Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2011/September

using content from arXiv:

I want to double check with other wikipedians that the content in eprint service arXiv can be freely used in Wikipedia articles. arXiv states in the licence page that ( see this link ) the articles submitted can only have the following licences:

• Creative Commons Attribution Licence
• Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commertial-Share-Like licence, or
• Creative Commons Public Domain Declaration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Condmatstrel (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

But we can't use it if it's under the Non-Commercial license! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Orange Mike is right. Only the first and third options are acceptable here. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple screenshots to show workflow?

I'm trying to illustrate some unique features of the workflow in the application Numbers (software). I have one showing that the default state of a new document in Numbers is different than, say, Excel. The next shows how it automatically creates and uses named ranges to construct readable formulas. The last shows how the canvas system produces documents that are far different from traditional spreadsheet programs.

Reading the explanatory text, I have seen suggestions that only one screen snap per article is allowed. Is this the case?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Such screencaps would be copyright of the software's publisher and as such can only be used on Wikipedia pursuant to the non-free use criteria, of which #3a is the important one in this case. – ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that 3a suggests it's perfectly allright? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically, #3 means we can use "as much as it takes". There is no fixed limit. In most cases, people use screenshots simply to give an overall idea of the layout and optics of a program, and that's where "use only one" works well as a rule of thumb. But if you have some very special purpose in mind that needs more illustration to be understood, then using as much as you need can be perfectly legitimate. The idea you desribe certainly sounds reasonable enough to me. Just make sure you give a good, concrete description of why you're doing it this way in your fair use rationale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And that the discussion of the images in the article is well sourced with secondary sources. Else, the use of the images will almost certainly fail WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free biog-pic

Can {{Non-free biog-pic}} be used as an image copyright tag? It is in the Category:Non-free Wikipedia file copyright tags. But it is not listed on Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free. Hevesli (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly used on a number of bio images. – ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's fine, so long as you also include a non-free use rationale. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

John Coltrane

hello,

the article John Coltrane needs a new picture, because File:John Coltrane 1960.jpg was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. But there are some pictures at the official website of the Library of Congress, see [1]. Do you know if they are copyrighted or not. What are pictures from the Local Government? Fair use? Public domain? Non-free? Thanks--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 20:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

At the Library of Congress, there will be "Rights Advisory" on the description of each image. In the images you link to, it says "Publication may be restricted" or "Rights status not evaluated." There is no reason to think that these are in the public domain. Also, images created by local governments are almost always copyrighted, though every jurisdiction makes its own decisions about such things. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Uploading Image

Hi, Receiving an "unauthorized" message when trying to upload the following picture onto my wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selena_Cuffe picture: http://www.heritagelinkbrands.com/media/images/RollingOut_ZHSM_SC3.jpg (courtesy of Steed Media Group) Despite being autoconfirmed, it's saying there's no access to upload image. Can you please advise? Thank you, Selena Cuffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selenacuffe (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Selena Cuffe, that is not "your" page. This is an article about you.

Subject has been advised on her talk pageof our rules about conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I join Wi-fi network

How do I join a Wi-fi network — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.2.149 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

File:MikeSeason2 (1).jpg

Could someone look at this, please? A new photo has been uploaded over the old one, without new information about the source. The user seems to have problems understanding the fair-use policy. Perhaps someone might explain it to him, as almost anyone could probably do so better than I could. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This picture, and every other picture from the Glee article series should be deleted per WP:CSD#G4. It is getting wearisome. I gave up long ago trying to enforce This deletion discussion which makes it pretty clear that all of these pictures violate the replacability clause of WP:NFCC. Within days of being deleted, they have all been uploaded under new names and re-added back to the same articles. I grew weary of trying to enforce Wikipedia's non-free content policy against the sheer tidalwave of Glee fans with no idea how NFCC is supposed to work and no interest in using freely availible pictures, which already exist at Wikipedia for most of these actors, since these are merely more "pretty". It is beyond frustrating. This picture, and all the rest, need to be redeleted per WP:CSD#G4. You shouldn't get to bypass a validly closed deletion discussion merely by renaming the files, which is ALL that was done in this case. --Jayron32 00:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What copyright tag should I use?

The image contained on this new Wikipedia entry [[2]]is not copyrighted. I contacted the owner, Paul Antinori, who stated he paid for the photo to be made in 2006 by Bryn Alan Studios in Tampa, Florida and that they granted him full and complete ownership of all rights to the photo by means of payment to them. Further, Mr. Antinori stated that he is very happy to have the photo used on any Internet site or in any venue as long as it is used in a positive manner. He does not have the photo copyrighted nor does he see a reason for doing so.

How should I tag such a photo? I have spent hours and hours seeking this information on Wikipedia.

I am very grateful for your assistance.

FloridaFox

Direct the owner of the photo (Mr. Antinori, I presume) to follow the instructions at WP:IOWN. --Jayron32 01:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

University Logo

I'm trying to upload the logo of a university, and it's not letting me do so. I'm in the upload file page and I click on "If you are familiar with our image policies and already know which license applies, go directly to the UPLOAD FORM." as I know that fair rational applies here, yet when I click on it, it tells me "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigamck (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not allowed to make uploads until you have been registered for four days and made at least 10 edits, then you will be an autoconfirmed user. ww2censor (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

10 edits in 10 different pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cigamck (talk • contribs) 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Magazine Article link to Mary Ellen Pleasant

Hello Wikipedia, This is my first foray into adding content. How do I add to the wikipedia entry on Mary Ellen Pleasant the two part article published in Ebony magazine? I have the .pdf of the article, and would like to add content to this page, but the only link I can provide is through google books. April 1979 and May 1979 issues contain this very thorough research, and it would be helpful to include this article to round out the information there. Do I upload the copies? EbonyJet.com's search engine will not come up with it in their archives. Here is the link to the first article: http://books.google.com/books?id=99QDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA90&vq=pleasant&pg=PA90#v=snippet&q=pleasant&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financegalsf (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 September 2011

You are not allowed to just paste articles from magazines into any Wikipedia page because those articles are copyright to the magazine. However you can edit the existing article using some details from the Ebony magazine so long as you reference the source with a citation but using any extensive material is considered a copyright violation. ww2censor (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Publicity images

File:I dream of jeannie hagman eden.JPG

Lately, I keep seeing these old publicity images that have been uploaded to Wikipedia. The image file page uses a canned rationale for using the image, essentially that there's no visible copyright notice on the image, it's old, you had to use a notice back then to protect your copyright, and so it must be okay. In one instance, where the image was on Commons (the Jeannie image is not on Commons), I nominated it for deletion, and it was deleted.

Seems to me you have to make some assumptions to establish that the image is now in the public domain, and it's not clear that just not seeing a copyright notice on the image on the web is sufficient.

Is there any guidance on this issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a help page on that somewhere. But in this specific case at least, the reasoning seems to match the facts. It's a print published in 1965 without a copyright notice, so it would be in the public domain, unless there's some particular reason to believe the opposite? -- Asclepias (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How do we know the actual picture doesn't have a copyright notice on it? The person who uploaded the picture to eBay (where the picture came from) could have cropped it. It would be different if the uploader at Wikipedia said I have the original picture and it has no notice on it. At least then we would be relying on an assertion by an editor rather than an assumption by an editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, did you look at the original uploaded image that included the reverse of the photo? Clearly it is dated and does not show any copyright notice.

Thanks, that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, publicity photos were not copyrighted (published with a © and registered with the U.S. copyright office) before this became automatic. We can't assume this, however. In this case, the full photo can be seen, so that's fine; in other cases, if the uploader tells me he/she has seen the entire thing (both sides) and there is no ©, that's good enough for me. If it was just found cropped on the internet, of course we can't use it. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:HPBOOK.jpg

This image is a snippet of the front cover of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. It is present as hi:File:HPBOOK.jpg on hi-wp. A speedy for the version on en was recently declined. The hi version also received a speedy tag recently, but was removed after proper information was put up. However, it is still the nominator's view that logos/trademarks etc aren't allowed to have cropped versions and the same applies for book covers, and hence this should be deleted. Kindly clarify.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In my view, unless the cover artwork was published separately without trademark information, we shouldn't keep a cropped version. You may want to nominate the image at WP:FFD. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:MC-30 little & large.jpg

I have uploaded this file, File:MC-30 little & large.jpg, and another foto from a friends website. He has given me written permission to put it into the public domain. I wrote this on the image page; but I'm told it still needs a copyright tag. Which tag, please?Arrivisto (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It depends. Was your friend the photographer of this image? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is my understanding. Arrivisto (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If he is the copyright holder get him to send us his permission directly by following the procedure found at: WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The source states "A big thank you to Jean Dom & Pat Leullier and Hassen Daudi for sending in the wonderful photos of the event." That indicates that the publisher is not the copyright holder, and only the photographer can release the images into the public domain. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Redraw of an OTRS image

