as many samples as we want, because there's no limit? That's not how it works. Look, I understand the samples might be illustrative of whatever it is the article is trying to convey. There might be citations regarding a particular artist, but the files that I removed had NO CITATIONS REGARDING THEIR CONNECTION TO WHAT IS BEING SAID. That's where it fails WP:NFCC #8. You're picking these samples as being somehow indicative of the passage being discussed in the article. This is your judgment. That's Wikipedia:Original research. You're not backing it up with reliable sources. I didn't remove four of the files because they're at least mentioned in the article. The eight I did remove were not mentioned. You can't justify the existence of a non-free file on an article just on generalities. Citing a band is one thing. If you're going to use it's material, you need to find citations to back up why a given simple is important to the article. That doesn't exist for the eight non-free media files you restored. I'm not responding to your post on your user talk page, not out of surliness, but I think it better to focus discussion here on this topic. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about liberally including gratuitous samples at all; it's about illustrating a musical style and its evolution by giving samples of the key artists that are specifically discussed in the article. Take the Rites of Spring example that I discussed on my talk page. The article gives specific, sourced statements about how they were the originators of the style, and how they "broke free of hardcore's self-imposed boundaries in favor of melodic guitars, varied rhythms, and deeply personal, impassioned lyrics." How would one illustrate this except with a sample? It doesn't matter that song sampled isn't specifically mentioned in the text, as long as it includes examples of the band's guitar sound, rhythm, and vocals, which it does (for what it's worth, the Greenwald book which is the source of the statements does specifically focus on that song in an analysis of the lyrics—page 13—which is why I chose it as opposed to any of the band's other songs). If the cited text mentions specific elements of the band's musicality, and the sample includes those elements, it's not original research to state that the sample illustrates those elements (for example, if the text mentioned use of a particular instrument, then any sample using that instrument would be illustrative of it). The book that is the article's primary source does actually go into detail about how some of these specific songs ("Kiss the Bottle" and "If It's Here When We Get Back It's Ours" for example) are exemplary of the artist and style. In an older revision I had citations in each of the sample captions, but I felt that these were redundant to the cites in the body paragraph and they slightly messed up the format of the captions. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Giving samples, fine. But connect the dots. You're not. I'm not contesting what you're saying about Rites of Spring. I'm contesting that the sample you chose illustrates what is cited about the group. Find a cite that connects the dots. Otherwise, it's just original research. You think the sample illustrates what the article is trying to convey. Frankly, I don't care what you think about Emo music unless you're a reliable secondary source. You're not. You're just an editor here like the rest of us. You don't own the article, and asserting this sample as fact supporting the prose is every bit as improper as me including a sample of Johnny Cash music and asserting that Emo music had its foundation in Rockabilly. Unless you're going to assert (and can back it up with citations) that every single song produced by this group sounds exactly the same, and therefore the citation about the band applies to this particular sample, you're way out in left field on this one...and that's just one of eight I removed! You saying something is a fine example of X doesn't make it so. You're leaving your imprint on the article by way of asserting things not in cited evidence. If you want to dig out citations that tie these samples to this article then by all means do so. Adding a ^[23] to an image caption due to an inline cite isn't going to break the caption. You should also correct the prose to reference the sample and provide the cite that ties the sample to the prose. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to yank them as the user seems to be making no effort to integrate them into the article in the last 48 hours The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am going to restore them (again), and restore an older version of the captions which has specific citations within them. I find it inappropriate for you to have removed them unilaterally (again) and marked them for speedy (again). It is not original research to provide samples that illustrate concepts that are specifically referenced in the article text, when those concepts are not conveyable by words alone. The selection of samples does not constitute original research: if the text, for example, specifically refers to an act's melodic guitars, then all one need do is select a song of theirs that features the guitar. Stating that a sample of guitar illustrates their use of guitar is not original research, regardless of whether the source names a specific song. I was not haphazard in my selection of the songs sampled; each one is either specifically analyzed/referred to in the article's main source (the Greenwald text), or is a notable example of the genre due to its chart history. If you have specific concerns with the usage of specific files, I suggest you nominate them for deletion at XfD (or try discussing them on the article's talk page, which you haven't done). This page is for questions about copyright, not a place to argue NFCC thresholds. You have also not addressed my point that punk rock, the only music genre FA, has 21 non-free samples with many of the songs not specifically referred to in the article text. I would expect that if this were the threshold for use, that such a thing would have been addressed in an FA review. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unilaterally? The only person in this discussion who feels these are appropriate for the article is you, IllaZilla. If there's a unilateral action here, it's your actions. I'm going to continue to focus on "Remainder" to illustrate the point. You reinstated a citation in the caption of that clip, but the caption does not reference this clip. It references the band. Again, as I noted, I could just as well include a clip of Johnny Cash for all the relevance it has. YOU think it is relevant. The cite doesn't, as it doesn't reference that clip or the song. We haven't discussed this issue on the article's talk page because the discussion is centralized here. I'd prefer not to scatter this discussion across this page, the article's talk page, and 10+ MfD pages. This just isn't that big of an issue. As to Punk Rock; FA or not, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are empty. Just because that article has two dozen non-free media files doesn't mean this article is allowed to have that many non-free files. It's a case by case determination, not a threshold found in other articles. Frankly, I haven't reviewed that article recently and don't care because it's not relevant to this article. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, the caption does not have to reference that clip specifically. The cited text discussing Rites of Spring references the band's "melodic guitars, varied rhythms, and deeply personal, impassioned lyrics." In order to illustrate this (a concept that cannot be described in text alone), one simply needs to choose a clip of the band's that features guitar and varied rhythms. The source does not have to cite a specific song in order for the sample to be illustrative of those concepts. The comparison to Johnny Cash is, of course, ludicrous and irrelevant. I am not new to this, and I did not choose the clips based on my own point of view or personal preference. I chose them because the songs they are from are directly discussed in the sources, or because they are exemplars of the genre due to their chart history. The Greenwald source makes specific analysis of "Remainder" and calls it definitive of the band's style (page 13): "On what may be Rites of Spring's most definitive song, 'Remainder', Picciotto martyrs himself for his own sins, but therein glimpses a world of redemption."

My point about the article talk page is that if you felt there were problematic non-free files being used in the article, you should have raised the topic there. Instead it was raised here (the incorrect place, as this page's purpose is to ask questions about copyright, not to argue NFCC thresholds), and without any discussion at the article itself you simply yanked the files and tagged them for speedy deletion. If you would like to discuss each file individually, I would be happy to do so on the article's talk page. There are other editors who watch that page and I'm sure would contribute to the topic if it were discussed there. Perhaps there are a few that could be removed, but they need to be discussed individually because, as I've demonstrated with "Remainder", there are strong arguments for retaining some of the ones in question ("Kiss the Bottle" and "If It's Here When We Get Back It's Ours" immediately spring to mind as the sources also call them definitive of the respective bands' styles...in fact the caption of "Kiss the Bottle" directly quotes a source saying that "more than any other song", it encapsulates the elements that drew listeners to the band).

My point in referring to the punk rock article was not to make an OTHERCRAP argument. I am not saying that "since that article has x many files, this article should get x too." I am drawing the comparison in order to illustrate that there is no hard limit on the number of files, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples), so long as each individually passes the NFCC. I am also making the comparison because Featured Articles are supposed to represent our best work, and have gone through a series of reviews and revisions. One expects that the usage of non-free files in an FA should be demonstrative of how they should be used in other articles of the same topic area. The fact that there are samples in punk rock of songs that are not specifically referred to in the article text (but where the text, rather, references the sound or musical style of the artist in question) indicates to me that your assertion that the songs themselves have to be specifically referenced in the text is incorrect. If that were the case, then I would expect these samples to have been weeded out during the FA process. I am in no way suggeting that emo is entitled to the same number of samples as punk rock, I am suggesting that the files are being used in the exact same way—to illustrate the musical style of the genre's relevant artists—and that the songs themselves do not have to be specifically referenced in the text in order to be considered demonstrative of this style.

