Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/June

Seeking advice on image related issue

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I am currently working on improving the article OGAE, which I noticed is in dire need of extensive work. Firstly because I noticed that one paragraph in the lead section was a direct word-for-word copy of the info section on the companies Facebook page. I have taken it upon myself to fully re-write the entire article and improve it to a higher standard. However, the organisation has a company logo, and I am not sure if uploading a copy to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of using it on the article would be in violation of copyright issues. The logo itself is used across other OGAE Network sites and other websites unrelated to the company - and this has confused me as to whether or not we would be allowed to add a copy to the article. Any advice on this matter would be gratefully appreciated. Feel free to contact me on my talk page with further details if you desire. Wesley♦Mouse 01:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

We do commonly use company logos under fair use provisions. The logo has to be genuine and used only once. There is a special pair of template {{non-free logo}} and {{logo fur}} that cover this situation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ahh thanks for the response Graeme. I can confirm that the OGAE logo that I linked is genuine, and indeed it will only be used on the respective OGAE article (which I have just completed the re-write). I'm not overly confident in uploading images with {{non-free logo}} or {{logo fur}}, as I've never uploaded such images with those tags before. But I shall give it my best. Thank you again! Wesley♦Mouse 05:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If you use the "Upload File" link on the left side of the Wikipedia window, it'll provide you with a wizard that lets you mark it as a non-free logo and will make the process easy. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just tried using the non-free logo template, and in the preview it shows a different template which states that the image would be up for speedy deletion due to violation of copyright. Argh! I'm in a panic now, as I have no intentions to violate copyright, I'm merely trying to upload this logo which can be found on this official website. Help! Wesley♦Mouse 05:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Panic over, I found what I was doing wrong. I tried to upload via commons and not via the upload link on Wikipedia. Wesley♦Mouse 05:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Huddesteen eenhoornsluis.jpg

Possible copyright infringement Image File:Huddesteen eenhoornsluis.jpg shown on http://normaalamsterdamspeil.nl/wp-content/uploads/Huddesteen_eenhoornsluis-276x300.jpg and there ( http://www.normaalamsterdamspeil.nl/ ) marked Copyright 2013, Stichting Normaal Amsterdams Peil. --Rknbg (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well , that went a bit wrong. File:Huddesteen eenhoornsluis.jpg has been deleted from WP. :-(. Could be that www.normaalamsterdamspeil.nl "borrowed" File:Huddesteen eenhoornsluis.jpg from WP and forgot to mention it. I only wanted the source to be clear and do not know how to do that. --Rknbg (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Already repaired, The copyright infringement is indeed by www.normaalamsterdamspeil.nl, who did not cite WP as the source of the image. I have sent them a notification. Hans Erren (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

regarding copyrighted and nonfree content images

sir, The screen shot was taken from youtube and posted in wiki .The source,owner,website,TVpgm,content, is non free were given in summary. licensing information were also given in wiki as nonfree content and screen shot taken from copyrighted material .it states any other uses in wiki or any website results copyright infringement but still why the photos are deleted? can you please tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manavatha (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on your recent contributions, you are trying to upload images of living persons for purposes of illustrating them. This uses of non-free images are strictly forbidden because one can always get a free image of the living person, so we don't allow such uses. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Reformatted a previously "hand drawn" Wikipedia figure.

I came across an elaborate reaction pathway on the Wikipedia page 'Galactolysis' that had been drawn with ASCII characters (i.e. A ---> B ---V). The figure is not actually an image (it is all text), so it does not have any copyright information. I redid the reaction pathway in LaTeX as it should be, and exported it as a .pdf image. What copyright should I use when I upload my diagram? Would it be my work? MichaelMolter (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Since it was elaborate, yours is a derivative. The copyright would be CC-BY-SA-3.0 as per the rest of Wikipedia text. This means that you should also do CC-BY-SA-3.0. Credit with a link to the old version of the page where you got it from. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at Galactolysis, I don't think it's elaborate enough to be copyrightable, since it's a standard presentation of scientific fact. I doubt your version is copyrightable either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Prosfilaes. There's only one way to draw a simple structural formula, because any modifications will render the formula inaccurate. As such, a simple formula isn't creative and thus doesn't qualify for copyright, so you should tag the image with {{PD-chem}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

non-free with release

The copyright holder of a graphic I'd like to use is willing to release it for use on Wikipedia, but is a bit miffed at the Commons license that says his graphic is released for commercial use. Is there no more restrictive kind of release? 24.39.29.195 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. In line with Wikipedia's policy of building a free encyclopedia fully free material is the preferred option and that includes it being available for commercial re-use despite wiki itself being non-commercial. NtheP (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Photos of logos

Can't remember our policies regarding photos of logos from "real life" versus screenshots of logos from owners' websites — are both equally appropriate? Yesterday I walked past the offices of the School City of Hobart and photographed their logo on their sign; would it be reasonable to upload this for use as a logo? Of course I remember about copyright issues; it's definitely a DW of a nonfree copyrighted work, so I'd be uploading it here with rationale for use as a nonfree logo. Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Derivative works, If the logo is the primary focus of the image the photo will still be copyrighted by the company. However if the logo is just a minimal part of the photo (kind of like File:Activisionheadquarters.jpg where the focus is the building minimal See also commons:Commons:De minimis ) Werieth (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the concepts of de minimis and derivative works; I naturally use "DW" instead of the full term. This is definitely not a case of de minimis; I photographed only the logo. I simply want to know if we prohibit photos of logos entirely or if we permit them to be used like screenshots of the same logos. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