Hi, I was wondering if this sexually explicit redraw of this hentai drawing can be licensed as CC or if it too should have an OTRS tag. Thanks in advance. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. The original is verified as being licensed in a way that allows derivatives, so this derivative doesn't need a separate OTRS tag. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Buddy Holly and Waylon Jennings

I have been searching for copyright information regarding this picture for the past days. The previous link is from Flickr, were the uploader provides a license for the photography, while this one indicates that all rights are reserved. It's likely that none of the two uploaders holds the rights for the image. The only fact I can corroborate is that it was taken on a photo boot on January 23, 1959, at Grand Central Station in New York City. I need some help to determine whether if its or not copyrighted or if it can be uploaded under PD-US-no notice (works published in the U.S between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice).--GDuwenTell me! 00:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In order to use the {{PD-US-no notice}} the image has to have been published. Was it actually published? Otherwise it is governed by different rules. Commons:COM:L#United States states that: Works created but not published before January 1, 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date they were registered for copyright, or 95 (for anonymous or pseudonymous works) or 120 years (for works by individuals) from year of creation, whichever expires first. So firstly we really need some more info as I can't find anything online. ww2censor (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Who holds the copyright on photo booth photographs? There is no photographer. I know that claims to copyrights on security cameras and ATM cams have never been enforced. In this case, either the copyright is held by the person who pushed the button (Buddy Holly? Waylon Jennings? The hand guy?), or there is no copyright on the photo. There has probably been no case law on the matter, so it's likely to be unresolved. If someone holds the copyright, the relevant question is when it was published (made available by Holly/Jennings/hand-guy or his estate to the public). It will probably never be known who holds the copyright, if anyone. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

image upload?

Can this image be uploaded to the Cheryl Cole page?

http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=cheryl+cole+dld+starnight&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&tbm=isch&tbnid=HKOQWxZV9tNtfM:&imgrefurl=http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/440161/cool-pic-cheryl-cole-sings-with-will-i-am-hologram/1/&docid=8hdxbQDpPU-_3M&w=219&h=293&ei=73tnTtvwHcqE-wb8zp2-Cw&zoom=1&biw=1024&bih=607&iact=rc&dur=156&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=122&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:14,s:0&tx=61&ty=53 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmam1234 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• No. That image is copyrighted, and would not be acceptable here unless the image itself was the subject of secondary sourced commentary. I.e., the image had achieved some level of fame. That's not the case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

reporting the news

dan: i em disapointed whith your so called news station, you call ur self news reporters .

Its your job to report the news and give us all the new not what ur opiotion just all the news, just give us all the facts and dont leave anything out that helps your opiotion let me form my own opiotion by giving me all the facts.I rember when a new reporter hade to verify a story with 3 sorces and was inparshel when repotring the news its all 1 sided and 1/2 truths only to fule the reporters opetions , and thats grappy news. its not just ur grappy cable station its amout 90% of all new to day, if i want the facts i go on the net ot watch the b.b c you may want to watch there way to report the new and them u can call your self reporters> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.65.142 (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your comments, that you found one of our over 3.7 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. – ukexpat (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, encyclopedias aren't for reporting news. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 23:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Iraq CPA.PNG, Should Be Marked As PD

The CPA was an organ of the United States Government, and therefore its unclassified documents and artwork fall under the public domain. Based on the conclusions of the Congressional Research Service, CRS Report for Congress, The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA): Origin, Characteristics, and Institutional Authorities, April 29, 2004 (http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32370.pdf), I believe this image to be from a U.S. Federal Government source. I can edit the license portion of the description. However, I seem unable to modify/remove the Non-free media use rationale. Cmholm (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It would only be PD-USGov if an employee of the United States Government created this logo while acting in his official capacity as such. CPA might have been a de-facto "organ" (as you put it) of the U.S. Government, but unless the creator was an actual U.S. government employee, PD-USGov wouldn't apply. Do you have any info on precisely who created this insignia and when? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I put the question the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) via their "Ask A Librarian" contact form.

"Question History:"

"Patron: What is the copyright status of the Coalition Provisional Authority (of Iraq) logo? For an example, see http://www.iraqcoalition.org. Based on the text of the CPA archive site at http://www.iraqcoalition.org/CPAprivacy.html (Item #2), it seems reasonable to assume it is in the public domain. As management of CPA-specific material has been passed to the DTIC, I hoped you could shed light on this."

"Librarian 1: Using the link at the foot of the webpage cited, http://www.iraqcoalition.org , please see paragraph number 2 of the PRIVACY AND SECURITY NOTICE. It says, in part, "...CPA web site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified." Also notice that no COPYRIGHT symbol appears on or aside the logo. Should you require further interpretation, you may contact the office of the COPYRIGHT specialist at DTIC headquarters in Virginia at 703-767-9159.

This reply by the DTIC Reference & Retrieval team, 703-767-8274, also ref@dtic.mil ; 08Sep2011 (tjm)"

That' about as clear as anybody in the government will ever get, in essence "You can use it freely unless there is a notice otherwise and there is no notice otherwise." BTW the CPA was not a "de-facto" organ of the U.S. Federal government, it was part of the U.S. Federal government that operated only until Iraq regained sovereignty. Clearly PD Smallbones (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

BepiColombo - MCS

Can I use this image, found here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomechateies (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that image is copyrighted by the European Space Agency. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Robert Patterson

Is this image [3] at the Library of Congress in the public domain? Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

No, we have to presume it's still under copyright. LoC warns that it's probably not PD. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo provided with permission to use

Can someome tell me why this photo [4] is marked for deletion? The person provided me the image directly with permission to use it and it has no copyright attached to it. Having not uploaded an image to Wikipedia for a long time, I uploaded it thinking that it was straightforward to add information about the image afterwards. I really have no idea what the issue is: it's just a photo that I have permission to use. It's tagged as a promotional photo (by me??) which seemed the best description. I have spent some time trying to find out how I should tag the image and what process to follow, and find it really unclear. It puts me off contributing to Wikipedia, which is a shame. Hope someone can help me out here, Holon (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And much appreciated with the clear advice--restores my faith! Holon (talk)

Change of format for the blind

Can a book be scanned to make it available to the blind using a reader. For example scan a book to Word so it can be read by a device that the blind can hear the words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.194.230 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 6 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Texas congressional redistricting map

I made a simple image based on Texas state government map http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/Congress/PLANC185.pdf to illustrate how the 2012 redistricting law would affect Texas's 25th congressional district, but when I came to upload it, I couldn't fit it into Wikipedia's tagging system. It is presumably copyrighted by the government of the state of Texas (see http://www2.dir.texas.gov/pubs/srrpubs/Pages/srrpub11-agencylink.aspx ), and so could not be uploaded to Commons, but on the other hand, it was produced with the specific intent of being widely used in public discussions and coverage on Texas redistricting (along with all the content on the http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/ site, some of which has been copied over to the League of Women Voters site etc). If used on Wikipedia, it would not have to be uploaded at a low resolution (again see http://www2.dir.texas.gov/pubs/srrpubs/Pages/srrpub11-agencylink.aspx , which does not require this), and I can't find any tag to handle the situation. My cartographic image-making abilities are such that I wouldn't be able to make a map functionally equivalent to parts of http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/Congress/PLANC185.pdf which would not be a simple derivative of http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/download/Congress/PLANC185.pdf --Churchh (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Maps are tricky. The data behind the map (Congressional districts) is not copyrighted, so a Wikipedian could create a new map with the same data. Because of this, we usually can't use a non-free map, no matter what its resolution. In general, the only copyrightable parts of a map are line widths, angles, colors used, wording, placement of elements, selection of which landmarks to show, etc. If you can copy the data in this map without copying any of these copyrightable elements, then it's not a copyright violation (since only the non-creative material is being copied). If you can't, someone else probably can, eventually. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia has got itself into a state where, though the Texas governmental agency wouldn't have have objections to us including the map in an article, our own policies do not allow it. I can't make a new fully-free map, and by the time somebody else does, the lawsuit may be decided. Since I can't upload the file, it would be difficult to even communicate with someone who might make a fully-free map as to what exactly is needed for the article. Churchh (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ueli Steck

The images on Ueli Steck page are the same of Ueli Steck's site: http://www.uelisteck.ch/en/galleries.html Is it ok? I would like to use them on Wikimedia Commons but I don't know if these photos are valid. Thanks. --Rotpunkt (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

In page history (here) User:Dch888 says: "Adding images, which were donated by Ueli Steck specifically for upload to Wikipedia." --Rotpunkt (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't clarify their status as licensed under the noted license. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In this case should he (Ueli Steck or User:Dch888) use the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team? --Rotpunkt (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, but more specifically follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Donating_your_photographs. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but now those images are uploadable on Wikimedia Commons? Are these images problematic? --Rotpunkt (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. Is User:Dch888 Ueli Steck? Regardless, the images are certainly problematic and will probably have to be deleted.The images are all at Steck's personal website, without any notice of a free license, so we would need Steck to either put a free-license tag on his website or e-mail Wikimedia to let us know the images really are freely licensed. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if User:Dch888 is Ueli Steck. I just found those images and I wanted to know if those images were valid (for uploading on Wikimedia Commons). Thanks! --Rotpunkt (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated all of them for deletion. If Ueli Steck (or the copyright holder) really does want us to use them, he can release the photos under a free license. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

And I have removed the gallery from the article -- it is after all supposed to be an encyclopedic article not an homage to the guy or a personal photo album. – ukexpat (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Free Image?