This requires case-by-case determination, as you have said, and the place to make such determinations is on the article's talk page. I would be happy to discuss each file in question individually there, if you would care to. I believe I can make strong arguments—with sources—for several of the files in question. If the issue is making the article text demonstrate that these songs are exemplars, then that is a problem with the text and it can be fixed, since as I say I chose the songs based on their analysis in the sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've already placed a link to this discussion on the article's talk page. There is no point to open several discussions, MfDs, etc. to resolve this issue. Consolidating discussion here is not inappropriate as you suggest. It was raised here, it remains here, it works here. To the rest of your points, I'll let others respond. I don't see anything convincing. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then, as I said, I'm happy to discuss each sample individually, but that would be a fresh conversation that really ought to happen on the article's talk page. We can easily start a new topic there with subtopics to address each file. I believe that for most (if not all) of these samples I would be able to provide specific referenced discussion of the songs in question, and make the necessary changes to the article text to alleviate your concerns. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe we can. You firmly believe it's ok to use a random song not noted in cites to emphasize a point made about a band. This is a more abstract issue than any single media sample. We don't have common ground on this issue. We could discuss each image separately, but there's no point. The underlying abstract principle undermines each possible discussion. Either the media samples get included using your idea of how non-free usage works here, or they don't. That covers all of the media samples. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Yes, we disagree on the larger issue of whether the sources need to address a specific song in order for that song to be used as an example of an artist's sound. That is an abstract principle, but I do not believe that it undermines potential discussion of the specific article, and specific files, that we are dealing with here. You yourself said that case-by-case determinations need to be made, and I have said that I chose the songs based on their coverage in the sources. That being the case, why do you not believe that, larger issues aside, we can discuss the specific files in question and their usage in the article in question? You have made clear that your primary concern is whether the songs in question are specifically named as exemplars in the article body, with sources; I am prepared to demonstrate that several of them are specifically named as exemplars by the sources, and to alter the article text to reflect that if need be. Why are you unwilling to pursue that line of discussion? Given our disagreement on the larger issue, yet my openness to discussing on a by-song basis, I think it is the most reasonable way for us to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You acknowledge that we disagree on the large issue. At least on that, we agree. We disagree that this has an undermining effect on the specific issues per image. I believe your understanding of how to apply usage of fair use media is fundamentally flawed. You disagree, and believe my view is fundamentally flawed. We do not have a middle ground. Without that middle ground, we're not going to agree on a per case basis. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is unfortunate. I'm prepared to argue for keeping at least several of them on the grounds that I can cite sources specifically analyzing those songs and naming them as exemplars of the acts in question. If there are any that I cannot find specific mentions of in the sources, I'm prepared to at least discuss whether they are necessary. Though I would certainly prefer that they were all kept, I respect your views and am trying to meet you halfway, or at least ensure that I defend their use to best of my ability. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In this you seem to be acknowledging that a source must specifically mention the work in question, as opposed to just the band? Is that accurate? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No, we still disagree on that. What I'm saying is, if that's your criteria, I believe I can defend the samples in question because most of them are specifically mentioned in the sources, which is why I chose them in the first place. I'd have to go through the sources (mainly the Greenwald book) and pull quotes, which is why I'd rather discuss these on a file-by-file basis on the article's talk page. If there are any that aren't specifically mentioned in the sources (which I still don't think is requisite), I'm open to at least considering whether those samples are necessary to illustrate the concepts. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Then we have nothing further to talk about. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

After five days of notice being posted on the article's talk page, not one edit bu IllaZilla feels the clips are appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the same five days no one but yourself has expressed an opinion that the clips are inappropriate, so I don't see your point. I have provided well-reasoned arguments in favor of keeping the files, and I have offered to address each file individually and in detail on the article's talk page. You have stated that you are unwilling to discuss the issue any further. Since you and a I are the only ones who have provided any arguments beyond a simple !vote, it's clear that we have no consensus to remove the files. They were uploaded properly, they have valid fair-use rationales, and they are being used in accordance with our non-free content criteria. If you feel otherwise, XfD is always a route open to you. This discussion has clearly reached an impasse. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. So have the opinions of several other editors. Your opinion stands alone. The discussion hasn't reach an impasse. It's reached an unfortunate position where you are against the consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly a case of no consensus. Aside from yourself, the only arguments given in favor of removal are "it's a relatively small subculture" (it isn't, as I have shown, and that argument is irrelevant to our non-free content criteria) and "there's probably free emo music on the internet" (another irrelevant argument, as I've explained above). Consensus is not a vote-count, it is a compromise between editors based on well-reasoned arguments. You and I are the only ones who have expressed valid, reasoned, and policy-based arguments, and our opinions are clearly contrary. Therefore there is clearly no consensus from this discussion. I am an avid proponent of removing material that does not meet our non-free content criteria, and have done so on numerous occassions. However, in this instance the content meets the criteria and is necessary to an encyclopedic understanding of a topic that cannot be explained in text alone. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Derp. I’m going to stand by Hammersoft on this one. It’s reasonable to use a certain number of specific examples, but after reading the actual text of the law, and reading landmark cases (original research, I know) it is my opinion that quantity does matter in the case of fair use. Even when demonstrating one large genre there becomes a point at which generalities could be well enough expressed with non copyrighted samples. Remember if something may be created it loses fair use, not the fact that it is created. While I agree these samples may do a better job than equivalent free ones, there is a fairly substantial amount of content there not directly referenced, and all told there seems to be a substantial number that don’t really help an uninformed reader understand what the article is saying. Lastly, it is of my opinion that just because a sample can theoretically help one, and be slightly superior to a free variety, this does not justify its usage. For instance, (a personal example) I play bassoon at what I would call an amateur level. I do, however, play well enough to know that there are only really in the range of 25 professional bassoonists who play in major orchestras in what could be considered the ‘top’ level. However in this case the usage of non-free content would clearly be denied on the basis that there are thousands of bassoon players that can demonstrate the basic principles of bassoon playing (myself included), especially to a general audience, however not to the same level of these 25 professionals. Although this is blatant otherstuffdoesn’texist, I’d just like to contest that although such content might be vaguely superior, and vaguely justified, it doesn’t mean that this can be broadly justified for usage in an article. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to pare down the files based on content that was unsourced completely, or songs that were unsourced, or concepts that were sourced but did not require an auditory sample. I was conservative in my deletions, keeping content that may not be needed. But I want to make it clear, as everyone else here, that non-free media abuse is a serious problem, and that Wikipedia is in fact the Free encyclopedia, clearly favoring free content. This isn't a case of "no consensus, so let's keep the disputed content". This is a case of one individual wanting to keep a large amount of non-free content against policy and the reason of other decent editors. We don't err on the side of caution and keep the content in these cases. We remove it until there is a clear consensus otherwise. The next step, if the material is restored, would be to ask for deletion of the files.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A side note, why are there no images in the article? Not only is there a commons category for emo, we have band pictures of Fugazi, SDRE, Get Up Kids, Jimmy Eat World, Weezer, et al. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh. Just looked at some of out WP:FA. Appears punk rock has 20+ non-free media samples... -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's "abuse". Abuse would be if I'd added whatever files I felt like willy-nilly throughout the article. I didn't. I only used samples of songs and artists that are exemplars of the genre, and are stated to be such by the sources. Each file has an adequate fair use rationale and meets the media-specific guidelines. Therefore it is not "against policy". You point out that punk rock, an FA, has over 20 non-free samples; that is what I looked to as an example: as an FA, it's supposed to represent our best work. There's no indication from its FA review that the usage of files there is not consistent with our non-free content criteria, and the usage in emo is precisely the same...better, in most cases, because the songs—or the albums they are from—are specifically noted by the sources as key representations of the genre. Now, is every single file necessary? I'm open to considering whether they are, and as I've already said I'm happy to discuss them individually on the article's talk page (which is where this discussion should have started in the first place).