They would be treated as the same. But most prefer the digital version over the photographed one. Werieth (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, we have little problem with people making SVGs of copyrightable, copyrighted logos instead of using photographs, as long as they still are treated as non-free works. (Often we can get SVG from official documents like with the ING Bank logo, but other times they do have to be created from scratch and in such cases we do ask for non-perfect recreations). --MASEM (t) 13:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Image of MS Togo

Is this image of the MS Togo still copyrighted? It must have been taken in 1943 or later, but I have no idea when or where this image might have been published for the first time. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 13:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Gifted art

Suppose you're the owner of a piece of art that was drawn specifically for you as a gift. Do you own the copyright to the image, or the artist? How about if the artist died decades (but less than 70 years) ago? How about also if the art was drawn for someone else, who subsequently gave it to you, and have since themselves died? This is taken from a real-life example; and I'm in the UK, if that helps. — Scott • talk 16:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Normally copyright grant will have to be done in writing. If the artist died without doing this then their heirs own the copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Image that is public domain in France

I refer to the Bibliothèque nationale de France's page for the relevant image of Sir Thomas Beecham: here. If you click on "Informations détaillées" at the top right of the search section the pop-up information box declares the image to be "domaine public". Does this mean that it is permissible to use it in Wikipedia? Grateful for advice. Tim riley (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably PD and free to use. The photo was made by Cannon's of Hollywood in 1930 [1], so if there's no explicit copyright notice the image would be in the public domain in the US. Getty is selling a cropped version [2] but that doesn't have to mean anything. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's very encouraging - thank you! May I ask which PD template would be appropriate in this case? Tim riley (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not automatically mean that, no. This is a problem frequently encountered by users on Wikimedia Commons. The major problem with the Gallica notices is that, while they may be useful about some other informations (author, source, etc.), they are not explicit and not always reliable about the copyright status of the works (that is to say, even about their copyright status in France. The Gallica notices would not be about the copyright status of the works in the U.S.). When one of those notices says that a work is in the public domain, it doesn't tell the reason why it would be so. In some cases, that mention is false and is contradicted by another page of the website describing more explicitely the collection. Basically, you're left with using the other informations, the context, your own knowledge of the copyright laws and your best judment to determine if, and why, a particular work is actually in the public domain or not (in the U.S. if you want to upload it to Wikipedia, or in the U.S. and in the source country of the work if you want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons). The photo of Beecham was created by the British photographer George Frederic Cannons (1897-1972), who worked in California in the 1920's and early 1930's (and apparently moved back to the U.K. in the 1930's). The National Portrait Gallery of the United Kingdom specifies that its works by Cannons are not in the public domain in the U.K. and that their copyright is owned by the estate of G.F. Cannons (see for example this notice). Of course, what you want to know specifically is the copyright status in the U.S. of the photo of Beecham created/published somewhere in the 1930's. For that, you must do the usual tedious research: Where was this photo first published? In the U.K.? In the U.S.? Was it distributed in the U.S. with a valid copyright notice, and if so was its U.S. copyright renewed, etc. It is plausible that portrait photos of this type were correctly copyrighted. The NPG notice hints that the estate is watchful of the copyright in the U.K. and it is likely to be watchful of the copyright in the U.S. if it still exists. You can find the correct answer only after completing the research about the facts. If the facts you find do not show with certainty that this photo is in the public domain in the U.S., it may be best to be cautious. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, dear! I thought it was too good to be true. Never mind! Thank you for your expert advice, nonetheless. Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like copyright infringement?

Looks like this photo was taken from a copyrighted image here: http://www.ctvnews.ca/bank-of-canada-unveils-new-plastic-bills-1.659770 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffc529 (talk • contribs)

Now tagged for deletion on Commons.--ukexpat (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A Fire in the Sky Title Card

The copyright status on the title card image for the article A Fire in the Sky has been changed to denote that the image is in the public domain. When I originally posted this image, I indicated that it was a copyrighted image, because the copyright of Columbia Pictures Television is clearly depicted on it. I'd like someone to review the image and verify the correct status. Cag1970 (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is too simple to qualify for copyright protection, slapping a copyright notice on it doesn't affect that.--ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Free image through e-mail

Hi. I contacted the family of Armando Torres III and they granted me permission to use any of the images they have of Mr. Torres that are found on a Facebook group the family created to locate his whereabouts. His sister sent me an e-mail with the details. I have her permission through Facebook inbox, too. How can I upload a free image of Mr. Torres with this information? ComputerJA (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please communicate the permission to OTRS via the process set out at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Photograph of old coins

Would the image on these page be considered free content:

• http://www.irishcoinage.com/J00083.HTM
• http://www.irishcoinage.com/J00050.HTM