Can I upload these images? They are very old images of Ooty and it is a government website which makes no mention of any copyrights. Thanks. Suraj T 10:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I foud the publication dates for a few of the pictures: [5], [6], [7], [8].Suraj T

If a photo was first published in India, and it was published before 1935, it's considered "public domain" (not copyrighted) in India and in the U.S. It's therefore free to use here. It's better to upload these images to the Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this picture allowed?

It was from a news article and I would like to use it, and have used it, and now am worried that i shouldn't have used it. Here it is File:Tom Hawkins after kicking a goal in QF v Hawthorn.jpg from http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tom-hawkins-proves-his-place-in-cats-best-22/story-e6frf9jf-1226133507756. I thoguht it was publix but now i am not sure.... HawkoChoco (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, see copyright notice at foot of page - © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT +10). – ukexpat (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so what types of images can you use beside the ones you get yourself? HawkoChoco (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

...if the copyright owner releases the image under an acceptable license - see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Free or non-free?

Came across a few images uploaded by JamesAlan1986 (talk · contribs) for his userspace, all tagged as cc-by-sa-3.0, however I'm not sure if they are truly considered free. What he's done is arrange a bunch of albums/videos together and taken photos of the collection. Since the albums/videos in question are all copyrighted works (more to the point, their covers are copyrighted works), are these derivative works? Are they able to be freely-licensed and used on WP? I ask because I had considered doing a similar thing in the past but hesitated, because my assumption is that a photo of a collection of copyrighted works is non-free, since the individual works are all non-free. Here are the images in question:

• File:DCFC0001.JPG
• File:DCFC0003.JPG
• File:DCFC0004.jpg
• File:DCFC0004.JPG

Thoughts? Any help is appreciated. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free, definitely. They are copyrighted, meaning derivative works are also in the copyright holder's purview. It could not be in minimus (i.e. only a trifle) as the CDs and books are clearly the focus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So do you think they could be speedy'd, or do they need to be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files or taken to WP:FFD? --IllaZilla (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• I went the speedy route, although from comments at ANI (long story) it appears that FFD might be the safer route. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture question

I sent an email to PipersPicks.TV, the owners of this photo to ask if it could be used on Wikipedia (specifically on the Dylan and Cole Sprouse article) and what license it fell under. They replied back saying that I could use the picture on Wikipedia, but they didn't say what license the photo used. They only said that I had to put in the caption/information that they were with Piper Reese (which I was going to do anyway). I don't know what to do now, since I don't think I should upload the picture without knowing the license. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• The best way to handle this is to re-ask them, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless to us. In fact, it's even a speedy deletion category. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

New Deal Flickr

Hi, is this [9] 1938 New Deal cartoon free? Thanks! – Lionel ^(talk) 13:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The photo itself may be released under a free license, but it is a derivative work of the underlying comic, which is probably not free. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The source page http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/herblock/Roosevelt.html provided on the Flickr page clearly shows a copyright notice of the Herbert L. Block Collection, so unless we can prove that material is freely licenced, the Flickr licence is essentially meaningless because the Flickr uploader did not crate the cartoon itself. ww2censor (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! You guys really know your stuff... – Lionel ^(talk) 22:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Translation of PD text

Greetings. I am currently preparing a FP nomination for the tentacle-sex themed File:Tako to ama retouched.jpg and an editor at WikiProject Japan found this translation of the text written on the image. Would the translation be copyrighted by the author, requiring a translation by a Wikimedian? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Translations are copyrighted, held by whoever made the translation. If a Japanese Wikipedian made the translation him/herself, that would work though. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. I hope the person I asked is willing to do so. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Follow up question: Would paraphrasing an existing translation be acceptable? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • That's tricky. I doubt the question has ever been adjudicated. In general, if your "translation" (paraphrase) is based on the existing translation enough to be a derivative work, then it's a copyright violation. If it's different enough that the original translator could not show a clear link, then it's not. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• So in other words, best to start from scratch. Considering the length of the text in question (same as above), and assuming the original PD text was written literally (no metaphors, no personification, etc) with both translations being faithful to the text, wouldn't a translation from scratch theoretically be able to come close enough to the pre-existing translation to constitute a copyvio, even if written without prior knowledge of the existing translation? There are only so many ways to say "Je m'appelle Crisco", for example. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not a problem. Case law is full of cases where judges ruled, essentially, "That's not a copyright infringement since there are only a few ways that information could be phrased." In fact, if you can show that you independently recreated roughly the same work I did, but did not copy my work or base your work on mine, then I can't successfully sue you for copyright infringement. (Patents protect the same invention from being invented twice, even independently, but copyright doesn't work that way.)

In a translation like this, you would have to be wary of cases where the translator used a particular characteristic phrasing or word choice which was not mandated by the source material. If you used that same phrasing, you might be infringing. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Image Help

Hello, I am working very hard on a page I have written about Bog bodies found around the world. There is an image of one called Dätgen man found in Germany in the late 1950's. There is an image of the man's head that was published in James M. Deem's book "Bodies from the Bog". The author of the image is unknown, and it is in black and white. Would it be classified in the {{pd|old}} category?Image --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 00:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There are several other images that I have found that date to quite a long time ago:

1931 1952 1942 --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 00:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

While you have linked to the images directly, you have not linked to the pages the images appear on, so we can perhaps ascertain their copyright status better. If Netherlands copyright applies, as the sites are .nl sites, unknown Netherlands' images are copyright for 70 years or 70+ pma per commons:COM:L#Netherlands, so the 1931 image may be the only one that is in the public domain. Where are these bog bodies located now? It may be possible to make new images unless they have been destroyed. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The 1952 image is that of a man found in Schleswig, Germany. The 1942 image is that of a woman from Jutland Denmark. The Image of the Dätgen man is from Germany, were he is on display in Schleswig as well as the 1952 image. The image was described to be rare on this website. Thank you for your reply,

--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 12:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that "70 years p.m.a." means 70 years after the death of the photographer. You would have to find out who the photographer is, and whether he or she died before 1941. Also, we can't use non-free images, even "rare" ones, if a new free image could be created to replace it. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the disclaimer page http://www.denblauwenswaen.nl/DXII.htm on the website you linked above, their material is copyright and for non-commercial use, so we can't use any of those images, but you could try asking them to release the images under a free licence, assuming of course they are the copyright holder of the photos which they may not be. ww2censor (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture copyright

Hi there. Question about pictures. Can we use pictures from facebook which have been taken and placed in facebook by the user him/herself? So for instance, if Peter Miller takes a picture of a mountain or a building and places it in his fb site, can we then use that picture for wikipedia? Or if the website of a political party includes pictures of one of its sessions? The second question concerns stills images from national TV stations. So if there is a news piece on the BBC of a royal wedding, can we photograph a shot from that piece and use it on a wikipedia article? I was told that we can use the stills only if we also include our television set because then it becomes an image of a private possession. If there is an appropriate link, just refer me to the link. Thanks. Politis (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer to #1: no. Facebook images are fully copyrighted (unless, of course, the owner adds an explicit statement to them to release them under a free license). Answer to #2: Again no. TV stills are copyrighted by the TV stations, and can be used only under the rules of WP:Non-free content (most of the time, that means only where necessary to support an article about the TV programme, not for illustrating an article about the event that happens to be shown in them). The idea about including the TV set won't work either, as long as the copyrighted screen content is still the main focus of the picture, and a de minimis defense would only work if the coverage of the screen content were so small that it would essentially become useless for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Rain_Bird_RC-2360AB.jpg

This image has been tagged for speedy deletion. It's a self-made photo of a sprinkler timer. I'd like to help by moving the image to Commons for the editor, who historically doesn't communicate with other editors, and seems to be a very infrequent editor.