Yes Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia", and non-free media abuse is a problem. I myself am a constant fighter against improperly used non-free images. But there are certain topics—popular music being among them—where it is nigh-impossible to cover the topic comprehensively and encyclopedically without some type of fair use media. NativeForeigner compares this to demonstrating the sound of a bassoon...the comparison is completely off the mark. Any amateur player can create a free example of what a bassoon sounds like, yes, but a bassoon is an instrument, not a genre. Genres are described by critics, journalists, and historians, and defined by the artists who set the style and are seen as historically significant to that style. These artists' works are invariably non-free, and thus to adequately convey the historical and stylistic development of the genre we must concede that the use of some non-free media is essential. It's the difference between saying "anyone can make a free image that shows the color blue" and "anyone can make a free image that encapsulates stuckism". 12 samples to represent the 25-year historical evolution of a popular music genre isn't abusive, especially when the samples were selected with care. As I say, I'm open to the possibility of paring the number down a bit, but I balk when it's called "abusive" and "against policy". --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is a policy. #8 and #10c are being broken. Therefore, this media use is "against policy" and restoring content against policy is abuse. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Illazilla, your actions are becoming disruptive and borderline violating of WP:OWN. This discussion has been going on now for approximately two weeks. For more than a week a pointer to this discussion has been on the article's talk page. Yet, not a single person...not one...has agreed with your position. Despite this, three editors have attempted to remove the overuse of non-free media from the article and on every occasion you have reverted those removals, with only lately making a single concession on a single media file [5]. I appreciate the effort you have made in constructing and detailing your argument for inclusion. Nevertheless, your argument has failed. Much of this media must go. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

importing a picture

How do I import a picture I have inserted in the French version of the article on Jean-Louis Baghio'o, to the English version I have just expanded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armand W. (talk • contribs) 11:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If the image is freely licenced then you should move it to the commons, not to here, and all wikis (including the French one) can use it. If it is a non-free image you may be able to upload it here if it complies with all 10 non-free image criteria. ww2censor (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo of deceased police officer

For the Troy Davis case I would like to add a photo of the victim, a deceased US police officer. I have found this one, that states that the picture has been "provided by the Savannah Police Dept" [6]. It appears on various news websites with the same information. The actual release was likely "pre-internet" (murder happened in 1989) and I can't find anything on the current Savannah Police Department website, but it does make sense that they would have released a photo of their officer following the murder. Is this sufficient for us in terms of being a free image? --Slp1 (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Release for public distribution does not mean release into the public domain. It's possible that the police department released it into the public domain, but that would require verifying it with them. That said, since the subject is deceased if it meets all of the non-free content criteria it may be possible to use a non-free image in the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Engel apotheke1668.jpg

• See also File:ENGEL APHOTHEKE.png.

Hi. This isn't an ordinary MCQ question, but I'm hoping you guys can help anyway. :) There's insufficient source information on this for me to determine if it's non-free. I suspect it is pre-1923, and I'm hoping to determine that without the need to bring it to PuF. The image is taken from the Merck website. The original publishing page is no long active, but it can be seen here: [7]. It doesn't have any indication on the origin of the picture, beyond noting that it depicts the appearance of the pharmacy at the beginning of the 19th century. Presumably it was painted by somebody at that time, but it doesn't say. A cropped version of the painting is published here, by another publisher, with a notation that it is "© Merck KGaA", so I suppose it's possible that they commissioned a current painting of the historical appearance of the building.

Anybody have any clues about the origin of this? It would be great to just add the necessary summary to both image descriptions and move on. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not any idea. You might consider actually emailing the webmaster of either site though. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

email history@merk.de The german website has a huge flash presentation [8] that includes this picture. My guess is that it was painted pre 1827, as the business moved premises in that year.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Help prevent speedy deletion of files to which I hold copyright

Can someone please help me ASAP? This is my first article, and I need assistance. The images I have uploaded for my article are being preyed upon. I hold the copyright to most of these images, but I see no way to tag them except as fair-use images. They are in fact available to others to use under fair-use provisions. This is not necessary for me, however, as I hold the copyright. I cannot release these images to the public domain, because they are images of the work of my archaeological project, affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, and they have not yet been published in the final volume on the project's work. I am constantly being warned to provide additional fair-use justification, which I find frustrating, because I hold the copyright to the images. Am I using the wrong tag? Or what can I do about this? Several of my image files are tagged for speedy deletion, and this will not only frustrate me further but ruin the article. I understand the desire for free image distribution, but this is not possible at present for most of my images. I have released the one photo of mine that is eligible for free distribution through Wikimedia Commons. Thank you! E. S. V. Leigh (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to release any files you can under a free license. If you can't they probably don't belong on Wikipedia. Tag the images to the public domain with Template:PD-self or one of the Creative Commons licenses, say Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0, with self as a parameter before that. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The fair use rationales are so the images can appear on Wikipedia. If you are not able to release them as free, then you have to supply fair use rationales. It is very important to confirm why it is not possible for someone to make a free image of the subject (is it shut up in a box in a conservation lab?). You need to explain all this on the talk pages of the images. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

British Rail logo

I can't for the life in me work out why the British Rail logo has a fair use template on it. Surely a logo such as this, made up solely of simple shapes, does not meet the threshold of originality. However, while I am pretty certain the logo is PD, I thought I would check here before changing anything. Cheers, BigDom More tea, vicar? 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because the threshold of creative effort for applicability of copyright differs from country to country? In the US, logos containing text and simple shapes are usually not copyright but then nor is the font from which they are formed, because (a) US caselaw has decided that text based logos contain no creative content and (b) US law specifically rejects the copyrighting of certain things that are utilitarian, fonts being one of them. In other countries, the threshold is set differently/different things are included/there has been different caselaw. The old BR logo is by no means 'simple shapes', there is clearly enough of a creative element to allow copyright at least in the UK.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What simple shapes is the logo made up of? Square? Triangle? Circle? I see the big red rectangle, but the inner white shape is not describable in simple terms exactly, now is it?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The inner white shape is two rectangles and three parallelograms. Hardly the most creative thing I've ever seen. BigDom More tea, vicar? 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Because the strokes are not outlined, we don't know if the artist simply combined 3 parallelograms or drew the shape with a single continuous stroke. But I guess that is beside the point. We generally err on the side of caution, and I'll admit this is a bit of a grey area, but my personal opinion is we shouldn't tag it as being free based on ToO. Elen appears to agree. Maybe we can wait for more opinions, but again, these are just opinions. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

BigDom, it is copyright in the UK. It may or may not be copyright in the US, but it would take a court case to decide once and for all. I wouldn't like to substitute my judgement for the US legal system, so would prefer to leave it as it is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Help request for possible copyright violation

All three images at Mechanical Gecko appear to have been copied from an online article [9] on the topic. Having never tagged an image for possible copyright violations, I'm not sure how to proceed. Assistance would be appreciated.--Koppas (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon inspection, if you click on the image on that article, you'll see it was uploaded by a man with the user ID "sunwenfeng" (that site is too a wiki, apparently). The person who uploaded the images on Wikipedia commons is "Wenfengsun0". If you're still suspicious, you can click on the image here at en.wp, click the description page there part below to bring you to the image on commons, then click "no permission" on the box on the left, which will start the deletion process and inform the user s/he must provide proof of ownership. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I couldn't find a clickable "no permission" link on the page, but did find the appropriate template ({{no permission}}) at Commons.--Koppas (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello. I need some advice please on copyright tags for 3 photos that I would like to use in my article on Prior's Field School, as I am not practised in this area.

The photos are as follows:

1) an image of the school: after a couple of attempts which were deleted, I have made this free using Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 which I hope is right.

2) an image of a science lesson taken in 1919: I gave this the tag

Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons.
This file might not be in the public domain outside the United States and should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons unless it can be verified to be in the public domain in its country of first publication and that at least 70 years have elapsed since the author died. Commons requires that images be free in the source country and in the United States.
If this file is in the public domain outside the United States, add |pdsource=yes to this template to hide this warning.
If this file is not in the public domain in the source country but will become so in the future, add |out_of_copyright_in= and then the year its copyright will expire.

which I thought would be ok as the image was taken in 1919 and I thought would therefore be in the public domain because of its age, but I see it the image is now a candidate for speedy deletion. Not sure what tag I should now be giving this. 3) an image of an airvent, created by Charles Voysey (English architect) and in the school's Oak Hall: this has been deleted already -I had it down as non free as it is the copyright of Prior's Field School. Should it be free as per the first image of the school under the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0?

Finally, to amend the details of copyright tags for the above images, will I need to re-upload them? Or can I edit the images that are already loaded?

Your help would be very much appreciated Cghamel (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I forgot to put a Headline and link to specific images in my question above - so here is my second attempt. Apologies Cghamel (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I need some advice please on copyright tags for 3 photos that I would like to use in my article on Prior's Field School, as I am not practised in this area.