...as a depiction of an out-of-copyrighted three-dimensional work? --RA (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, the photograph is a new copyright because of the light and shadows under the photographer's control, so we'd need the photo to be freely licensed (Obviously, the coins themselves are in the PD). I have read somewhere but I really can't remember where that with coins where typically the indentation is so shallow that sometimes the photograph is considered akin to a slavish reproduction and thus not a new copyright. This might be a question to ask better at Commons to assure of that. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The images on that website are tagged with a copyright notice and do not have a free license. Depending on your analysis, that notice may or may not be universally applicable, as it is possible that this type of images may not generate a copyright in some (or in many) countries. However, by precaution and for simplicity of application, the most common interpretation of the policy on Commons (and I guess probably on Wikipedia) is to treat recently made images, even simple ones, of 3-D objects as copyrightable images and thus non-free unless their maker agrees that they are free. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Photograph of Laura E. Richards

Concerning File:LauraElizabethRichards.jpg, as contributor of this scanned photograph I wanted to help clarify the license issues, but have trouble figuring how this item should be categorized and can't figure where best to post even this information. I had tried to follow Megapixie's flowchart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Megapixie/CopyrightFlowChart/ScannedImage), but again was confused. I purchased two original carte-de-vistes a number of years ago. The photos, which seem to have been taken on the same day (as LER appears to be the same age and seems to be in the same dress/shawl in both) was most likely taken in the mid-1880's. Note, LER was born in 1850, and is probably less than 40 years of age in this photo. LER died Jan 14, 1943, so that is now over 70 years that she has been dead. The carte-de-viste does not have a date. It does identify the photography studio as "McIntosh & Allen, Gardiner, Me.". The photography studio for the second photo (not submitted) is listed as "Cochranes, Corner Water & Bridge Sts., Gardiner, Me." I tried to find more information about these photography studios and to determine the death dates of any of these photographers, but found no solid information. To my knowledge, these photographs were never published but were personal photographs.Jayras (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• If these were never published, you'd have to prove that the image was taken before 1893 (per the Hirtle Chart. Otherwise it would still be copyrighted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Daily Show with John Oliver

The logo I uploaded for The Daily Show with John Oliver was an offshoot of the logo that was previously there. The ONLY Change I made was take out Jon Stewart's name and replace it with John Oliver's name. Unfortunately for me, I don't remember where I can access old versions of the Daily Show's page, because I would gladly add the information required. But I simply don't remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Tempest (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The original logo is at File:Dailyshow logo.svg, but I have a broader question: where is the source that confirms that during Stewart's absence the show will be renamed The Daily Show with John Oliver? If that cannot be confirmed then the old logo should be reinstated and the opening sentence reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln biography cover: PD Simple

Would File:Team of Rivals.jpg, the cover of Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, be PD simple if the illustration on the cover is already PD? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be, the text is very straight forward and the shape is also public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll try to hunt down the provenance of that image then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Uploaded to Commons here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've now deleted the Wikipedia image. There was no point in transferring File:Team of Rivals.jpg to Commons because the existing Commons version is of superior quality. De728631 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we're okay in this case, but a caution that just because a work uses only PD elements and other simple text/shapes to it doesn't necessarily make it PD. PD works can be assembled in a novel fashion to make a work that is copyrightable. I don't think this is the case here (adding text and a few decorative bars isn't enough), but just a caution in the future. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, yeah. If we're talking about someone transposing a PD painting of Zeus' head onto a PD photograph of Pamela Anderson, then adding PD images up the wazoo to in the background, that's liable to be copyrightable; I know that much. My issue is, generally, how high is the TOO? I don't have that much experience with those images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, here if you took the PD image away and look at what's left, that's clearly under TOO. So the addition of the image without any other modification is still likely to be okay. But say if they took the picture and colorized Lincoln, with all other elements the same, that could pose a copyright problem. It's just a caution, not a concern in this specific case. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Right. It's the specific points I have issue with sometimes (last time I asked about PD-Simple, it was for the cover of Theory of Literature back in December, which was a little more involved; this time I asked because of the combination of two different aspects of a work). Anyways, thanks for the input. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Colorizing Lincoln shouldn't matter in the US; even colorizing a whole movie was discussed before the copyright office agreed to register a colorized B&W movie for its own copyright, and they made it clear that colorizing something still didn't give you a copyright outside that special case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Edward Snowden newspaper cover

Hi, some expert advice would be appreciated at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Image. The subject of the article is currently "on the run" and as such a free image is unlikely any time soon. However, while he is alive and free, it is still within the realm of possibility so as I understand it we cannot use a non-free portrait image. As an alternative, I believe the use of File:The Guardian front page 10 June 2013.jpg is appropriate fair use in the context, as the entire reason for Snowden's notability is his appearance in that series of newspaper reports. This seems to meet the criteria of use of newspaper excerpts "to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in question". Please could somebody advise whether this is the case, or suggest alternative action? Thanks, --— Pretzels ^Hii! 20:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you have good grounds here on both as his picture as well as the overall story, since it is that Guardian article that is the one that everyone's pointing to. Using his picture from it is "okay", but if you tack on the aspect of being the story that broke news, you've strongly improved the rationale. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Masem. The clause "it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image" slightly concerns me. It seems to be a grey area.