1. Does it qualify for Commons?
2. Should I (is there a reason I shouldn't?)
3. What's the easiest way to do that? Thanks! --Lexein (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not qualify for Commons, since the user has not released the image under a free license. It does seem to be homemade, and so he could if he so chooses. I see that you've left the first non-template message that anyone has left on his talk page in over four years, so good on you for that. If you can talk him into saying "Public domain is fine" or something, then this story may yet have a happy ending. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous transient public art

I'm not sure I tagged File:SarekOfVulcanAvatar.jpg properly. While out hiking on a trail, I passed several places where trees had fallen across the path and had been chainsawed clear, leaving flat surfaces on both sides of the trail. Afterwards, someone else came along and carved faces on the flat surfaces. I took pictures of a few of these, took a fancy to one of the shots, and started using it as an online avatar. For my RFA ThankSpam, I uploaded a low-res version of the pic and tagged it "own work". It strikes me that that probably isn't the correct tag for anonymous transient public art -- but I have no idea what a better one would be.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• It may qualify as a work of art. If so, there would be no FOP. (The image tag says it was in the US) Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Odd message wording

Hi, just in case this is a widespread problem, an odd message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FTP-p012904.jpg:

This file is in the public domain, because Stated to be "libre de droits" (all rights released) on source website

In case this is not legally possible: The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

The second paragraph surely can't be right. Regardless of the actual copyright status of the image (which I'm not disputing), how can Wikipedia possibly have any authority to grant any rights to anyone in respect of an image that someone copied from some website? 86.161.61.167 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is paraphrasing and interpreting the statement made at the source website. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that is not the case (unless of course you have actually found such a statement, which I have not been able to). I suspect that the text of the second paragraph is erroneously reused from a template intended to be a declaration by the creator of an image. 86.179.0.159 (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Website without copyright notices

• [10]

This website of the Chattanooga Chapter of the American Guild of Organists does not have any copyright notices on any of its pages. Does that mean that images like this [11] that can be found on this page [12] can be uploaded onto wikipedia or commons? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. All images created in the U.S. since 1978 are automatically copyrighted, whether the creator mentions anything about copyright or not. However, this organization (no pun intended) may be willing to release their photos into the public domain, or under a free license, if you ask them. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more info on this. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Neurotically Yours

I have been updating the article over the last few weeks, basically implementing a complete overhaul of the article. For the characters section, I think it would be kind of neat to have a thumbnail of each character next to their name, using the images from the "characters" section of the main website (which can be found here). Is it possible to use this work in some way, shape, or fashion, without violating the copyright listed on the site? -Poodle of Doom (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid we never allow non-free images of characters to be used in lists like this. Any characters that merit their own articles could be depicted with one image each, however, so long as all of the points at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria are met. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How can a journal publisher grant permission to use images en masse?

The Gene Wiki is an initiative to improve Wikipedia articles related to human genes. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ProteinBoxBot for historical context. Recently I started a discussion at the village pump about a partnership we are trying to set up with an academic journal (GENE) to improve gene-related articles. Basically, we would recruit academic scientists to write review articles for GENE, and upon acceptance to the journal, the content of those articles would be integrated into WP.

The publisher of GENE is Elsevier, and their copyright and authors' rights policies are described here. In talking with the publisher and lawyers, they have stated that they would not consider posting articles on WP to be a copyright violation provided it is the authors who initiate the process. Given that agreement by the lawyers, the editors are very excited about this partnership as a way to improve WP content on scientific topics.

Over at the village pump discussion, Colin raised the issue of whether media (figures, images, etc.) would require more explicit permission from the publisher. How would they go about granting WP this permission? Guidance and pointers appreciated... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am highly dubious about this permission (seems they still want to reserve some rights and their standard author rights are definitely insufficient), but the process of granting permission is relatively easy and can be found here. Basically they just have to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org from an official emailadres. Yoenit (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I can think of one very straightforward way, if they're serious about it releasing under GFDL and/or CC-BY-SA. Have a responsible authority at Elsevier create an account at Flickr, and post all the images there, and set their licenses en masse to CC-BY-SA (fifth option). They even have a nice automated uploading tool. (grin) --Lexein (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an academic journal is likely to use Flickr. If they are truly willing to provide the material in ways that we can use (according to our policies), then I don't mind jumping through hoops for them. The question is, are they? It appears that their boilerplate does not allow authors to reuse their own works for commercial reasons, or to license them in a way that allows that. If the journal is willing to allow authors to license their works under an acceptable license, then that's wonderful! But if they're just saying "Wikipedia can use it", that's not good enough; it has to be released by the copyright holder under a free license. Because the discussion is spread across so many fora, I'm having trouble understanding some of the legal basics here, like: Do the authors retain copyright, or does GENE hold the copyrights on these works? Etc. Any elucidation would be helpful. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your thoughts. I'll raise the issue specifically about media with the publisher to gauge their response. I think in their ideal world, they wouldn't have to release by GFDL or CC-BY-SA. That apparently works fine for text here at WP (right?), but not media. So let's see about options... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Addendum (missed Quadell's response): Let me push them to see how far they will go with a free license on media. I think Elsevier retains copyright but the authors retain explicit rights, and one of those rights is to post on web servers. The publisher has agreed that posting on Wikipedia as far as they are concerned is like posting on a personal site. I think the clearest statement on Elsevier's position is in this document. Does that clarify anything? Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that is wrong. Text also has to be released under GFDL or CC-BY-SA (or less restrictive, like CC-BY). There is no exception to that rule. Yoenit (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true that all material on Wikipedia (text and images) has to be either not copyrighted at all, or released under a free license. The GFDL and cc-by-sa are the most restrictive licenses available, and the default for text. You can, of course, release your own work under a less restrictive license. (All my text contributions are explicitly released into the public domain, for instance.) But there is no difference between text and images in terms of copyright allowance.

The PDF you linked seems to imply that Elsevier holds the copyrights to all works they publish, but they allow the authors to republish the works on private websites. So Elsevier won't stop journal authors from uploading their work (text and/or images) to Wikipedia. The trouble is, we can't accept text or images unless they are released under a free license, and it doesn't sound like Elsevier is willing to do this. Correct me if I'm wrong. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me take this up with the Elsevier folks to see what they think. Many thanks to you both for the clarifications and explanations. Given the editor's enthusiasm, I'm still very hopeful that we can make this work somehow... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If they prove willing to license the content in a way we can use, we do have ways to simplify the process. I have seen templates created for such situations so that all images they choose to upload can be easily tagged as verified. They do have to place it under a free license, though. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone point me to the most succinct policy page that I can point to when I discuss this with the Elsevier folks? I've found WP:COPYOTHERS and WP:DCM, but neither seems to speak directly to the issue... They'd work, but just wondering if there was a better page to point them to. AndrewGNF (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What aspect of the issue is missing from WP:DCM? Knowing that might help narrow down the best alternative. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll just use WP:DCM then. On second reading, it seems succinct enough. Thanks! Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Have I provided all informations on images rightly

Could you please confirm if I have given all information messages correctly because I received a message today that I need to provide information on the below mentioned images File:Eden gardens 2011.jpg and File:Eden gardens ipl 2011.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj100 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears you are adding the words "permission granted for all" to your images but you have not defined what sort of permission that actually means. You do this by adding an appropriate copyright tag to each image file. If you took the photo yourself, you can use the {{PD-self}} if you are releasing them in to the public domain, or {{Attribution}} if you want attribution for your work, but we only accept freely licenced images. However File:Eden gardens 2011.jpg is an issue because it is composed predominantly of other peoples photos, so is known as a derivative work and the photos are not de minimis, nor do you have permission from the copyright holder of those images, so we really cannot use it. Do you have a photo of the same place without all the photos displayed on the building? ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

These photos are of players of Indian cricket. This has been deliberately taken by me to showcase the refurbished entrance of the cricket ground. Will this create a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj100 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because you did not take the photos displayed prominently on the building, and you don't have permission from the photographer of those Indian cricket players, as explained above. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand, Can you please tell me if there is any issue with the other file I uploaded. File:Eden gardens ipl 2011.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj100 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The image was moved to the commons and I have refined the description and it is totally fine now. ww2censor (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But I am still not getting used to uploading an image in wiki. Is there a page where I can see the process explained in a much simpler manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj100 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Scanning old photos from a book

Say we have a photograph taken in 1890. The author has obviously been dead for over 70 years, so that means the photograph is in the public domain. Let's also say that the photo is used in a book that is still in copyright. The copyright owner of the book has no rights to the image, because it's in the public domain. So could you scan the photo from the book, and upload it to commons as public domain, even though you happened to get it from the book, right? This is not a hypothetical question, see File:HHS glasgow.jpg. —Akrabbim^talk 17:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If the photo is in the public domain, it doesn't matter what source you scan from, public domain is public domain. Unless perhaps if they've added something non-obvious (typed letters of the ship's name might be obvious, adding a drawing of a Koala Bear would not be obvious).

Your first two sentences seem about right to me, but might be more controversial here. Let's see, if the photographer was 20 years old in 1890 and died at age 70 - that would be in 1940, 71 years ago. Some folks might dispute that the photog "has obviously been dead for over 70 years" but it seems reasonable to me.

Smallbones (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As Smallbones said, a PD photo is still PD even if it published in a copyrighted book. That's not a problem. The problem is whether the photo is actually PD, and which countries consider it PD.