The photos are as follows:

1) an image of the school: after a couple of attempts which were deleted, I have made this free using Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 which I hope is right. File:Prior's Field School, Godalming.JPG

2) an image of a science lesson taken in 1919: I gave this the tag which I thought would be ok as the image was taken in 1919 and I thought would therefore be in the public domain because of its age, but I see it the image is now a candidate for speedy deletion. Not sure what tag I should now be giving this. File:Science lesson, 1919.jpg

3) an image of an airvent, created by Charles Voysey (English architect) and in the school's Oak Hall: this has been deleted already -I had it down as non free as it is the copyright of Prior's Field School. Should it be free as per the first image of the school under the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0? File:Air Vent with Birds and Trees Motif.jpg

Finally, to amend the details of copyright tags for the above images, will I need to re-upload them? Or can I edit the images that are already loaded?

Your help would be very much appreciated Cghamel (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, you did not take the photographs, so you cannot release them under a license like that. You may own the physical photos, you sort of imply that you do, but that doesn't give you intellectual property rights.

The 1919 science lesson: for it to have that tag, you would have to show that it was published, as it says in the copyright tag. Did it appear in any publications?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the logo of one of our non-profit's websites to the Wikipedia page, Secular Culture & Ideas. The image was created and funded by our non profit. How do I respond to Wikipedia's request for proof of copyright? Heather Chait (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Heather ChaitHeather Chait (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Land record of 1951.jpg

Dear friend, I created this file (image file) from a scientific paper which is in public domain. I also wish to give proper credit at the appropriate place. But I do not know how to do it? Could you kindly help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibroy00 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have put an information template in, to format your text. However we need evidence that the paper is in the public domain. If it is available online, then there should be a notice with the paper to say this, and you can point to the link in the permission attribute. Else if the image is really from 1951, then we really need the original source of the image, where and when it was made, and under what basis it would be public domain, is it because of age? 21:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And from the Template:PD-India: According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (Chapter V) in the case of cinematograph films, sound recordings, photographs, posthumous publications, anonymous and pseudonymous publications, works of government and works of international organisations, enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published, counted from the beginning of the following calendar year (ie. as of 2010, works published prior to 1 January 1950 are considered public domain)

So from this it looks like a 1951 Indian government document will not be public domain till 1 Jan 2012. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

... in India. It won't be public domain in the United States where our servers are until at least 2046, assuming no law changes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How to upload power point presentation

Dear Administrator,

I want to upload powerpoint presentation. Kindly guide me for the same.

Regards, Nilesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nileshmer (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a media copyright quesiton, so the help desk may be a better venue WP:HD. That said, check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_types. We do not allow files with ppt extensions. Can you convert it to PDF?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Roddon formation diagram

The formation of a roddon after Fowler (1932)

Resolved

In his 1932 paper, archaeologist Major Gordon Fowler provides a diagram explaining the formation of a roddon. I realise I cannot duplicate such a diagram without violating copyright. How much of this diagram can I produce myself pictured using modern drawing tools without falling fowl [sic] of the law?

Source: Fowler, Gordon (March 1932). "Old River-beds in the Fenlands". Geographical Journal. 79 (3): 210–212. JSTOR 1785197.

--Senra (Talk) 15:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

However to actually answer the question, if you use different colours, thickness of beds and lines, different aspect ratio, and different deformation shape then it would be a redrawn image with new copyright. If you remember the essential idea in your head and then illustrate it yourself you should be safe from fouling. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remove the picture

Hello, thanks for your message however I realized that I can't crop the picture so I would like to remove it. Please help me. Thanks (Joseevolley talk) 00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)]

Just add the template {{db-author}} if you want to get it deleted by an admin. ww2censor (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(after EC) Check out {{db-self}}. That template, when added to an image, will alert an admin that you, as the only author/uploader, want to delete it. I'd be glad to delete it now, but "not being able to crop the picture" doesn't seem like a valid reason for deletion. We have a graphics lab that could crop the photo for you WP:GL. In fact, I could make the crop if you want. If not, we can delete the file. But the reason why you had a notice added to your talk page is that you did not provide any authorship or licensing information. If you are the author of this image, you can choose any free license you want here WP:ICTIC. If you are not the author, we would need permission on file from the copyright holder WP:PERMISSION. If you don't have permission for the file, and you didn't create it yourself or otherwise own the copyright, we'll have to delete it. But again, if you own the image and simply want it cropped, we can work that out as well. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube. How do I establish copyright status?

Hi. I need some advice. At Talk:Depression_(mood)#Youtube_external_link we are discussing whether to link to a video hosted on YouTube. If we decide it is an appropriate link, what proof do we need that it is not on YouTube as a copyright violation? I emailed the producer/director, requesting they release it under (CC BY SA) so we could host it, and he replied it is available now as (CC BY ND NC). He's forwarded my request to the copyright holder but, assuming they don't agree to change to (CC BY SA), what should I ask for, to confirm the copyright status? Anthony (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

License has been revised to CC BY SA on the YouTube page.

85.65.243.51 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That is wonderful. Hopefully, one of the experts here will advise us if notification on the YouTube page is sufficient verification. An exchange of emails may be necessary. Anthony (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Licensing on the YouTube page is perfectly fine if there's no doubt that the youtube account holder is authorized to do that (just like a notice on a website or flickr account is sufficient). That said, maybe I'm just blind but I'm not seeing the license on the youtube page. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a drop-down panel under the video box. It's in there. Anthony (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, clearly I don't watch enough internet videos. Thanks for the pointer. That certainly seems sufficient as far as the copyright goes. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Anthony (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I emailed Prof. Benny Leshem, the copyright owner, at his Ministry of Health email address and he has confirmed he understands the implications of (CC-BY-SA) and the film is, indeed (CC-BY-SA). Anthony (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Sci logo.jpg

I uploaded an image, File:Sci logo.jpg to the page I created, Secular Culture & Ideas. The logo was commissioned for our purposes, and paid for by our non-profit. We did not apply for copyright and we're not sure of the name of the person who created it. We're 100% sure that it was created solely for us but I'm not clear how to tag it. Thanks for your help. Heather Chait (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Heather ChaitHeather Chait (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've tagged it with {{non-free logo}} for the license, but it needs a rationale. See WP:FURG for direction. As to the article itself, as a web magazine that's been in existence for three years, one would expect some kind of Alexa rank. But, it has none. This web site is, at least traffic wise, completely unnotable. I would not be surprised to see this article deleted. Further, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Writing about your own organization is not likely to be accepted. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding image to "BBC Northern Dance Orchestra" Page

Help. I've uploaded an image for the "BBC Northern Dance Orchestra" page, but managed to load it into the ether without actually embedding it into the page. I'm unsure as how to correct my mistake. The image is a non-copyright image courtesy of the BBC Stills Archive.Orchestral manoeuvres (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I presume you mean File:BBC NDO.jpg. Currently this image has no source, author, date, or most importantly "purpose for use" which justifies the use of a non-free image. These are necessary to avoid the image being deleted. According to the BBC Northern Dance Orchestra article this image must have been taken between 1951 and 1985 so a freely licenced image may well exist. To embed the image into an article you just need to add this code: [[File:BBC NDO.jpg|thumb|a caption for the image]]. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean File:BBC NDO.jpg? To add the uploaded image to the article you would have to add an image code to the BBC Northern Dance Orchestra page by editing that article. The page an image is uploaded to (called a file page) is separate to any article you may want to use it in and must be manually inserted. In this case between double square brackets, [[ ]], you would enter something like "Image:BBC NDO.jpg|thumb|250px". You can vary the number of pixels as you wish.

However there is a problem with the image file page at present, it has no licensing information entered into the box which is required to asses whether the image can be used. Not only that but the template used is for non-free images when you say that the image is not copyright (I.e public domain) and so wouldn't need such a license. If you can provide the relevant information (especially the source the image is from, such as a web-page URL) and add it to the File:BBC NDO.jpg page then a correct licensing template can be used. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite what ChiZeroOne says, you should not force the image size per WP:IMGSIZE] by adding a px size. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, bad habit. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

How to stop bot resizing of a non-free work?

Please see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/January#A free image with non-free components for a bit of background.

My current question is a little different, however. The image in question is File:Rochester Midtown Plaza - Interior.jpg. I uploaded it at full size (2275x1687, I believe) because the portion of the image that is non-free (the clock sculpture) is still only a small portion of the image at that size.