To complicate things further, the Guardian appear to be distributing official photographs via the EPA agency here. The wording implies they are free to use (not free content) but the site requires a login. — Pretzels ^Hii! 21:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

This is an unusual case, in that 1) the person is now a wanted man, and that lacking any existing free image, we can't assume we'll be able to get one any time soon. and 2) that article is itself part of the notable aspects of the breaking story. (To keep things in mind, you're reading from NFC#UUI which is normally true but as a guideline we consider IAR, and as long as all the other ten points of NFCC (police) are met, we're good. If for some reason a free image of Snowden comes to light, we will need to replace it, but right now we have no assurance of that. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No direct link to WP media?

noicon

With images and soundfiles it is possible to remove the link to the sourcefile (the WP media page, so within WP that is). See the two examples added. This way, it is neigh impossible for a reader to get to the source file from an article page. In the image example: how to get to image:example.svg? An editor raised the issue of the copyright issue, like attribution. His conclusion is: the link must always be available. OTOH, I state that there is no guideline that forces that, and available guidelines pint out how to remove the link: WP:EIS (using size, frame, noicon). The question is: is there a copyright rule that requires the filelink to be present? Is there any guideline that can help us out?

The actual discussion is at Template_talk:IPA_soundbox#Removing_info_links_is_not_an_option (sic) [3]. For now, I concluded that the arguments did not warrant an edit to (try to) install and show the file link, but which disrupted many article pages. I will notify that section to this talk. -DePiep (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who raised the concern. I'd like to stress that this issue has been raised before for audio templates:

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_AJ#Template:Audio
• Template_talk:Audio-nohelp
• Template_talk:Audio/Archive_1
• Template_talk:Audio/Archive_3#Help.2Finfo

The result of some of those discussion was that Template:Audio and Template:Audio-nohelp had at least some sort of link to the file. I was quite surprised to find out that WP:Extended image syntax allows users to remove file links even for images. I'm quite troubled to see that layout options are allowed to casually set aside practical issues of copyright and easy re-use of freely licensed media files.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Brickens

Usually I'm answering questions here but now need other eyes to look at Brickens. A request was made to the WikiProject Ireland to reassess the article but I am rather wary to give advise until I determine some issues. I find it very odd to see embedded links to external images, especially as their copyright status is unknown, which I though was discouraged. Are these acceptable? I personally doubt it. Any comments and advise happily taken. ww2censor (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, not allowed per WP:ELNEVER.--ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sajed.ir

sajed.ir publishes photos of Iran-Iraq war under a Gnu GFDL licence. Some of these photos have been used in different Wikimedia projects. In fact, all these files are copyrighted and the owner has provided an improper licence. Could someone point me out to a page to report this case?Farhikht (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If the images are on Wikipedia, please report them at WP:Copyright problems. If they are on Commons, probably at their admin noticeboard.--ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Image does have a Creative Commons License

The following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Encyclopedia_-_example_of_visualization.jpg has a link saying that it comes from http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/images/netmap_files/netmap_faith/faith_econ_det_det_leg.jpg but the main page for that image is http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs00s/netmap.php, where both the image AND the Creative Commons license figure. How can it be fixed so that the image is not removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_World_Problems_and_Human_Potential ? Please notify me on my talk page. --Robert Daoust (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though it has a CC license, it is CC-BY-NC-SA. The NC term means non-commercial. Wikipedia aims to be freely usable by anyone for any purpose, and the NC restriction was decided (sometime in the past) to be incompatible with that mission. So, as it currently stands, the image cannot be used on Wikipedia unless a valid fair-use rationale can be made. Chris857 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make a valid fair-use rationale. Can someone tell whether it will be sufficient to prevent the image from being removed? --Robert Daoust (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am realizing that this image is not a part of the Encyclopedia of World Problems but of a sister work, and therefore it should be deleted! --Robert Daoust (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What kinds of anonymously published works are in the public domain?

I started an article today about a famous chain-letter hoax, the Jessica Mydek hoax letter. One of the books I used as a reference devoted much of a very long chapter, and part of other chapters, to analyzing the variants of that hoax letter. The author included the full text of the version that she felt, from her analysis, was the original version.

Well, the hoax letter had an (anonymous) author. That author was a criminal, who knew they were a criminal, who knew if they were ever to be indentified as the author of the hoax law enforcement officials would charge them.

So the letter was distributed anonymously.

When a criminal decides to publish a letter anonymously, when they know that if the letter were identified as their work, they would face charges, could it be argued that they have put that letter in the public domain?

If it can be freely re-used it might make sense to include the whole letter in the article.

