Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/May

need some help on Copyright photo

I posted a picture taken around 1935 by George Boynton. George sent the photo as a gift to my Mother-in-Law , Elizabeth Boynton around 1935. Elizabeth Boynton, my Mother-in-law gave the picture to me shortly before her death. She and her brother are now deceased. Under what conditions can I post this picture on wikipedia?. It was taken down due to copyright violations. It is a great historic picture and should be available. It was taken from the top of tower 3 before the roadbed was constructed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZiggyGT (talk • contribs) 01:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not who has possession of a photo but who holds the copyright. Having been gifted a photo and you having inherited the photo did not give you or your mother-in-law any copyrights unless those rights were specifically transferred. Photographers usually retain the copyright in their work, unless it was work-for-hire. So the issue will be where George Boynton was from or took the photo and when he died, and if the photo was ever published. It is unlikely, though possible, that is has fallen out of copyright but without more details we cannot make a determination. I can't find any information on your George Boynton, though there is one on Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin which I doubt are the one and another born in 1937 who most likely did not take a photo a 2 years of age. Good luck and let us know here if you find out more. ww2censor (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

{{PD-text}} vs copyright notice

I am working on a project covering Indic scripts, and I've come across a source of images of a rare and little known script called Tocharian. The problem is that this source contains the only comprehensive collection of Tocharian letters I have been able to find, but it contains the pseudo-copyright disclaimer "No parts of this document may be republished in any form without prior permission by the copyright holder." So I'd like to get some feedback on whether I need to go through the process of getting permission from the writer of this page, or whether as simple letter forms, these images (though not the page contents itself) are simply ineligible for copyright under {{PD-text}}, and can be uploaded with impunity. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 22:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Tocharian is millennia old; there was no such thing as copyright when these letters were created. Tag them as {{PD-old}}; the only reason that Commons:Template:PD-ancient-script is not a good idea is that it's apparently meant just for SVGs, rather than for all images of ancient scripts. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

PD-ineligible?

Just ran across File:ESC 1990 logo.png — how can this be {{PD-ineligible}}? I would take it to PUF, but I don't want it to be deleted; it's the logo of an organisation and we're using it in that organisation's article, so assuming that it's nonfree, the correct solution is retagging instead of deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You may want to review Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision/Archive 9#Proposal to re-license most Eurovision logos as public domain before going to PUF. Personally I agree with the PD on enwiki. If it were considered non-free it could rely only be used in the infobox of the specific article. Either way it stays. ww2censor (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Soham murder victims image

A question has arisen over a widely-used image of the two victims of the Soham murders, taken only a few hours before the girls were killed (Sohamchapmanandwells.jpg) has just been mentioned in the Guardian [1] and on the Society of Editors website, [2] with regard to a possible copyright issue. In brief, it is argued that the image remains copyright of one of the girl's parents, who has asked that the image no longer be used. Given this question regarding the copyright status of the image, I have removed it from the article, and suggest that we no longer use it at least until it can be ascertained that the image isn't copyright, though I'd suggest that regardless of copyright issues, we should at least give strong consideration to complying with the parents' wishes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If one of the parents took the image, then the copyright resides with them unless they assigned it to someone else or licensed it. In the circumstances and as its copyright status appears to be unclear, I agree that removing it from the article and tagging it for deletion as an non-free orphaned image is entirely appropriate.--ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When the image has been used by the likes of the Daily Mail it is credited and marked as copyright PA Wire/Press Association images so at some point copyright may have been assigned to PA, certainly used by the media as the "standard" image when discussing the murders. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Do I have to add ANOTHER non-free use rationale?

I recently uploaded this file and filled out what I thought was everything. However, there is now an image underneath it saying Please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. and one other thing. I'm not going to reuse it again, but should section that be there? I noticed none of the other computer image screenshots I've seen have that underneath it. TinyEdit (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No you don't, just one rationale for each article where the file is used. I have added the |image has rationale=yes parameter to the licensing template to fix that.--ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That image might be below the threshold of originality for copyright protection. It is essentially a trapezoid, a rectangle, a 1/4 and 3/4 circle and two parallel horizontal lines. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the image on the coin covered?

The blog source [3] supplies a CC3 license (amended with : "with intended use on Wikipedia and similar reference web sites, for use in book reviews, and in book catalogs. The rights to larger or higher resolution images are reserved and are granted only upon request.") Presumably the blogger/author James Wesley Rawles of the book has the rights to release the covers of his books, but is there sufficient evidence that the 2d image on the coin is his copyright to release? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Who made the coin? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont know and it doesnt say on the blog or in the article where the pic is used. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

See this shop website [[4]], which claims to distribute the coin (note: haven't checked further). GermanJoe (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This company claims to have designed the coin, so I guess we should better convert the license to a fair use rationale. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

except there is no fair use rationale that is appropriate, there is no discussion of the coin in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Scientific graph

I'm rewriting our article on the Hayashi track, and I want to include a few graphs from a book on stellar evolution to illustrate it. The graphs are black and white (not even grayscale) with only a few lines on them. Can I do this? Which fair use rationale would this fall under? Should I just get the data somehow and use matplotlib to generate my own plots, because they'll look much better? If I do this, can I claim the graphs as my own work and license them until the Creative Commons license?