If you want to upload an 1890 image to the English Wikipedia, then there are no problems, since all images first published before 1923 are considered PD in the U.S. For you to upload such an image to Commons, however, you would have to show that the image is PD both in the U.S. and in the country of origin. If the image was first published in the U.S., and was first published before 1923, then you can upload it to the Commons, no problem. But if the image was first published in Mexico, then you probably could not, because Mexico honors copyright for 99 years after the death of the author. It would depend on which country it was first published in. If you don't know, Commons usually considers 70 years p.m.a. to be good enough (because very few countries honor copyright for longer and it's usually obvious when an image was first published in one of these).

If you have the book where the image was republished, that can give you a clue. If that book says "Image © Vanderbilt Inc." or something, then the image was probably still under copyright when the book was published. If not, then it's unlikely that the image was still under copyright at that time, at least in the countries where the book was published. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Uploading a Figure from an Article study

Hi, I was just wondering if I can upload a figure model (screenshot) from an article study as I am referencing the authors of the article. If not directly am I able to adapt it slightly- by redrawing the diagram and still referencing the authors.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versaceve (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The underlying data is not copyrighted, but a chart may be copyrighted. It's best to recreate a chart or diagram yourself. Can you link to the diagram in question? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this work now PD or similar?

I'm looking for a good illustration of the Course Setting Bomb Sight, and found one here. This is from a 1942 RAF work, listed here. Can anyone speculate to the copyright status of this image? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the book verifies the date and official status of the image you can use the {{PD-BritishGov}} because the crown copyright expired after 50 years. ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1910 postcard

http://www.flickr.com/photos/23666168@N04/4976623026/ this is a postcard made/sold in 1910 which was scanned and posted to flickr. I assumed given its age it would be public domain but it seems by default they tag everything uploaded to flickr as all rights reserved. Can i use it in an article about the loch or not?

thanksRafikiSykes (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.lenziegolfclub.co.uk/pages/archives its among the postcards and photos used there as well so most people seem to be using it freely without issue given the age of the images.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States and can be uploaded here. I don't know whether it is PD in its country of origin, however, so I don't know if it could be used on the Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So i can upload to en.wikipedia wiki fine just now but commons is uncertain?RafikiSykes (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It appears this image was first published in Scotland, so the image would be in the public domain there if the photographer died before 1959, but it would still be copyrighted if the author died in 1959 or later. The photographer probably died before 1959, but unless we can show that, we can't upload the image to Commons. Either way, though, you can upload the image to en.wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 06:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this photo okay?

Are we allowed to upload photos of footwear, from the Famous Footwear site? Tinton5 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Those photos are copyrighted. Instead, we can take our own photos of footwear and use those instead. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, how come logos are allowed, but not clothing? Tinton5 (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We can only use non-free images (like logos, or photos you find on a website) if we follow the rules at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The first criteria is that the non-free image must be non-replaceable. So I can use a non-free image of someone who died, since you can't make any more free images of the person. But I can't use a non-free image of a shoe, since someone could make a free image of that shoe (by taking a photo themselves). If a logo is copyrighted, you can't make a non-free representation of that logo. If you redraw or photograph a logo, it's still a copyright infringement. But if you photograph a shoe, it's not a copyright infringement. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I totally understand it better now. Thank you so much for clearing that up. Tinton5 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Order of Anglican Cistercians image

-ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)License tagging for File:001. Group Photo after Profession.JPG (Order of Anglican Cistercians)

Thank you. This photograph can be published with whatever tag you are to advise. Usually, all material is copyright of the Order of Anglican Cistercians, but we are keen to have this photograph (and maybe, if permitted, one or two more?) published on the link "Anglican Religious Order(s)".

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brabo1098 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Only you can decide the licence under which you want to release the image. You need to verify you are the copyright holder and agree to a free licence by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. You can release it into the public domain, or use some of the Creative Commons licence that we accept. You can also review the copyright tags page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this image in the public domain?

Hi, I uploaded an image of a Song Dynasty (960-1279) printed text of I Ching [13]. I also removed part of the image that has watermark. However, after I uploaded the image, I realized the source, the hosting website that I got the image from, has a line on the top that states There is a fee for any use. This is not a source of free images. The image is of a Song Dynasty printed text, which would be at least 700+ years old. But is it still in public domain even with that statement from the hosting website? Can we still use it on Wikipedia?--Sevilledade (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Any faithful copy of stuff this old is in the public domain and can be uploaded or used here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

But the website where the image is from [14] has a statement that says "There is a fee for any use." Does it not matter since the image is of an old text?--Sevilledade (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have made no contract with them you will not be obliged to pay a fee. Make sure that they have not modified any image that you use, as their watermark may count as copyright. It is a case of copyfraud to claim copyright on something that is not copyrighted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Paintings owned by artist's son

The three paintings at Robert H. Meltzer are owned by the uploader, the artist's son. Please would an expert advise at User talk:Txn2VA#Picture copyrights. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Responded on user talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Logo - CCP Games - Carbon

I emailed CCP Games requesting a high resolution copy of the Carbon logo. To my surprise they redirected me to Jonathan Lander Senior Producer - Carbon, Director of Core Technology at CCP Games. Upon asking him for a high resolution copy of the Carbon logo after stating that I wanted a copy to use in the infobox QUOTE "As was in my other email I am creating a Wikipedia page about the Carbon Framework. All I wanted actually was just a high resolution copy of the Carbon logo to put in the infobox." he sent me 2 versions of it. I want to upload them but don't know which category to put them in.

Please help. Astrel (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Use {{Non-free logo}}. You'll then need to add a rationale. That part is tricky. You can use {{Non-free use rationale logo}}, or just ask here once you've uploaded the image and I can help. I'll warn you, though; only low-resolution versions of non-free logos can be uploaded here. Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have recieved an Email from CCP hf with the statement "We allow free use of our logos provided that it is with the written permission of CCP hf and the user properly acknowledges our ownership and trademark status. This email is your permission to use the logo solely for purposes of your Wikipedia article. In displaying the logo, you agree to include the trademark symbol ™ at the end of the logo as indicated, and if requested, you will let others know that the CARBON logo is used with permission from CCP hf." The Email also includes two new revisions of a logo with a trademark in the top right corner, I have uploaded it and it can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_hf_logo_white.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrel (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Permission to use only on Wikipedia is not sufficient, so you will have to fall back on non-free use, with {{logo fur}}. The other wrinkle is that non-free images are not allowed in user space, so the image will probably be deleted. It can be undeleted if and when the draft is moved to mainspace. – ukexpat (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Office - Excel

Are we allowed to design our own charts in Excel and upload them to commons? I ask as this image was recently plonked into the 2011 Pacific Typhoon season and has come up for discussion on the talk page.Jason Rees (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you created the graph in excel then you own the copyright and not Microsoft. Everything on the page like axes, plot line style, legend style are all too simple to count as copyrightable. So the copyright is in the representation of the data. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the timely response. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictures about an organization and created by the organization itself (e.g. structure schemes, timeline, etc.), for instance these 2 files: 200px|MILMED COE Timeline.png and 200px|MILMED COE structure.png, fall in which copyright category?MILMEDCOE (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• If you didn't create it, and it's not clearly marked as being public domain, marked as being free licensed, or public domain via some vehicle (such as age), then it's safe to presume it's copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Image from out of business Newspaper

I am posting an article for a client and he has supplied me with an image that originates from a newspaper that is now out of business. The newspaper was the Montreal Witness which stopped printing in 1938. The image is from an edition in 1885 of a Lieut. A.L. Howard since he is the person the article is about. I am wondering if anyone would know what copyright category this would fall under and if I need any further information. I can also reference the book that the client got the image from since they are the ones that obtained the image from the Montreal Witness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IconicCC (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If a Canadian photograph was published before 1923, then its copyright has expired in the both the U.S. and Canada, making it "public domain". You can upload all such images you want to the Commons. You can tag them with both {{PD-Canada}} and {{PD-1923}}. (It doesn't matter what book later republished the images.) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Retrieving a deleted image File:Kanai_Baraxiboa_rock_inscription.png

Hello,

An image was deleted some years ago. Could it be reverted? The image is File:Kanai_Baraxiboa_rock_inscription.png This is an image of a historical inscription from the 13th century, of high historical value.