The letter is about two hundred words long. Here is a link to the page where it was transcribed. Geo Swan (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to assume that unless there is an express release into the public domain, it is subject to copyright.--ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

BBC iPlayer

Am I allowed to upload an image from BBC iPlayer legally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmenon12 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It would almost certainly be subject to copyright, so no, unless the non-free content criteria can be shown to apply.--ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Own work looks like the original logo

About File:Pierre Auger Observatory-logo.svg. It looks like the logo was taken (copied) from the organisation: [4]. Is it OK to tag it as "own work" at WP, then? If not, please take action (I am not familiar with that process). -DePiep (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it's clearly a copyvio and now tagged for deletion as such.--ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting image of a dead person to highlight the article

Got a question for the Akihiko Saito article. He's deceased since he was taken hostage in Iraq and I'm wondering if it'll be a problem to get an image of him to illustrate the article. Thanks. Ominae (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is reasonable to use a non-free image (that otherwise follows non-free content criteria) to illustrate an article on a deceased person. The only concern would be trying to use a press image (like Gettys Images) for this. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I can find some decent photos of Saito here, here and here. Is it okay for me to use photos of him from his IDs and FFL gear? Ominae (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

US copyright renewal

This book was published in the USA in 1938. I'd be interested in looking through copyright renewal records, but I don't know what years to check. What was the time frame within which it was required to be renewed? Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a tight window 28 years after publication. You could check 27, 28, 29 at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ --Canoe1967 (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You can check http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/page?forward=home first; that's a lot easier, if possibly not quite as accurate. http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/search/simple/process?query=+North+Dakota%3A+a+guide+to+the+northern+prairie+state has two entries; the 1950 edition was revised and subsequently renewed, and the Oxford University Press claimed the right to renew the 1938 edition. I was a little surprised; depending on the circumstances it may be worth to poke at the history of the book and who actually wrote it and first published it ("workers of the Federal Writers' Project of the Works Progress Administration for the State of North Dakota" smells like it should be federal government and therefore out of copyright), but initial checks say it was renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

:-( Thanks for doing the research! I don't know why, but the American Guide Series books that I've seen were all copyrighted by some organisation within the jurisdiction that they describe; for example, the Cincinnati guide sitting on my lap says "Copyright 1943 by the City of Cincinnati, Ohio". Perhaps these were done concurrently by federal and state/local people, so that they weren't 100% works of the US government? Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Signatures

{{PD-signature}} doesn't make sense. If the signature is too simple ({{PD-simple}}) to be copyrighted in the US, the it wouldn't matter if the US has copyright relations with the originating country, but this template requires that you state that the originating country also clears it of copyright. This would be the same as making {{PD-shape}} and {{PD-text}} require that you clear it to be clear of copyright in the originating country, which is not always true either. Shouldn't PD-shape and PD-text also require the source country indication then, or shouldn't PD-signature remove it, if not. The indication of source country limitations should use {{Do not move to commons}} or else there should be US-variants for these templates {{PD-US-signature}} , {{PD-US-shape}} , {{PD-US-text}} , {{PD-US-simple}}

-- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You might want to discuss your concerns at Template talk:PD-signature. The discussion there so far is mostly over privacy rights of living people. —teb728 t c 05:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Though, that would only cover PD-signature, not the associated PD-shape/PD-text/PD-simple ; is there a copyright notice board to handle all of it together, instead of split across every template talk page? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg

I had originally loaded File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg at commons under {{PD-ineligible}}. I thought that letters and shapes were ineligible for copyrighting. The image was deleted from commons as a copyvio. What gives.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I got the image restored at commons and there is now a debate at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free image of Jiroemon Kimura

Would this image satisfy WP:NFCC#2 in the infobox in Jiroemon Kimura? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If you reduce the resolution significantly then it should work. De728631 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would counter that. The odds are you can find someone with an image of this person that is willing to release it under a free license. Werieth (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a good chance and I would strongly encourage looking for that opportunity, but per how NFCC#1, we have no assurance that one of these existing images can be made free (either finding it already free or convincing the copyright owner to make it free), and with him passed away, we can't make a new free. So this would fall into the case where NFCC#1 is met exactly. However, I do believe a few months ago we talked about at WT:NFC] a period of time (like a few months) after the death of a person to engage a search for free media, considering the respect we need to give grieving family, before resorting to a non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, a Google image search turned up no freely licensed images. Thus one would need to contact a copyright holder of an image to get a freely licensed one. Do we have a centralized process for this, or would I need to do this myself? (Not sure yet whether I would actually do it though, if that were necessary). -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Bennett Greenspan - CEO FTDNA & Managing Partner Gene by Gene.jpg

I am trying to add a picture of Bennett Greenspan to the article about the same. I checked the web for images, noted that most do not have copyright information posted or are under strict copyright, and contacted Mr. Greenspan for approval of a picture that has in the past been on his company website. He approved the image I uploaded. I flagged it as copyrighted, because it is. However, right to free Wikipedia use was granted. The image has been flagged as in violation. I tried asking polite questions. After some back and forth, I feel like I am being heckled but am not getting answers. Please help. What exactly do I need to do to make this image OK by Wikipedia standards? :-( --RebekahThorn (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

THe basic requirement is free to use for everyone including commercial use, and also permission to modify / make derivatives. (So not just for Wikipedia) The WP:CC-BY-SA-3.0 license has suitable conditions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello I eventually on my own found the valid Wikipedia steps to send the article subject the right form. My objection is to the unprofessional and unhelpful behavior of the person who flagged my attempt to upload something *in good faith.* It will be a very long time before I contemplate freely spending my time editing Wikipedia again. Perhaps someday it will return to a friendly helpful place?--RebekahThorn (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There are helpful people on Wikipedia. Seek them out, and things will go better. (There are also jerks here too, but that's life.) – Quadell ^(talk) 17:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