The problem is that bots can't tell the difference between a non-free image and an image that contains non-free elements. So every few months, I get a bot coming by to resize the image to an acceptable non-free size, as if the entire image were non-free. And of course, if I fail to monitor this, then another bot comes by and deletes the old versions so that I can't even revert it.

How can I prevent this pointlessness?

-- Powers ^T 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Stop tagging it as a non-free image. Yes, there is a non-free component to this image, but it is de minimis to the entire image. The image does not focus on the clock, but on the interior of the mall. If the image were focused on the clock, with the clock being the obvious direct subject of the image, then it would be non-free, as there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for three dimensional works of art on public display. But, that's not the case here. Yes, it's possible to crop the image down to just the component that is not free, but then the resulting image creates a situation for that image only where the sculpture is not deminimis to the overall work. There's plenty of images where tehre are subcomponents that are copyrighted. See this file for an example. There's multiple elements there that are copyrighted, and the image coule be cropped down to focus on those. But, while it is uncropped those elements are de minimis to the entire work. That's the line in the sand. I've corrected the license and image description page. I'd recommend re-uploading the higher resolution image. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I can't say I agree about de minimis in this case. At a minimum it's borderline, so I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. Powers ^T 18:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• The clock sculpture occupies about 21% of the total image. Yes, I checked. There's no set % at which de minimis is set, but 21% is not a large part of the image. The sculpture is not the focus of the image, it is not centered in the image, and it's obvious the intent of the image isn't to display the sculpture, but to display the interior of the mall. I don't even see this as a borderline case. It's obvious to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
• Two other examples to note here where a copyrighted artwork is de minimis to the image; File:Joslyn Atrium South.jpg and File:Joslyn Atrium North.jpg. The glass work is by Dale Chihuly and is copyrighted. You could crop the image to focus on the artwork, but uncropped the works are de minimis to the image. That's why they are on Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The starting point in this case is the statement of Wikimedia's general council, User:MikeGodwin who has said about such situations that: In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues. Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute. MikeGodwin 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [1] . So substantively I would agree that the correct solution is to stop tagging the image an non-free. Legally though the issue is actually much more complex than Mike or Hammersoft suggest. In the UK and Canada the defence ( a murky one, because a mike suggests most people are sane and so no-one ever sues much for it) would be the defence of "incidental inclusion" (see football association v Pannini Uk for a typical English case). Generally in the US i would suggest that the usage fell under "fair-use" as opposed to deminimis (which is really an exceptional defence, see e.g Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television). Clearly though, this is an issue which has little real world relevance. For the purposes of wikipedia and given Mike's response, there is nothing wrong with giving this image a free use tag as far as I can tell Ajbpearce (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal Image Tag Question

Regarding image, Frank Romano - NYC 2009.JPG...can you help me determine what kinda of tag I need for this? It is a personal photo, my own work. Not sure if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgozdzielski (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I will reply on your talkpage Ajbpearce (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your message RE: File:SJP Wealth Managemen logo.jpg

Hi I received your message RE the lack of licence tag for File:SJP Wealth Managemen logo.jpg I selected non-free logo from the list.What further tags do you need to verify the image. I assumed the non free logo tag was a valid entry? Thanks Selphy10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selphy10 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been fixed already. ww2censor (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tag added to image

Hi the image File:OCSFC logo framed.JPG was noted for deletion because there was no copyright tag was on it. A tag has been added, but the notice of speedy deletion is still there. I have two questions. One, does the review and removal of the deletion note take time? Or, is the tag used not satisfactory?

Please let me know.

Thank you.

Wesomniman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesomniman (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do you own the logo or does the club? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Help requested

I am involved in a debate regarding several images being used as electoral symbols for Indian political parties. At least two contributors to this discussion are taking a stance that there is a grey area in copyright law, wherein (for example) an artist creating a drawing of a mango can't claim copyright because a mango is an everyday object, therefore their artwork is not copyrightable. I've noted that this would make all still life paintings ineligible for copyright. I've cited the Copyright Office of the Government of India, and the fact that India observes the Berne Convention. This has all fallen on deaf ears. I am making zero headway here in educating the contributors to this discussion about copyright. Some assistance please? Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Party_symbols_and_copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am now being met that there's uncertainty these are logos, and therefore if they are not logos they can't be copyrighted. Also, since they are not permanent electoral symbols, they are not eligible for copyright supposedly. Etc. Etc. Etc. The lack of understanding of copyright law is undermining the discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to make it clear here that I respect copyright laws and i have no problems deleting all Indian party symbols from wikipedia if they are in violation. I have no way to demonstrate that election symbols are not the copyrighted properties of the Indian parties. But, by the very nature of it, i have a hard time accepting that they are. I would be glad to be convinced. Thanks. --CarTick (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

useful link for consideration THE ELECTION SYMBOLS (RESERVATION AND ALLOTMENT) ORDER, 1968. --CarTick (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

First, before we start getting into copyright issues - everything about the uploaded images suggests that they are not actually even the official logos of the relevant parties but photoshop interpretations (presumably produced by the uploader - of those symbols. I can't find these images on the official websites of these parties or on the indian government websites. Infact in atleast one of the listed cases (AIADMK there appears to be a contrasting official logo ( with a non-free use rationale) in use elsewhere on wikipedia. (Contrast File:AIADMK_logo_2006_04_25.PNG with File:AIADMK_Two_Leaves.png )) That being the case, I don't understand what these images are doing on wikipedia in the first case. It seems to me that we should not be allowing extremely generous artistic reinterpretations to be represented as the "official" logo's of the relevant parties. I cannot imagine that we would replace File:Republicanlogo.svg with a version that someone had "improved" with extra colours and a bevel emboss for example. I would recommend we remove these images on this basis alone

In regards to the copyright question, as far as i can tell the arguments? that these images somehow are not derivative works is just nonsense. If its really necessary I can go into detail, but in summary - these logo's fulfill the criterion for copyright (originality is a low hurdle and clearly met) These images are based on some copyrighted logo and meant to represent the same thing, ergo they are derivative works. Absent some insane quirk of indian law (which there has been no suggestion of anywhere as far as i can see) then any appropriate logo for inclusion will be NFCC and need to include a fair-use rational under WP:LogoAjbpearce (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

you are sure these are logos created by the parties after reading THE ELECTION SYMBOLS (RESERVATION AND ALLOTMENT) ORDER, 1968 --CarTick (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That document is irrelevant. The images concerned are clearly based on or derived from images produced by someone else (whether the indian government or the political parties themselves its not that clear to me but also not relevant). There is no indication that copyright does not vest in those original images. These interpretations of the symbols are derivative works of other copyrighted interpretations of the symbols ergo - they are non free content. Ajbpearce (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. page 31 of the document says the symbols are not the property of the political parties. Does that mean it is the ECI which holds the copyright to it? ECI just assigns symbols to parties and does not provide any particular images of these symbols. The political parties use various self-made depictions of it. It would be hard to imagine that ECI owns copyright to an image it never produced. one could argue that the idea that an object is the election symbol of Indian comes from ECI and therefore, even if it doesnt create the image, it still holds copyright to it. --CarTick (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "copyright" - the crucial issue for us, is never mentioned in that document, and I can't find any information about the copyright status of the original symbols online. That being said: this document, http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/ElectoralLaws/HandBooks/HANDBOOK%20OF%20SYMBOLS.pdf is an official document of the Indian Electoral Commission, with a clear copyright notice attached. As far as I can tell the indian electoral commission has full power over the allocation and use of the symbols and though copyright is never mentioned anywhere on its website or in that book, would appear to technically have the copyright over the basic symbols with a start date of whenever these authoritative versions were originally produced. Technically some of the symbols submitted by the parties might be in the public domain ( the hammer and sickle for example is now almost certainly in the public domain) but I can see no reason that the other images, the definitive versions of which are simple "clipart style" logo's used by the electoral commission on ballot papers, are not simple works / drawings copyright to the electoral commission, of which works derived from them would constitute derivative works. Ajbpearce (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

good. dont know how i missed the symbols at the end of that file. it confirms that ECI holds the copyright. i will consider this issue resolved as far as i am concerned. --CarTick (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Peter Ebdon.jpg

The copyright holder of this image has allowed me to upload this image to Wikipedia. My question: Which copyright license tag should i use? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That depends entirely on the actual permission under which the copyright holder released the image. The best thing to do is to get the copyright holder to give their WP:CONSENT which will determine the copyright tag to be applied, however if the permission is for Wikipedia use only, we do not accept images with that restriction because it it not freely licenced enough for us. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

passport images in galleries and passport images with the uploader as "owner"

I have been looking at the images used in the image gallery of list of passports and the image gallery at Biometric passport and am afraid most images have 1 or 2 issues:

1. The source is "self". Thus the uploader has identified himself as the sole copyright holder. Although he/she might have made the scan and/or the upload him/herself, this does not mean they are the copyright holder as that is generally the state. It therefore also means that they can not automatically be released under a free licence.
2. Many others are uploaded under a fair use rationale. That means they can only be used if this is required to illustrate the subject and no alternative can be found. Furthermore, the rationale specific to the page where it is used should be added (and this is never done for these lists). I guess fair use can be reliably claimed for use on a specific passport page (e.g. the German passport cover on German passport), but not for use in a gallery (WP fair use: The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered.).