Chaipau (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It was apparently deleted merely because it lacked a clear fair-use rationale stating what article it was to be used in, so I've restored it; please fix the rationale as soon as possible. Actually, I'm not quite sure if it might not be public domain anyway – even if it is ultimately based on a copyrightable photograph, the way it's been reduced to just black-and-white line graphics means it's not intended to be anything but a slavish reproduction of the actual script, which in itself, because of its age, is of course not copyrightable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am studying what rationale it deserves (according to Wikipedia policies). I shall put that in ASAP. Chaipau (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have retained the non-copyright tag and added a fair-use copyright tag and expanded the rationale. I shall await a clear decision on what kind of copyright this falls under and follow the instructions accordingly. Chaipau (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan copyrights law and Wikipedia

Can i upload this image? The site is Afghan site and the picture was taken by Barat Ali Batoor, in Kabul at Mohaqiq's. No copyrights law exist in Afghanistan see here. If I can which license should I use? I saw this tag {{PD-Afghanistan}} here can I just put the tag and upload? Hazara-Birar (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid since the organization in question publishes its material via a WordPress.com blog account, it counts as a publication in the US, where the WordPress servers are located, and hence it falls under US copyright law. The only reason for this not to apply would be if you could demonstrate that the copyright owner published the material through another channel purely within Afghanistan at least 30 days before they uploaded it on Wordpress. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if you know Afghanistan has no major ISPs or Webhosting companies, I know there are hundreds of them but they belong to neighboring, European, and American countries. If you have a web space in Afghanistan then servers will be based some where else in the world. The problem is there are no Copyrights law in Afghanistan, and all the web hosting companies servers are outside of the country as I mentioned. So I don't get to upload pictures from Afghanistan? All I am interested in is Hazara people, their root lies in Afghanistan. Please I need help to resolve this issue. Hazara-Birar (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If nobody publishes web material through internal Afghan ISPs, then I'm afraid invoking {{PD-Afghanistan}} for web-published material will very often be invalid. That's just the way it is. What counts is the location where the material is physically published, i.e. the location where the server stands, not the location or citizenship of the author himself. It's just like publishing stuff on Wikipedia. For example, I am a citizen of a European country and I am right now typing on a computer in Europe, but the Wikipedia server is in the US, so whatever I publish on Wikipedia automatically falls under US copyright law, not the copyright law of my own country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok then what should be done with this picture already on commons. the website details are here or you can look up any WHOIS website, An Afghan News agency hosted on American server, but the license tag (above) on the image says its an Afghan Image that's why no copyright policy applies on this image. Should this image be deleted or be kept? Hazara-Birar (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this example. There is already a deletion request running for another image from Pahjwok on Commons (commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Abdul Rahman Mosque in February 2009.jpg). My suggestion is to wait until that is decided and then see about the rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My question still remains unanswered? help please Hazara-Birar (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

publishing

Hi How to get a magazine on the list of South Africa's published magazines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.30.241 (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Click on over to List of magazines in South Africa, pick the letter that starts the magazine name and click edit. Type *''[[name of new magazine]]'' in the correct spot and click save. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo for Robert Llewellyn Bradshaw (politician)

I recently had email correspondence with the Saint Kitts and Nevis National Archives office, and they emailed me a photo of Bradshaw from their collection. How should this photo be attributed? Thanks. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 18:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hopefully the archive told ou who the photographer was or the organisation they worked for and that would be the attribution. Is the copyright clear? It would seem to be too recent to be public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. In my email I explicitly asked for a non-copyrighted image, and this is the photo they sent me. I sent another email last night asking for author/date taken information but in case they don't know it, is that a deal breaker? aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 12:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to get them to verify their permission and details directly with the OTRS team by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Make sure they mention the file name you uploaded which I presume is File:Robert Llewellyn Bradshaw.jpg. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I just sent an email explaining this to the National Archives office. Hopefully everything gets worked out. How long do they have to provide the proper licensing info before it is removed? aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 15:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The image has not been tagged for deletion but you can add the {{OTRS pending}} template to the image and even if it does get deleted, the OTRS team will restore the image once they are happy with the permission. ww2censor (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 17:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting tags/licensing

File:Mermaid-syndrom.jpg is interesting. It is tagged both "own-work" and "verified and archived" permission with various licenses AND also public domain because the author is dead for 70 years. Do we have ghosts of long-dead artists posting here? DreamGuy (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It also has an OTRS ticket attached. It is hosted on the commons but if you unsure about the status of the image perhaps you should get one of the OTRS team to review it. Perhaps one of the page stalkers is an OTRS volunteer and will look at the ticket. ww2censor (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

LAF comic

How do you list the souse of the LAF comic? I'm confused. Inheritant1994, September 24, 2011, 13:43 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inheritant1994 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you scan it from a cover? Did you take the picture of someone else's web site? Which edition? That is the sort of information we need to know. Describe how it got to be on Wikipedia from the origin as far back as possible. Include information such as the publisher and cover designer and artist if you know. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo that I didn't take

Hello,

I have been looking for a photo of Andy Gregory and have found two options. One photo is from Flickr, and the photographer is more than happy for me to upload it to Wiki, but doesn't want to change the licence on the photo on flikr, and can't upload it himself (he has no account).

The second photo is similar. I email someone on a website and he is fine to provide me one, but the same thing applies. I would only have his permission via a mail or similar.

How can I upload these in an acceptable way? Heywoodg 14:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Persuade them to release their photos under the CC BY-SA license, or upload them as fair-use. →Στc. 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have uploaded it and emailed consent (as in {WP:CONSENT}). Hopefully I can get it sorted one way or the other! Heywoodg 19:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Byzantine mosaic

I've just finished expanding the Domus Aurea (Antioch) article and would like to upload a picture of part of what's called the Megalopyschia Hunt mosaic, the only known depiction of the building (although even that is questionable), which can be found here. I'm a little unsure about the status of such a picture - is the mosaic regarded in the same way as a painting? Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

After searching around on commons in the 'mosaics' categories, I've come across plenty of files that are tagged with PD-Art|PD-old-100 or similar, confirming that mosaics are normally considered 2D works of art (which makes sense, although some mosaics are a bit more 3-dimensional than others). I'm going to upload the image in question to commons and use it in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate to me. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't find image copyright very easy to understand. Mikenorton (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Old recording

I have found a recording of a Beethoven string quartet made by the Capet quartet. The Capet Quartet was a French string quartet that disbanded in 1928, when the first violinist, Lucien Capet, died. It is unknown when the other members of the quartet died, but it is unlikely that any died less than 70 years ago.

Is this recording in the public domain? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If the work was published before 1923, you can upload the sound file to the English Wikipedia and tag it {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Do you know when it was first published? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I will check date of publication. There are, it turns out, many such recordings, some of which were surely published before 1923. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Law

Copyright law confuses me. Can anyone show me the exact text of the law, so I can understand it better? Pinguinus (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For which country? howcheng {chat} 09:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

United States. Pinguinus (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The current Copyright law of the United States, called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), is ridiculously complex. It's hundreds of pages long, and is written in a way that makes it extremely difficult for non-lawyers to understand. And even if you understood the DMCA completely, that's still not enough, since the DMCA is mostly non-retroactive. So if you want to know whether a book is copyrighted or not, and that book was published before 1998, then you'll need to know what the U.S. copyright law was at the time the book was published. It's extremely complex.

I've written a helpfile at User:Quadell/copyright to help people know whether something is copyrighted or not (in the United States). Hope it helps, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot! I understand copyright law in the US just a little bit better now. Again, thanks a lot for helping me! Pinguinus (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

St Edwards School Logo

http://www.b4-business.com/sites/default/files/company_logos/st_edwards_logo.jpg?1276773886

This is the logo of St Edward's School, Oxford

Its a British independent school, but I would think this would qualify under fair use. Other independent school logos are on wikipedia like Eton College

Or there is the other logo here

http://www.eteach.com/EmpLogo.ashx?id=17673

But its of awful quality.. But one could engage the services of a vector artist I suppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.202.241 (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it qualifies under fair use. Incidentally, that article badly needs more references to reliable sources... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I recently uploaded several university logos to Wikipedia and a good trick is to look for a .pdf file on the school website (usually application forms, school info booklets, etc.) These almost always have vector images of the school logo. You can then extract the vector logo from Adobe Illustrator or zoom in and save a large, high quality .png in Photoshop. This file has a few vector images of St Edward's School: http://www.stedwards.oxon.sch.uk/images/2011%20St_Edwards_Info.pdf aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 05:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I extracted the logo from the above PDF and uploaded it here: File:St. Edwards Logo.svg aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Commercial Aircrafts

HI,PLEASE I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE STOCKAGE FOR COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT'S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.192.162.58 (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

For general questions click on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous and ask your question there. This page is for questions and answers about copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Commons - Speedy Deletion in process - Please Help