An OTRS ticket has been received and approved. It's now validly licenced under CC-BY-SA-3.0. NtheP (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Primegrid logo.png

I would like to perform the move of this file to Commons. Before that is happening, however, I'd like to be clear about the copyright status, especially whether this logo might be below WP:TOO or not. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

IMHO this passes the threshold of originality so it is non-free. ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's very possible that this would indeed be deemed eligible for copyright protection. Or it might not... but it's best to be safe. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I tagged the file as non-free and added a rationale. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Image removed (Siri Neal Page)

Korpsekeeper (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Hi there

I recently uploaded this image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Siri_Neal_TV_Film_Actress.jpg

I was asked to add entry to explain why it shouldn't be deleted which I did but the image has still been removed.

It is not clear (to a non techy) on how to do this.

I have been given permission by Naxo to use this image as it is a widely available publicity photograph.

Please can this be reinstated asap.

Thank you.Korpsekeeper (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to tell you that permission for use in Wikipedia is not enough; Wikipedia requires a free license (i.e. permission that allows reuse by anyone for anything). As a matter of policy non-free content may not be used if a free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Since Siri Neal is a living person, a free equivalent could be created. So no, the image could not be reinstated.

Maybe you could take a photo of her yourself. Or maybe you could get a free license from the copyright owner; see WP:COPYREQ for how to handle that. —teb728 t c 05:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of image on different language wiki

Could someone inform me whether the image File:NDP Night.jpg, used in the English Wikipedia article, can be used in the Norwegian article also? Please copy reply to my talk page. Thanks. --Peulle (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

File:NDP Night.jpg is a non-free image (one that is not licensed under a free license). By Wikimedia Foundation policy, non-free content can be used only in a project with an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). Since the English Wikipedia EDP, WP:NFCC, does not seem to have a Norwegian equivalent, I would conclude that Norwegian Wikipedia does not accept non-free content. —teb728 t c 04:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Tennis photos 1912

I would like to upload a few photos from the commemorative booklet "1912 souvenir of the International Lawn Tennis Championship and tour of the first British Isles team : challenge tie British Isles v. Australasia at Melbourne, Victoria on 28th, 29th and 30th November, 1912." and use them to illustrate a number of tennis articles. The booklet was published in Australia (Sydney) in 1912 by the Lawn Tennis Association of Australasia but I cannot find the name of an author. The images do not mention the name of a photographer. I found a document from the State Library of Victoria which mentions that the copyright expires "70 years after the end of the year in which the creator died" but as I do not know who the creator is my question is can I use these photos and, if so, what would be the applicable license tag?. Thx.--Wolbo (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The pictures are in the public domain in both Australia and the US. Australia because they were taken or published prior to 1 January 1955 (see {{PD-Australia}} and in the US because it was published outside the US prior to 1 January 1923 (see {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}). As the author(s) of the text is/are unknown, the same would apply, the whole document is old enough to be public domain in both countries. NtheP (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thx for the response. --Wolbo (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

General education film

I wonder if I can view the film General Education. On the page, it is said that I have to login but no where to login. Sripen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.200.26.47 (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a film called General Education, but you can't watch the film on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Free alternative for Jiaxing-Shaoxing_Sea_Bridge

I have uploaded an image File:Jixang-shaoxing sea bridge in china.jpg to link it to the article - Jiaxing-Shaoxing Sea Bridge. I received a notice from one of the reviewers that it would be removed in 2 days as it is no-free. Where should I search for free alternative of this image?Svpnikhil (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of things you can do. Creative Commons has a search where you might find a free image. Flickr provides ways to browse and search for free images. Or, of course, any Wikipedians who live nearby could take a photograph and upload it. Regardless, however, we can't use a non-free photo of that bridge here on Wikipedia; we'll have to wait until someone finds or creates a free one. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I notice the bridge just opened a few days ago. I'll bet some people upload free images soon. After all, we have plenty of free images of the nearby Hangzhou Bay Bridge. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Image licensing questions

I uploaded three images which where not mine but were licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License which means I was free to share and remix as long as I attribute and share alike. The images can be seen under this link: File:DSC05760 Stitch second version.jpg, File:Winnipeg from Above second version.jpg, and File:SteepRockCliffs second version.jpg. I was wondering if I have licensed these properly on their page. Please help me as I don't want them to be deleted (They are scheduled for deletion by Saturday, June 29th, 2013).

--Jd.101 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

After adding the copyright tags, all you had to do was remove the {{untagged}} tag. I did it for you. —teb728 t c 03:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike Gatto

Is it ok to use File:CA Assemblyman Mike Gatto.jpg on the Mike Gatto page? I've been unable to verify the copyright status. The description page says it's public domain but the source url given is a redirect to a web site with a "All Rights Reserved" copyright notice on it. The guy who posted the photo won't say where he got it from. Or should I be asking this at Wikimedia Commons? Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a commmons hosted image so questions should really be directed there but the image licence looks ok assuming the California claim is valid, as I think it is, even with the copyright claim on the source website. ww2censor (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Concerns over File:ITV Regions 2013 On Air branded names (correction).png

The above media file has this non-free use rationale:

Note that in the source section, this work is owned by the creator, but he has it copyrighted. It has not been used outside of Wikipedia before upload, but he has a copyright tag for it. Should this be investigated further? Image2012 (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC).