If I am right, then the "self" images should be changed from a free use to a fair use licence and they should be removed from the lists along with all other fair use images. This would probably reduce the gallery to less than 20 images I guess... I hope however I am not right and overlooking something; and also would not know how exactly to proceed. Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I realize this post was a bit too long, as I originally planned to post it at Talk:biometric passport. I would appreciate however to hear if I am right and what the easiest way is to proceed (e.g. is batch rename of the copywrite type and general fair use rational needed?); and whether a list exists on wikipedia of countries where government-items are copyright free...L.tak (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what it means that I received no comments here; but I'll just assume it is because I was completely right ;-) . So... is anyone able to help with the batch-change of the images to fair use? The rest I think I can handle myself... L.tak (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It probably means that either no one noticed or cared (no disrespect, just saying). One good way of getting some comments is to nominate for deletion a couple of the ones at commons, which obviously can't be used for fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no copyright experience, but maybe the focus should be not on removal of the images, but on formulating the "justification reason" why they are used in the gallery. If it is acceptable to use a passport image on the passport page, I can't see why it wouldn't be acceptable to use it on a passports gallery page. I assume that the general "not to be used in gallery/table, except if ..." note was added, because most fair-use images are copyrighted by companies, that don't allow their logo to be put in a table with their competitors logos - or something along these lines. Alinor (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I have also very limited copyright experience and would like to keep the images (uploaded some myself). However when looking at the requirements I see nowhere that it would not apply to governments, so my guess is that we have to apply it; and that would mean in most cases that they are only possible under fair use rationale. But as said I don't feel confident enough to start this without a meaningful discussion here; and I personally don't feel like starting deletion nominations on this (but thanks for the advise Wehwalt ;-)). So as far as I am concerned nothing will change unless a consensus forms here that it should... L.tak (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few images of passport covers on commons. But I agree that in general they should be considered copyright works and only available under a free use license (see e.g this clear assertion of copyright in the front cover of the British passport by the UK govt - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/reproduction-british-passport.pdf). So I agree that those images uploaded under a non-fair use rationale probably need to be changed unless a govt has specifically released their passport cover into the public domain. Ajbpearce (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I will see if I can find a procedure to change all english wikipedia non fair use passport images this weekend; this way they can stay for sure at the individual passport pages (e.g. British passport). Would you think there is a fair use rationale that I can add to keep them on the list of passports or the gallery at biometric passports; or does this indeed mean they will have to go there? L.tak (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia policies on fair use are primarily designed to minimise risk by being more restrictive than the relevant US law, in this case I would suggest that the risk is very low and that we should probably consider the images of passport covers to be similar to images of copyrighted stamps or currency which are regularly used in similar styles of lists. While there is probably no detailed policy, my personal view would be that provided a separate fair use rationale is provided for the usage then there should be no problem with keeping the usage there. Ajbpearce (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree they should be allowable as fair use images in the same spirit as the stamps/currency classes. It leaves me with a question and a conclusion:

• Which fair-use criterion should I add and how should I do this on existing images (originally uploaded as: own work). If I indicate I don't know which criterion applies, they are likely to be deleted.
• Unfortunately I didn't see any argument that would allow keeping them in the galleries. So I guess all fair-use and fair-use-to-be images should go there.

Help on the first point and comment on the second is welcome! L.tak (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello, a few days ago I visited the Tanger Family Bicentennial Garden and established its wikipedia article. While I was there, I picked up one of those little pamphlets that has a map of the place with important locations highlighted. I was wondering, since it doesn't seem to be copyrighted, if I could just scan it onto my desktop than upload it to commons without permission?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• No. Anything creative is copyrighted at the moment it is created. It is no longer necessary, and has not been for a very long time, for a copyright notice to appear on the work in question. So, just because this pamphlet does not have a copyright notice on it does not mean you are free to do with it as you will. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the quick reply.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

change of image jpg

Hi My name is Therese, working with singer Meja I see that there has been some problems with an uploaded jpg. How do I change that to one of the photos Meja owns the right to? hope to hear from you

best regards Therese —Preceding unsigned comment added by MejaOfficial (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Meja article has a free licensed image on it. Everything seems fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Burj Al Arab

Can the image de:File:Burjalarab1.jpg be used in the Article Burj Al Arab? --84.61.153.119 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Only under terms of WP:NFCC. The image, though marked as possibly free, is in fact copyrighted. There's no freedom of panorama for works of architecture in Dubai. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Photograph copyright

Hello, This photograph File:J Crosthwaite Duffel coat with BRM Graham Hill.jpg was taken in 1965 on John Crosthwaite's behalf ie commissioned by him but I'm not sure who the photographer is. There is nothing on the original. Can he claim authorship in the UK and if so what tag can I use? Thanks Ray

Whether John Crosthwaite can claim copyright would seem irrelevant as he is sadly deceased. For the purposes of wikipedia what is important is whether we can use it on wikipedia and if so under what capacity. Legally, Authorship is not the same as ownership of the copyright on a particular image, almost certainly the authorship right resides with the original unknown photographer. In regards to the copyright status, in order to use this image on wikipedia as free content some proof / an assertion of authorship / copyright status would be needed. Absent that proof we must err on the side of caution and treat the image as non-free content. This means to use the image on wikipedia you will need to fulfil the criteria of WP:NFCC and (crucially) complete a detailed fair use rationale for each usage of the image in an article. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(9) Image Deletion

I have submitted a Wikipedia:Declaration of consent/ image upload to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; photosubmission@wikimedia.org. I havent heard anything back yet? This is in regards to the 9 total images I have uploaded. They have not been undelted. Permission was given for these images.

• File:PD 5001 SPQuick 2005.tif
• File:Polymax 2040.tif
• File:RZR 2052 control.tif
• File:SilentCrusher S.tif
• File:Hei-VAP Precision ML G3B.tif
• File:Synthesis 1 Multi Evaporator.tif
• File:MR Hei Standard.tif
• File:Bullseye.jpg
• File:Heidolph Germany.jpg

Evaporation Expert (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• If you sent it to Commons, that may explain it. They're looking for the files on Commons, not here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I can't speak for other OTRS volunteers, but I always check both here and on commons when I'm working permissions. There is a backlog of about a month though, so the best advice is to simply be patient and they will be restored when someone gets to them. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh really? Maybe if I stick around here for a while I'll ask for OTRS volunteership. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Reusing former company logo; may not have to be fair use

The discussion was here, and I was advised to get a second opinion.

I feel strongly that the former logo of Belk should be used in the company's article. The new logo was unveiled recently but I will have a hard time adjusting to the idea. To me, the old logo is a major part of the history and seeing it there will make me feel better about the article. But both logos are currently considered fair use, though the former logo may be able to get around that requirement because it is plain text.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no question people around here are picky about fair use - and with legitimate reason. But both logos certainly fall within fair use if they're both part of the commentary of the article, as it sounds like is the case here. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Deceased athletes

I was wondering if there is a fair use rational for an image from a memorial, since no free version is available?

Did no one ever answer this? If you're as sure as you can be that there are no free shots of him, no fans who ever took a picture at a game etc, then a non-free content rationale can be made for using a non-free publicity shot like this one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Old Photograph

Thank you for any guidance you are able to give on the following - my current question follows Wehwalt's advice to me on 18th October.

I wanted to show an old image - from 1919 - of a science lesson for my Prior's Field School article. I gave it a {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag but I now realise, with Wehwalt's guidance, that this is wrong as I can't prove that the image was published before 1923.