":File:06_woa_largestfwfish_300.jpg" at Wiki Commons. Received the following notice: This file may meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I included a link to the official site of the U.S. Postal Service wherein it states permission is not needed for educational use, see "[[15]]". I went to the image's file talk page, and included the link with an explanation. If the image cannot be used in Wiki Commons, can it be used as a direct upload in the Wiki sturgeon article at [[16]], and if so, will someone be kind enough to help me get that done?? The U.S. sturgeon stamp is positioned just below the Moldova sturgeon stamp in the right hand margin of the sturgeon article. Thank you in advance....Atsme (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Pictures on Wikimedia commons are not allowed to be restricted for educational use. So if there is such a restriction then it counts as an invalid license. It must be free for all uses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the above, all post-1977 US postage stamps are copyright per this and this and even under our non-free criteria (#3) stamps are not to be used in articles about the subject of the stamp only for their identification in articles about the stamp itself. Non-free stamp use is highly restricted just like all other non-free content. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ww2censor, with the above in mind, are you going to delete the Moldova sturgeon stamp which is already included in the article at Wikipedia Sturgeon? Atsme (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Why would you suggest that? Firstly, I am not a commons admin, where the image is hosted so I don't delete images, but if it was appropriate I would nominate it for deletion there. More importantly the image you mention File:Stamp of Moldova 012.jpg is freely licenced and using the copyright tag commons:Template:PD-MD-exempt found here as have many other Moldovan stamps in this category. What I wrote above specifically concerns US post-1977 stamps and applies to all other non-free stamps, but all freely licenced stamps are allowable for use anywhere else. ww2censor (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ww2censor, FYI, the links you provided for the US Postal Service requirements are broken, and need to be updated. I provided the updated links to the USPS site which clearly states permission is not needed for fair use. Are you saying all images used in any article on Wikipedia can be used freely, reproduced for commercial sale, altered, etc., even if there is a copyright notice on the image? I did read where non-free images can include proper copyright notations, but I don't quite understand why stamps are the only exclusion to the non-free image rule. Secondly, you stated in your reply "(#3) stamps are not to be used in articles about the subject of the stamp only for their identification in articles about the stamp itself" which actually makes sense to me now that I've read the various replies. Regardless of whether or not stamps are freely licensed or their non-free, they shouldn't be used as a source for images in any article unless the article's subject is actually about stamps. I don't see any relevance for the inclusion of the Moldavia stamp in the Sturgeon article. What is the reason for keeping it? If you have a link to the Wiki criteria that states "all freely licensed stamps are allowable for use anywhere else", I would appreciate it very much if you would include it here. I can't find it anywhere. Thank you. Atsme (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

You write: "Regardless of whether or not stamps are freely licensed or their non-free, they shouldn't be used...". I think that you misunderstood the answers. When you quote: "(#3) stamps are not to be used in articles about the subject of the stamp only for their identification in articles about the stamp itself", you remove an essential part of the answer, which actually says: "under our non-free criteria (#3) stamps are not to be used in articles about the subject of the stamp...". That answer referred to non-free stamps. This particular criterion is not (only) an editorial policy of the site, it reflects a legal obligation: the use of a stamp image in the context of an article about that stamp, or about the work of the creator of the stamp, can be a fair use under the scope of the Copyright Act, but the use of the image of the stamp to illustrate the subject pictured on the stamp is not a fair use. It is not a question of editorial relevance for an article, it is a question of legality for a context of fair use. On the other hand, freely licensed stamps are of course legally usable in any article. If they are free content, they are not non-free content. Per definition, the non-free-content criteria are not meant for free content. If an image is free, then it is an editorial decision by contributors to an article to use it or not.(I am not getting into the question if the Commons image is correctly tagged with PD-MD-exempt or not, which would be a completely different question, outside the scope of the question above. The laws of some countries can be interpreted as to allow free reproduction of their stamps. I don't know about the interpretation of the law of Moldova.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Asclepias brings up a good point. There is nothing on the tag for the Moldavia stamp at Wiki Commons that specifically states the sturgeon stamp is free. The actual sturgeon image on the Moldavia stamp may have been licensed from a photographer or artist who still owns the copyright for that image, thereby restricting its use. Add to that, the question of whether or not the Moldavia stamp actually adds anything to the Sturgeon article, I'd have to say no, it does not. I have emailed several legal resources for a definitive answer as to the accuracy of the free use tag at Wiki Commons as it relates to the sturgeon stamp. In the interim, it seems advisable to place all the Moldavia stamps at Wiki Commons on hold until we receive a definitive reply from Moldavia's postal authority. Atsme (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Atsme, I get the impression you don't quite understand the use of copyright tags on commons images. When an image has a free copyright tag attached, by its very nature, that image is free to use anywhere on any project. However, if you dispute the commons Moldovan copyright tag commons:Template:PD-MD-exempt and want to challenge its veracity, that is a different matter but not for discussion here. You need to take that over to the copyright talk page on the commons. If you dispute the particular sturgeon image then nominate it for deletion there and see what people think. Whether the stamp image is appropriate or not to the article is a "content dispute" that is normally resolved by consensus on the article's talk page not on this page. Whatever reply, if any, you get from the Moldavia's postal authority the too should also be taken up on the commons as that is where all the Molodvan stamps are hosted. ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ww2censor, thank you. Your help is very much appreciated. Atsme (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo Being Deleted for License, but all info is provided.

I received notification that the following photo would be deleted, because "I did not specify who created the content." I feel I was pretty clear in indicating that the photo came from a government source, and even specified the squadron from which the photo came. I am in HSC-9, which is the photo's source, and I pulled the photo from our archives.
Please advise me, via my User Talk page as to what additional information is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lassenloop (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Out here in civieland, "HSC-9" is so much meaningless gobbledegook; and even more so to people from outside the U.S. Spell out abbreviations, so that folks will understand what you're trying to say. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The person who nominated this image for deletion probably didn't understand what you meant. HSC-9 is the subject, but did this squadron create the photo? If so, then there is no problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Reich,Steve-BrooklynBridge.jpg

The image has been used by the composer for promotional purposes. In fact, the Authorized photo" phrase seems to be a clue to this. The photographer does not appear to be the person who uploaded the image. Any suggestions on what to do with the photo? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I nominated it for deletion at Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

User Photo

I'm confused about how to properly upload and put my user photo on my page. The photo is a picture of myself, which I use on all my websites and as the author photo on my books. It was taken by a hired photographer, and I have permission to use it as described above, however, I don't wish the photo to be freely available for anyone to use as they wish. Should I just not upload the image, or what option should I select on the photo upload page?

Thanks for your help,

Nadine Sabulsky (user NakedLifeCoach) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NakedLifeCoach (talk • contribs) 07:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nadine, we will not accept photos of people that are still living that are not freely licensed to be used on Wikipedia. If you do not want that particular photo to be free to use, then you are welcome to pick another photo to upload. Or perhaps you could be happy to upload a 220px wide image for free use, and reserve a higher resolution for use by permission only. You are in a position where you could easily get a picture taken that is good enough for use on Wikipedia. If you don't want to pay a photographer for another picture, I am sure that you could track down an amateur with a camera to take a photo of you, and upload it to Wikipedia commons or flickr under a free license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

usage of photos in my book

sir

i wish to use some wikimedia commons photos in my forthcoming book.kindly guide me

Mrs.R.Raja rajeswari <e-mail address (Redacted)> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.67.6 (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Reusers' rights and obligations. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Abhinav Goutam

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/276054_100000925116749_4723168_q.jpg

--Abhinav goutam 14:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinav goutam (talk • contribs)

Do you have a question? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Last home of Asiatic Lions,Gir, Dist:Junagadh,State:Gujarat,Country:India,Asia

File:Desktop:Gir lion.jpg --Mayankvagadiya (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)mayank

Do you have a question? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Upload ?

I've uploaded File:point_pattern.png for an article i'm writing and want to 1. add a caption, and 2. signify that it's my own work and not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldecola (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

1: You only add a caption when you are adding an image to a page per the format [[filename|thumb|caption]]. You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions.

2: I've added an information template, where you should add the missing details now and I also added the Cc-by-sa licence template mentioned in your edit summary which i assume is what you wanted to use; if not change it. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Totally confused....

Hopefully someone will help me understand how an image with a tag that reads licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license can be used on Wiki Commons when everything I read about Wiki Commons policy clearly states the images can only be free use with no restrictions????Atsme (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This page [17] is what is used to define what "freely licensed" works includes; it basically boils down to the fact that there is no restriction on any use of free media from commons by anyone; it's not free of copyright, but the copyright owner has given explicit permission for reuse in any purpose. --MASEM (t) 04:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, to make sure I understand this correctly, let's use the photo of a rare fish for example. It's at Wiki Commons with an CC Attribution-Share Alike tag. Anyone can take that photo, modify it by putting a hat and sunglasses on the fish, print out the new picture, silkscreen it onto a hundred T-shirts, add the required attribution info below the modified picture such as the copyright holder's name, and then sell the T-shirts for $19.95 each??? Another scenario - a person could create a CD or DVD filled with Wiki free images, some of which had CC Attribution tags, and sell them for profit? What happens if the user fails to add the required attribution? Is it considered a copyright violation? If so, what can be done about it? Atsme (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to both of the re-use questions. Our images (apart from the non-free ones) are free for anyone to use, for any reason at all - but many require attribution. That can be on T-shirts, or CDs, yep, absolutely. It's free.