Could be free and just a misunderstanding of licences. Have you asked the author? PS If it is non free we can't display it on this page ass it doesn't have a fair use rationale for this page. NtheP (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's clearly a free image created by a Wikipedian, who incorrectly put a non-free use rationale on it. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

2006 permissions standards

In February 2006, did we permit images with WP-only permissions? File:Reed-College-Eliot-Hall-fall-lrg.jpg has the text of a permissions email at the bottom (OTRS didn't yet exist) that gives explicit permission for WP use but neither explicitly permits other uses nor restricts usage to Wikipedia. I didn't register until six months later and I never uploaded images (other than from my own camera) for a long time after that, so I don't remember what we did; all I know is that this (1) wouldn't be in compliance with contemporary policy, but (2) in the early days we were much more open to accepting content than we are now. Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been a Wikipedian for over ten years, and I don't think we ever accepted images which were free only for Wikipedia to use. The Five pillars have been around in roughly their current form since 2005, and they talk about how it's a core value that all of Wikipedia can be reused by anyone. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We used to have a template Template:PermissionAndFairUse, which at least since September 2005 made it quite clear that WP-only permission was not sufficient and that such items would have to count as non-free. ("This work is copyrighted. The individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, and subsequent persons who place it into articles assert that this qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law. It is also used with permission on Wikipedia, but is not under a free license, and may not be fair use for all third-party users."). In early 2006, this template was already deprecated per [5]. Template:Non-free with permission was created in October 2005 and from the start said that it could only be used in conjunction with another more explicit fair-use tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agency regulated to food security

Agence of food security — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.11.38 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC needs outside comment.

See Talk:Sousveillance for an RFC on the use of a picture which needs outside comment. The picture itself doesn't have any copyright issues, but as people with a general interest in files and pictures frequent this noticeboard, I thought that someone may be interested in looking into it. Any additional comments would be useful to prevent an edit war and help provide resolution. Thanks. --Jayron32 23:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

image uploads

i have a few images i would like to use that i received from a company i work for. These are historic photos of an old mill that is still in use i would like to add them to the wiki article. How do i go about this and what info do i need to get from the company to prove copy rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaisyFlours (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There are instructions at WP:CONSENT that outline how to do this, which basically involve having the company send email to our ticket system to affirm the use of the images here. Assuming that they are not old enough to be out of copyright (roughly, anything later than 1923) ,they would need to allow us to use the images in a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, which is what that email would affirm. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

images use

can I use images from wikipedia on a book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.55.25 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Reusing Wikipedia content for more information on that topic and Commons:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for images stored at the Wikimedia Commons project. Always check the image summary of any given image to find the uploader's exact license permission and possible more details to the image. GermanJoe (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Can altered US Navy photo be recovered?

The first image at http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/issues/archives/issue_47/torpedo.html is a US Navy photograph, but the photo has been overwritten with the title of the article ("The Hard Lessons of World War II Torpedo Failures").

Consequently, my impression is WP cannot use the image because the added title makes it a derivative work. Correct?

Can I black out the added text to make an ugly but free image?

There's also an artifact in the upper right corner; I'm not sure what it is. Glrx (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that with or without the title the image is PD. The original photo is credited as a work of the US federal governnemt. And even in the unlikely event that the titled photo was not also a work of the federal government, the text is too simple to be copyrightable. —teb728 t c 06:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You could use it (as explained by teb728), but you probably shouldn't. Leaving the text is not a good option (WP:WATERMARK). Editing out the text with black boxes doesn't look particularly good—and I wouldn't do it—but it wouldn't be wrong if the image was important to the article. More sophisticated image manipulation, while not wrong either, probably isn't worth it for this low-resolution image. (Either way, acknowledge manipulations with Template:RetouchedPicture.) This book may be a possible source for the original photo, as would be the editorial staff of the magazine. TheFeds 07:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WBAL logo.

Commons-hosted File:WBAL Logo 2013.png may not be suitable on it, as it has a 3D look. I saw this replace File:WBAL.svg. Is it true that this violates Commons free media policy? Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) T | C Member: WP:TVS 00:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I nominated the Commons logo for deletion. —teb728 t c 06:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I restored the deletion nomination because of a dubious PD tag. (But despite the 3-D style, it may not meet the threshold of originality; it might be worth discussing at the deletion page.) TheFeds 08:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the Python Software Foundation License compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license?

Why? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "compatible". The PSFL only covers "Python 2.7.5 software in source or binary form and its associated documentation", and cannot be used for anything else, so you can't take a cc-by-sa licensed book or photo and pretend it's available under the PSFL; it's not. Further, PSFL software can be modified and republished under a non-free license, so you can't assume PSFL software is available under the cc-by-sa licenes; it's not. But they might be compatable in the sense that if you have source code licensed under a cc-by-sa license, and you have other source code licensed under the PSFL, you might be able to combine them and republish the combined software (under a cc-by-sa license) without violating either original license. But I'm not even 100% sure that would be valid. Is that what you're asking? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I want to add text in the Python documentation to a Wikipedia article. Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC) (In fact, not just Python 2.7.5 is licensed under the PSF license. The version in the license is the version that the Python documentation documents.)