I do not know who took the image nor when they died. Is there any way that I can still post the image on Wikipedia or not? If not, I have other Prior's Field photos from say 1911 but don't know the names of the girls shown some of whom might be alive - am I able to use these at all? Thank you for any advice. Cghamel (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is in the picture, or whether they are still alive, it's who took the picture, and when it was published. If one of them can remember who took the picture, and you can find out when they died, that would be a help. If he died in WWI for example, the picture would be out of copyright. Or if you can find a picture that was published in a school magazine or yearbook, or the local newspaper, or a picture that was copied and sold to parents, that would help too. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem: Peter Sutcliffe

A user has uploaded File:SutcliffeL010605 228x307.jpg claiming it to be their own work. However the image appeared in the Daily Mail in 2007 [11]. There does not seem to be a speedy deletion template that fits the bill. If you could help me out that would be great. Thank you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought F9: Image copyright violation with non-credible claim of free license fitted the bill. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

deletion of Image Anbirkku Poster Main.jpg

I have no idea why this image was deleted. I already have metioned that this image is owned by me. Hope I will find some answer.

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimsanjay (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• The file existed on Commons, not here. According to CommonsDelinker [12], it was deleted because it was a copyright violation. I haven't seen the image, but based on the article it was on and the file name, this was an advertising poster for the movie in question. Such media is almost always copyrighted by the company that made the movie. Unless you are the copyright representative for the company, and can prove as much to the m:OTRS team, then we assume such works are copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimsanjay (talk), note that you may indeed own the actual image or physical photograph, but if the subject of the photograph is a copyrighted item, that may mean that you don't have the rights to use that reproduction. Photo-duplication of a copyrighted item, whether the duplication is done by a camera, scanner, photocopy machine, etc., is generally restricted. You don't have the right to distribute digital derivations from the source copyrighted image. Fair use might be claimed, but if you're reproducing an entire object (e.g., movie poster), you're unlikely to be able to claim that. Hope this helps your understanding. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrectly quoted Wikipedia article

Wired Magazine had a very interesting article quoting parts of German_tank_problem. Unfortunately the section lifted from the article is only identified as "according to Wikipedia:" without links, references or name of Wikipedia article. This seems like a violation of Wikipedia license. I am not sure what is the standard procedure here. --216.81.81.80 (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This potentially could be a technical violation of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (the most common license for wikipedia articles). A typical response would be to contact the publisher and see if they could add more complete information, at least to the online article. I just went to the article, and it does look like Wired is being generally honest as the article is prefixed with this statement:

Update Oct. 26, 2010: this post, as published by Wired.com on Oct. 20, did not properly attribute material sourced from Wikipedia. We have updated the post to include that attribution.

I typically wouldn't bother with something this minor since they're at least doing some kind of attribution. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

sheet music examples

Sfan00 IMG (talk) left a message on my talkpage, twice in fact which suggests some possible haste. But perhaps this case is of broad interest. I left a short rationale in the "summary" field of File:Der Diktator.png. The example has been typeset by myself and is the equivalent of quoting a sentence from a novella, but there dont seem to be appropriate templates to apply; certainly Category:Non-free audio samples doesnt fit. Any hints on how to procede? Sparafucil (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It needs to have a fair use rationale. I've attempted to address this with this edit. TJRC (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DOT placards

• Are the images in {{Hazardous_Material_Placards}} really PD-USGov? If you look carefully at the text on the lower right side of the diamonds, starting with Class 4 they all say "LABEL MADE IN RICHMOND, OREGON, U.S.A. / THE DE LEONE CORPORATION". Also the source link is dead... 150.250.101.64 (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• "THE DE LEONE CORPORATION" is likeliest the firm that made the placards, not necessarily their copyright owner. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Granted, but does they give them the copyright over these particular images they created? 150.250.101.64 (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a work on Flickr

Hello, got a friend who uploaded the following images for me → http://www.flickr.com/photos/19522461@N00/ and i dont know if i can use them in Wikimedia Commons, he told me to use any of them and he even named the page Galería de para_wikipedia, Gallery for Wikipedia, though the images are ©, (→ File:391193875_c96bf484a5_z.jpg @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/19522461@N00/391193875/ ) any way i could get around and use them without bothering the photographer too much, please let me know procedures. Moebiusuibeom-en — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unless he releases them under a free license, no. Copyrighted works not under a free license are not acceptable for Commons. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions on how to handle this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good link, thanks — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

image deleted due to copyright issues

The image I loaded on the page about our website (Secular Culture & Ideas) was removed this week, as I'd been warned would happen. The image, a logo, was commissioned by our office (Center for Cultural Judaism), and created by an agency for the specific use of accompanying our website, with our approval and funding. We did not request the copyright and I understand that there is no copyright for logos but this logo is entirely ours and was created for our use.

If we cannot upload it in this current form, would it be advisable to upload it to WikiCommons and make it available for other people to use, which is highly unlikely anyway.

Thanks for your help on this! Heather Chait (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Heather ChaitHeather Chait (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• You can upload it here. We accept logos, but they are usually tagged with {{non-free logo}}, and then a fair use rationale is supplied (see WP:FURG). You can release your logo under a free license if you like, but it has to be stipulated and proof of the release has to be submitted to our permissions queue at the m:OTRS team. Sidebar, given that you're updating the article on your organization you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of digitally-scanned CD jacket cover (covered under GNU?)

Hi, I also posted this question in the Commons section; because I wasn't exactly sure where it belongs. I apologize.

I'm unsure how to license two images I'd like to submit for use in Wikipedia. They are scanned pictures of two compact disc jackets, which I purchased on Amazon.co.jp.

Would these pictures/scanned images be acceptable for use under the GNU Free Documentation License, since they are essentially photographs (digitally-scanned images)?

These are the images I scanned:

(links deleted due to Quartermaster's security concerns)

Then, I need to figure out how to upload them...hopefully I can figure that out on my own (I'm a first-time user). Thank you!

99.17.46.76 (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I'm using Firefox and when I click on the links you supply to the images my browser is flagging the site as a security risk (attack page). --Quartermaster (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To Quartermaster. Thank you, I had no idea Firefox would react that way. I am using Norton Internet Security 2011 and Internet Explorer 8; Norton Safe Web reports the Fileden domain to be "Safe, no issues with this site." I'm unsure why Firefox would report a security risk; however, I went ahead and deleted the links to err on the side of security. Thanks for your concern and I'm sorry if there was any confusion.

Saganized (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to the original question is no, they are not GFDL. They would fall under fair use if the image was used in the article on the CD and they met the other fair use criteria. The other alternatives are that the image is public domain, if it was too simple, or something extremely old. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To Graeme Bartlett. Thank you for your response. The images are available at Amazon.co.jp, and since my scanned images are probably a higher resolution (more pixels), they probably would not meet the fair use criteria. So, I won't be uploading them. Again, thanks!

Saganized (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status of stone marker

I took a picture of some informational signs, and learned that signs, in general are under copyright, so I've requested removal of them. However, I am unclear about the status of this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Nathan_Hale_Homestead_stone_marker.JPG&oldid=45139883 Is it under copyright? (The date on it is 1937, if that is relevant).--SPhilbrickT 16:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to say the text is possibly {{PD-ineligible}}, but if not, then {{PD-Pre1978}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the pre-1978 is fairly clearly applicable, so may be the safer way to go? Perhaps the other one is applicable, but I can't point to why.--SPhilbrickT 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion at this FAC (you might want to search for "marker"). In other words, there seems to be doubt that a stone marker is "publlished". Were copies available to the public? I'm more of the opinion that it would (possibly) fall under "copyright not renewed", but you will have to do a little research there.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked. I have no idea how you 'publish' a work of art in the US (in the UK, you exhibit it in a gallery (s5(b)(i))). In the UK, a photograph would be covered by our freedom of panorama, but the US version does not include non-architectural items. I'm wondering if it is pd-ineligible, as it is quite hard to separate the creative from the utilitarian element (much harder that in the street sign that was the subject of the FAC), but in any case, it was carved in 1937, it has no copyright, and it would seem unlikely that anyone applied for copyright on it. Who applies for copyright on a stone marker set up to show where someone planted some trees?Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would hesitate to say that the text is PD-ineligible, if it included only four or five words, or was a name and dates, I'd agree. The text however required at least some minimal creativity.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The stone marker in the photo referenced above says it was erected in 1937. Take that as the publication date. Jonathunder (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