If they're not attributed (and have the 'attribution' requirement), then yes, that is a copyright violation - and anyone could complain about that. There is a small amount of info on what you could do about such a concern in Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process.  Chzz  ►  05:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As long as proper attibution is given, everything at Wikipedia can be reused, even for commercial use. People can legally take Wikipedia articles, print and bind them in a book, and sell them for cash, so long as in publishing the book they properly attribute Wikipedia as mandated by Wikipedia's licenses. This is true of pictures and text. If they don't have the correct attribution as mandated by the license, then they are in violation of copyright. But if the attribution is there, they can profit from Wikipedia legally. --Jayron32 05:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And to be clear, this is why on every page where you may contribute something (whether it text or a file) it states: "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL", meaning that you should be aware your contributions could be profited on. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the CC license chosen, attribution is required, and is enforceable in court. Use without attribution is a violation of the license, which lawyers live for. Quite often, a request for either attribution or removal is met courteously and with satisfactory result. You might have seen Wikipedia Commons images appearing in news articles, attributed to "Wikipedia" - these are improper attribution. The original licensor, the creator, should get the attribution. So nobody's perfect.

Licensing CC is a very serious commitment to sharing - just as much as "public domain." The difference is that public domain grants the creator no rights whatsoever, and no recourse under law. --Lexein (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the sentence quoted by Masem applies to text, including the description pages of the files, but not to the files. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding a school logo to a user site

I am adding the school logo to our Modburyschool user site, we are wanting to add it before we apply for an article. There is a bit at the bottom saying it will be deleted because of copyright restrictions but there are many other schools which have their logo displayed. File:File-example.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modburyschool (talk • contribs) 07:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well you should have a few days grace to create the page and use the logo. We have a policy of no nonfree images on non article pages like user pages. But there is also a rule against accounts representing organisations here. All users must be people. So I suggest that you make a user with a new name that reflect you rather than a school. Also I suggest that you pick a better name than File:File-example.jpg, say File:Modbury school logo.jpg. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are concerned about too-prompt deletion, add a {{holdon}} tag, and text explaining the reason requesting the delay. You might get as long as seven days, if people read the dang page headers. Also, if there's a discussion request time there. --Lexein (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WMAL-FM former logo

I'm trying to update the fair use rationale for File:1059TheEdge.png. The article where it was used has moved and the former use is no longer valid. It is, apparently, still allowed as a former logo for a radio station, and I'm being told I need to edit to give it a fair use rationale, but I don't know how that works.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Have you read the instructions at WP:FURG? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing helpful there.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• It would appear that you haven't specified a purpose in the rationale. This is covered. See the third bullet point of Wikipedia:FURG#Necessary_components. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears the logo is legitimate as a former logo of a radio station. That's all I know to say.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• If that's the best purpose of use you can think of, perhaps it doesn't belong in the article? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why don't you remove former logos from thousands of radio station articles? I came here for help.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• And I'm giving it. Non-free content isn't allowed to be liberally included. It has to meet all 10 criteria found at WP:NFCC. It's a tough hurdle to exceed. If you don't really have a justification for it being on the article, then there's not much reason to include it. You might not like the help that's being offered, but it is helpful. Oh, and I've removed a ton of former logos from radio station articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think others would disagree with you.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• There are plenty of people who disagree with WP:NFCC policy. That doesn't change the policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Radio3net

Radio3net hosts 20,000 albums, including the 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die: [18]. Radio3Net is the internet channel of Romanian Radio Broadcasting Company which is owned by the Romanian state, which is a respectable country, a member of the European Union and NATO. The albums are not copyable or downloadable. They can only be played on the website. There is, though, some concern that hosting these albums is by default a copyright infringement, and so we should not be linking to the site. I have done a search and can find no information regarding Radio3net's hosting of these albums to be a copyright infringement. The site's hosting of these albums, however, is well known. The music is not accessible from all countries - when I travel in France I can access the site but not the music unless I use a UK proxy. I can certainly access it freely from the UK. My belief is that the Romanian government have bought the rights to host the albums on their website, and that the licence covers those countries which can access the website. I assume France requires a different licence. I find it odd that a respectable government would so openly flaunt copyright laws, and that it would go unremarked and unchallenged; however, it is possible. Does anyone know about this situation? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's a radio station and a government company (of a reasonably reputable country) it seems reasonable to me to assume it is legal until the contrary is shown. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This activity is licensed as a broadcasting activity (since the content can only be streamed, not downloaded) - the assumption would be that Radio Romania has a license to broadcast this music, and pay the relevant royalties through the standard processes, but not to make it available to take away (as it were). Other internet radio stations operate in the same way. The person objecting has obviously never come across the phenomenon of on-demand internet radio. Elen on the Roads:talk to me 15:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. I feel reassured enough to restore the link. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I delete my own image?

How do I delete an image I added (and own the copyright to) a few years ago with my Wikipedia login (now have a new one for Wikimedia)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origami090 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What image is it? – Quadell ^(talk) 11:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well you add the {{db-author}} tag. If you now use a different username the admin's may not believe you. If the image is unused it is much more likely to be deleted. If it is in use your request does not need to be honoured. Are you talking about File:Mutiny-australia.jpg, which is on commons? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's the one. It's an old photo of my band and we now dont want it used. I've added a current photo to replace it on the Mutiny(band) entry. How do I find a friendly neighbourhood admin to ask to delete it? Origami090 (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You need a commons admin. Add this text: {{speedy|Original uploader requests deletion}} to commons:File:Mutiny-australia.jpg. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Eric Harris.JPG and File:Dylan Klebold.JPG

Used on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.

I don't think these meet NFCC requirements - because, these are just pics of two individuals - there's nothing unique or historically significant about them; there's every likelihood that other pictures exist - and, I do not believe it is acceptable for us to just grab any (non-free) picture we can of a deceased person to illustrate articles, just because we haven't managed to find a free one.

I raised that on the Non-free content review page, but didn't get much response there.

I thought I'd check here before using FFD, and see if others agree with the principle, or if I'm misunderstanding NFCC. Thanks in anticipation of any comments.  Chzz  ►  03:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Which of the criteria at WP:NFCC do you believe the pics violate? --Jayron32 03:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1, because of "no free equivalent is available" - as I have always interpreted it, that section means that we can only use a 'special' image - such as Tank man, for example - where the image itself has specific importance to the article. Specific, not just a pic of a person. I imagine there are lots of pictures of those people in existence - let's face it, there are for just about any young-ish American person...I mean, his friends will have pictures of him, et cetera.

However, if I am wrong - I'd really like to know...because, that means that there are many thousands of articles about deceased persons where we can very easily find a non-free picture.  Chzz  ►  05:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But no free equivalent is obviously availible; if you can't find one in a good-faith search; one cannot take a new photo of a dead person! --Jayron32 05:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

These images were recently nominated for deletion at FFD, and the consensus was to keep them. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see anything in the history of those pages to indicate there was an FFD?  Chzz  ►  12:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I searched WP:FFD for the images, and the name klebold and found nothing. However Quadell did, on 27 August, reply to Chzz's 21 August request for review and found no problems. I would support keeping, for simply not violating any guidelines, and being properly used under fair use. I have added explicit non-free use rationale, just to dot the i's and cross the t's. --Lexein (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The non-free status of these images was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 11#File:Eric Harris.JPG and File:Dylan Klebold.JPG. ww2censor (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, my mistake, I meant Wikipedia:Non-free content review. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've released an image to the Public Domain but ImageTaggingBot seems to disagree

I uploaded a test image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aphasia_Pie_Chart.gif to my Home Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ST2002

I tagged it with

, so it says it's released into the public domain

which is what I want. So why does ImageTaggingBot say it doesn't seem to be tagged?

TIA ST2002 (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Earlier you did not have a formal copyright template like {{PD-self}}. The bot could not understand "open source" and open sources does not necessarily mean that the copyright is free enough for Wikipedia, What it means is that the code that made the graph is available, you did not give us the code or link to it though, so perhaps you need to tell us how you made the image if you really want open source too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless, now that the image is correctly tagged there should be no further problems. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks Guys. It's just a test file I generated from Minitab. I'll probably delete it once I get organized. ST2002 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

€ coins

I am trying to upload pictures of a 2c (eurocent/0,02€) coin. I don't know what it would even fall under or how to upload. 98.209.136.223 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• We've been through a long slog regarding Euro coins and appropriate use of non-free licensed coins. Most of the coins are copyrighted, and not free licensed. They therefore would have to comply with our WP:NFCC policy. What is your intended use? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to provide the missing pictures of the reverse (Global) side and the obverse (national) side of the french design of Euro cent. 98.209.136.223 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• For which article? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For 2 cent euro coins. I have the coin in my possession and scanned both sides. I would like to upload them if at all possible. 98.209.136.223 (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• They wouldn't be available under a free license, and using them under WP:NFCC would fail for a variety of reasons, including WP:NFTABLE. I advise you not to upload them. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

So I can't at all upload them? 98.209.136.223 (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• If you upload them and add them to the table at 2 cent euro coins, they will very likely be removed for violating WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.136.223 (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)