I'm not a lawyer, but I think so, yes. I believe any documentation can be used in a Wikipedia article, and that article can still be released under the cc-by-sa license. You may need to have "Copyright © 2001-2013 Python Software Foundation; All Rights Reserved" in a footnote or something. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, section 4.b:

You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g., Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible License. If you license the Adaptation under one of the licenses mentioned in (iv), you must comply with the terms of that license. If you license the Adaptation under the terms of any of the licenses mentioned in (i), (ii) or (iii) (the "Applicable License"), you must comply with the terms of the Applicable License generally and the following provisions: (I) You must include a copy of, or the URI for, the Applicable License with every copy of each Adaptation You Distribute or Publicly Perform; (II) You may not offer or impose any terms on the Adaptation that restrict the terms of the Applicable License or the ability of the recipient of the Adaptation to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the Applicable License; (III) You must keep intact all notices that refer to the Applicable License and to the disclaimer of warranties with every copy of the Work as included in the Adaptation You Distribute or Publicly Perform; (IV) when You Distribute or Publicly Perform the Adaptation, You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Adaptation that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Adaptation from You to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the Applicable License. This Section 4(b) applies to the Adaptation as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Adaptation itself to be made subject to the terms of the Applicable License.

Python Software Foundation license, section 3:

In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on or incorporates Python or any part thereof, and wants to make the derivative work available to others as provided herein, then Licensee hereby agrees to include in any such work a brief summary of the changes made to Python.

Do you consider the requirement to add a brief summary of the changes a term that restricts your ability to exercise the permissions granted under CC-BY-SA 3.0? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about including Python documentation is a Wikipedia article, then that documentation is covered by the PSFL, but the article would not be "a derivative work that is based on or incorporates Python or any part thereof". It would incorporate Python documentation, but not Python itself. (No changes are made to "Python", so no summary of changes could be made.) On the other hand, if you wanted to incorporate the source code for Python in an article, then I don't think that would be particularly encyclopedic.

Even if "Python or any part thereof" were construed to include documentation and "changes made to Python" were construed to include changes to the documentation (and I don't think that's the case) -- even then, why would an encyclopedic Wikipedia article make changes to the documentation? Wouldn't it be a quote? Maybe I'm not understanding the sort of use you have in mind, and again, I'm not a lawyer; I'm just basing this on the plain reading of both licenses within circumstances that Wikipedia could find itself. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If I copy Python documentation to the Python textbook on Wikibooks, will I be violating the CC-BY-SA? Note that the requirement to add a brief summary of the changes is very easy, so it does not constitute a "restriction to exercise the rights". Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

In my layman's analysis, that would be fine. (Any changes would be "briefly" summarized in the edit summaries anyway.) But I'm far from the final word on the matter. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

non free image Paula Seling.png

Excuse me, i am Consiliul, and i am new in Wikipedia policy, and is very hard because nobody wants to help me, and i want only to improve the image of Romanian celebrities. Yes, here i do a terrible mistake i will try to delete the fair use,and non free media use rationales, and i will try to repleace the license with this: Creative Commons Atribuire și distribuire în condiții identice 2.0 Generică, and then the administrators can check, that this file is on Flickr, on a free license.

Please help me, means a lot for me, to keep this image with Paula, is a beautiful photo with her, and i think is an emblem for Wikipedia article with her.

Thank you, and exuse me for interrupting , and for me mistake as a new begginner.

A nice day , i wait an answer. User:Consiliul

Hello. I understand that you want to improve the articles on Romanian celebrities, and that's great. But we simply can't use non-free images of living people, no matter what. No matter how you "tag" the photo, and no matter what information you put on the image description page, we won't be able to use most photos of living celebrities, no matter how good the photos look.

If you want quality images of celebrities, there are a couple of things you could do. (1) You could take a photo of the celebrity yourself, at a press event or book signing or whatever. Then, since you created the photo, you could license it under a Creative Commons license. This happens all the time. (2) You could find a photo that someone else made, and you can e-mail the photographer and ask if the photographer is willing to license the photo under a Creative Commons license. It can be difficult to do this, but we have an instruction guide at Wikipedia:Requesting free content.

(The one thing you must never do, however, is upload a photo that you did not create (that you found on the internet) and tag it as if you created it and license it yourself. You don't have the right to license photos that aren't yours, and doing so is fraudulent.)

I wish you luck in getting free images of important people. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Jerry G. Angelo

Hi I received permission from Jerry G. Angelo to use his likenesses, and images as needed exclusively for Wikipedia. Please advise as to whom Mr. Angelo needs to send the authorization for the aforementioned.

Best Regards,

Beverly Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.249.234 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Consult WP:CONSENT for instructions and a sample authorization. Note that authorization "exclusively for Wikipedia" isn't sufficient, but you may find one of the licences listed on that page satisfactory. TheFeds 20:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)