But how is erecting it publication under what Elcobbola said in that FAC?--00:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not. Under US law, it is specifically stated that displaying something does not equal publishing it. As an unpublished work made for hire, or where the author of the work is unknown, the term is 120 years from 1937. However, if the text is what is copyright, and the stone sign is considered a copy (ie the bit of stone isn't a sculpture, it's just a copy of the text), then the text was written by George Dudley Seymour, and he died in 1945, so it would go out of copyright in 2015. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I would concur with Elen's view.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll be darned, I'd always thought publication was making it available to the public. I guess you learn something every day. Nevertheless, it was made available to the public, and I'm willing to bet that the creator of the stone did so for hire, which meets the definition. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote the part of the definition you think it meets?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Per Publication - the distribution of copies... of a work to the public by sale, "to the public" meaning to... display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered. Given that the only "copy" of this "work" (which is "by sale") fits the definition of open "to the public", I say this is publication. The author was contracted, and it is open to the public. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Very clever. What you are saying is that the only copy (of Seymour's words) was distributed (to Seymour by the stonecutter) for the purpose of public display, so it meets the definition. I don't think so. You're getting all mixed up over 'work for hire'. US copyright law defines publication as the distribution of copies ... to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership. The distribution is by the creator, or copyright owner, or their agent. If the text is what is copyright, then Seymour, not the stonecutter, is the copyright owner, and he has never distributed copies to the public. If the stonecutter was his employee, or it falls under work for hire as an instructional text (I can't think of any other definition it could possibly meet) then Seymour owns the copyright and he has never distributed copies to the public. If it is an artistic work, then the stonecutter owns the copyright, and he has never distributed copies to the public. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate page

I've been asked by the artists to update and maintain their page. I received a note about image tags and useage. What is the appropriate tag to use as they are the licensed owners of the album cover art and I am their designated agent for maintaining their page and thus using their graphics?08:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwingdave (talk • contribs)

• First off, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You are not the designated agent for maintaining an article on this group. Are you getting paid to maintain this article? Further, from your edits to the article [13] I see a 15% increase in content in the article, all of it unreferenced. Wikipedia depends upon secondary sources to support content. You, being deeply involved in the group, are a primary source. As to album covers, the tag you want to add to an album cover image is {{Non-free album cover}} and then supply a fair use rationale. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

  Well, if he is just a friend and nothing financial depends on it, he's probably not COI'd. As for the album cover, if they want to give permission (and I wouldn't!) their manager should write to OTRS. Best to leave it as fair use.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ticket Stub

Is this image free of copyright? I see nothing on it that would make it copyrighted; I don't even know if ticket stubs have copyrights apply to them. Can somebody help me choose an appropriate copyright tag? The Gates of Eden (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it can be copyrighted. It has an appropriate licensing tag on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Jenkem1.jpg

The image has non-free rationale and is marked as copyrighted. IIRC all works by the U.S. government are in public domain. What is the case with County Sheriff's Departments? Could it be that the document is actually in public domain? --hydrox (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• A county sheriff's office is not part of the U.S. federal government, and there lies the distinction. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I investigated Commons copyright policy and found that some works by institutions of the State of Florida seem to be an exception, and Collier County is in the state of Florida. However, the legalese seems really complicated. According to [14] the Sheriff's Office has admitted to publishing this as an internal bulletin. Question is, if this is an exemption or covered by the statute? If I can find credible evidence that this is exactly the document by the Sheriff's Office, would PD-FLGov apply? --hydrox (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

First, my understanding is that the County Sheriff's office is not part of the state government apparatus in the US. Second, I note that the County Sheriff's department] website has a copyright notice on it, so clearly they copyright 'stuff'. I think to be sure it wasn't copyright, you would have to ask Sheriff Kevin J Rambosk. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. I don't feel a need to go so far for this content. In cases like this I guess it's best to assume 'copyrighted' as is the current state of affairs. --hydrox (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem uploading files

I seem to be having a ton of trouble with the uploading of pictures lately. When I upload the pictures, the first page asks for the copyright information, and then the second does not. I have been answering the question (all my pictures are GFDL) on the first page, but I am still getting my pictures deleted because of not having the tag on them. (In fact, I had not noticed several of them being deleted until just now, as I only saw the request for the last one!)

My question is, why in the world does the tag not appear automatically from the first page of the uploading process? Wouldn't that solve this problem much easier than having pictures deleted repeatedly because of a programming snafu???? I'm sorry, it's just ridiculous that this is happening. ToddC4176 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Javascript enabled for wikipedia.org and wikimedia.org? What browser are you using? If the answer to the above is "yes" and "Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari" (and maybe Opera), then try to clear your cookies and cache, restart the browser, and reopen, and try another upload and tell us if it works. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ToddC4176 will be directed to commons if GFDL is picked. There is a drop down box to select the license close to the bottom of the main (file description) box, it is labelled with licensing. It is easy to miss, and I have missed it many times in the past. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

State Seal Question

Hello,
seals of the states of the U.S. have generally expired copyright. This is also the case for the seal of North Carolina. However, how does this apply to other versions of the seal? Can I download this higher-resolution version official image of the seal and upload it to Commons under PD-US? Howabout if I want to vectorize this image? Thanks in advance, hydrox (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• If the new version has no more creative content it will also be copyright expired. On commons use PD-1923. The higher resolution will also be public domain. A vectorization will also be pubic domain since you are faithfully reproducing it. If you ask the web master they may already have a vectorized version they can give you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Stained glass window (UK) Panoramafreiheit?

Resolved

During the GA review of St James' Church, Stretham the reviewer commented on the copyright status of a photograph I took of the church's stained glass window (File:St James Church Stretham window 06-09-2010.jpg licensed as {{cc-by-3.0}} own work) specifically, that "All images appear in order (presuming either that England has Freedom of Panorama or that the artist for the stained glass window died over 70 years ago)". I cannot confirm the artist. Does the UK have Freedom of Panorama or an equivalent? --Senra (Talk) 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Probably not. See Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#United_Kingdom. Any way to verify when the stained glass windows were made and placed? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am getting a little closer to finding the artist although I do not have a definitive answer yet. I raised this issue at the Science and Technology reference desk who pointed out this particular stained glass window has a date marked at the bottom of the 2nd pane from the right – "AD MDCCCLXVIII" = 1868 and on the bottom of the 2nd pane from the left is marked Henricus Herveius Baber. The date seems to agree with the heavy restoration of the church by architect J. P. St Aubyn between 1874 and 1876. We are now debating whether this date and person is the artist (Baber was the rector of St James' Church, Stretham between 1827 and 1869) or a memorial. Our article and the ODNB confirm Baber died 1869 which suggests, to me at least, that Baber may have been the artist or at least the commissioner.

ODNB:Baber(subscription required)

Where do I stand now regarding copyright?

--Senra (Talk) 15:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is almost certainly a case of copyright expired. The church itself may have owned copyright, but any artist designing this in or before 1868 would have died before 1940 (72 years later). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly? How certain? --Senra (Talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggest folks read the whole section at Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#United_Kingdom. Stained glass windows are considered works of artistic craftsmanship and therefore subject to UK freedom of panorama. Stained glass in a building which is open to the public (which churches have to be in the UK to get exemption from the rates) can be photographed without breach of copyright. And anyway, even if the craftsman who made the window did so on the day he was born, that would make him over 140 years old. Copyright law in the US only requires 120 years from the date of creation where the artist is not known. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds definitive enough for me. Thank you --Senra (Talk) 22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I had read Commons:Freedom of Panorama#United Kingdom but had not realised that stained glass windows are considered to be works of artistic craftsmanship. With the knowledge that they are, freedom of panorama is clear. My naive initial reading of the text in Commons:Freedom of Panorama#United Kingdom and especially the text in {{FoP-UK}} "This does not apply to two-dimensional works such as posters or other flat artworks." led me to suspect that, as a stained glass window is a flat artwork, section 62 did not apply. Further reading of the Commons:Freedom of Panorama#United Kingdom article makes it clear "...In Hensher -v- Restawhile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates, ...". Thank you Elen of the Roads for taking the time to point this out --Senra (Talk) 10:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)