Thanks in advance for everyone who responds. I'm not at all familiar with copyright, and I'd much rather continue writing the article than spend 5 hours researching copyright issues. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the answers to any of your questions, but there may be a really basic way of cutting your Gordian knot. Their website makes me suspect that the journal was being published in the USA at the time that the two references currently in the article were published. Can you confirm this? In case you're not sure of how to do this: there should be some spot near the start or end that tells you how to contact the editors. Next, is there a copyright notice? Anything published in the USA in the 1960s without a copyright notice is automatically in the public domain, so you'd have every right to include those graphs. As I said, no comment otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! Unfortunately I'm not planning to use either of those papers because they're significantly out of date. The first of those papers, by Hayashi himself, announced the discovery of the Hayashi track. The papers are historically significant, but modern computational results are far more accurate. Instead, I'm planning to use graphs from these books:

Stellar Structure and Evolution (2nd edition), by Kippenhahn, R. and Weigert

Stellar Interiors: Physical Principles, Structure, and Evolution, by Hansen, C.J., Kawaler, S.D., and Trimble, V. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as you can replace an image with a freely licensed equivalent, a non-free version can't be used. So I suggest you go ahead and try to redraw the figures with matplotlib using the original data. You might then want to credit the original authors with "redrawn after Kippenhahn and Weigert" or something. De728631 (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Does PD-FLGov apply to localities?

I noticed today a big ugly copyright tag at Miami Gardens, Florida. I looked in history and saw that the seal had been removed from the article, replaced with the big ugly red circle, and then deleted as an orphan. This isn't how we do things on so many levels. The source website - http://www.miamigardens-fl.gov/ - does claim "Copyright 2009 City of Miami Gardens", but am I correct that under Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, this seal should be considered public domain anyway? --B (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works. Moved to Commons. Now we just need someone to move the old revisions which were wrongly deleted as F5 so that the conditions for WP:CSD#F8 are satisfied. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the only other version that matters so that you can put it on Commons. The latest one was someone's idea of scaling down an SVG (an absurd idea) and looked absolutely terrible. I think that the practice at Commons is that the orange version of the logo at a different filename (as opposed to in the file history of this logo). --B (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've moved it there using User:Magog the Ogre's tool. I'm not sure what you mean with scaling it down. It could mean either changing the default resolution (makes no sense: it still contains the same information) or removing some elements from the SVG code (may make the image look horrible). --Stefan2 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have pointed the article at the one in Commons, so nothing is pointing to File:Miami Gardens Seal.svg. I have restored the third version of the image for you to review. When it displays the default size of the SVG, it's 35x35, which is of course useless. Obviously, it's a vector image, so it will display as whatever size you want it to be. But it's there, so if you want to send this third version to Commons, you can, otherwise let me know and I'll hit the delete button. Thanks. --B (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

threshold of originality

Could anyone tell me whether images like this one fall under the threshold of originality for copyright protection: File:Logo MinSalud.png ? They use only bare elements, in this case the Futura typeface, a pantone blue colour, a circle and a rectangle shapes, and the Coat of Arms, which I believe is okay as per this.

At the moment I have uploaded the file under a fair use rationale, but I want to use the image in other articles and use under a Template:PD-ineligible. mijotoba (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether this image is below or above the threshold seems to depend solely on whether the emblem with the eagle is copyrighted and if so, whether it's use in this logo is de minimis or not. There are the following possibilities:

• the whole logo is eligible for copyright protection and is copyrighted
• the eagle logo is (for whatever reasons) in the public domain and this logo is therefore ineligible for copyright protection (because the elements other than the eagle don't make this work original enough)
• the eagle logo is (for whatever reasons) in the public domain but the combination of the elements make the new logo eligible for a new copyright
• the eagle logo is copyrighted, but it's use in this logo is only de minimis and so the new logo is ineligible for a separate copyright

I am not sure which one of those possibilities applies. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The eagle image is actually not a logo but the coat of arms of Colombia. The heraldic descriptions of coats of arms are usually not copyrighted, and that's why there are some individual depictions of the Colombian COA at Commons. The specific interpretation used in File:Logo MinSalud.png is however copyrighted to a certain artist and apparently there is nothing like PD-ColombiaGov. One could now argue that it was possible to redraw the logo using a coat of arms under a free license from Commons, so we wouldn't need a non-free version. But imo such a custom-made logo would deviate too much from the official icon used by the ministry. Therefore I think that the current practice with a fair use rationale is the best solution. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-free image for a biography's lead

Can some others consider the rationale for a photo of Armand Assante, to see if his bio can use a non-free image? As there are many bios of living persons without free images, doesn't the very existence of a bio in a non-profit encyclopedia provide a "fair use" rationale when nothing free is available? Thanks for any input.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The "advantage" of living people is that anyone could possibly take a photo of them and release it under a free license. So. non-free photos of living people are theoretically replaceable, and that's why we don't accept them. De728631 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hostage photo of Robert Levinson

Sorry that my English is not good. Could hostage photos of Robert Levinson that is sent to Levinson's family anonymously, like the one in [5], upload to Wikipedia? If the answer is yes, should it be under fair use? Or should Levinson's family members release it under some free license?--Netsonfong (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If those images were truly of Iranian origin, they wouldn't be copyrighted in the US since there are no copyright agreements with Iran [6]. But currently the origin of the photos seems to be unknown, so I wouldn't bet on that. However, there is already a non-free image from that series in the article: File:Robert-Levinson.png, so we can't use any more non-free photos of him. And since the Levinson family are not the creators of the photos they can't release them either. De728631 (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

has copyright licence been obtained

a picture appears in facebook that has been taken from newborn wikipedia, and used with "like" link. Any person liking this have the persons photos from their page appear on their page where friends of friends and others can view your private photos. Not only this by pressing the like button all persons that done so, pages can be accessed by strangers. when clicking on the picture It can be assumed it was a wikipedia article, The site defending this intrusion of privacy say it is a facebook site and nothing we can do. I did however question the copyright licence issue of a picture pasted from the Wikipedia page newborn. A beautiful picture of a very young child, As there is no answer to this could you please tell me if facebook or Photo Canvas have obtained the licence to use this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.184.44 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you could provide a link to either the Facebook page in question or the image here at Wikipedia. Otherwise we can't say anything about the specific license. De728631 (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that this is in relation to earlier posts at Wikipedia:Help desk#Newborn Babies on facebook and Wikipedia:Help desk#facebook page called about babies. Once again, there seems to be confusion between Wikipedia and Facebook. We have no connection with Facebook, and have no control whatsoever over their content. They are however entitled to use many images from Wikipedia, under the relevant licence conditions, as has already been explained. Material on Wikipedia is under Creative Commons license, which expressly permits reuse as long as the material is properly attributed. Unless you are claiming that the image is hosted here in violation of copyright, there is is nothing we can do. If you are claiming that the image is copyright, please provide the necessary details - i.e. the original source of the image and/or the name of the copyright holder. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No Line on the Horizon Box Set

Is it OK if I upload some copyrighted picture of the cover of an album to use it in the main article of it ONLY?  Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking that is correct. See WP:NFCC and {{Non-free album cover}}.--ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding PD images to En-WP vs. Commons

Numerous valuable PD images were recently mass deleted based on a single editor's rationale that the reverse side must be shown. My question is basically whether I can upload these and other PD images to En-WP and just skip Commons in the future? They seem to have little clarity about U.S. copyright law. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The same logic would apply that if we on en.wiki can't see the backside to verify there's no copyright markings, we can't assume them PD here either. --MASEM (t) 01:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Should I assume that you're giving an arbitrary rule, since another editor commented that they uploaded over 30,000 images and have never seen any such rule? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We assume any image uploaded is non-free unless you can reasonably prove that it is free. (we do no harm tagging what actually may be free as non-free, but if we accidentally tag free something that actually is not, that can be a potential legal problem). This is why including source links can be important for some images. Since we're talking about a claim that no copyright text was on the photograph, the only demonstratable way of showing this would be to show both the front and the back of the image. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out a few times on the Commons ANI (linked above), a number of the deleted images did in fact show both the front and back. Nor did the blitz-tagger tag the images or notify the uploader as required, or even respond to my questions on their talk page afterwards. So it's obvious to at least this editor, that the "reverse-image" issue is a red herring. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If they are deleting images that had front and back and w/o markings, that's an issue to take up on commons; we have no power how they run things. Mind you, the same behavior would be condoned here as well if an editor did that type of deletion w/o notification or a chance for the editor to justify it. However, that aspect has no comment on the requirement that we see front and back to verify the PDness. --MASEM (t) 03:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I also mentioned at the Commons ANI, reasons why that kind of apparently arbitrary new requirement, requiring a reverse image, would go directly against the Precautionary principle, an "Official policy" on the commons. And while I do add them when available, as in this image or this one, they serve no purpose as any ownership rights are printed on the front in almost all cases. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"In almost all cases" meaning there's cases where its not. We cannot toe that line if there's fringe cases that could get us in trouble. --MASEM (t) 03:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you don't agree with the Precautionary Principle, which states that only where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted. You're implying that even a 1 in 1,000 chance that something might be printed on the back, would provide "significant doubt." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Particularly if we can't see the backside and it falls into that range of copyright years where things would normally be marked copyrighted. You're missing reading that as saying "if there's no significant doubt, the image should be kept." as that is not explicitly stated. Mind you, I'm all for proper warning and review of potentially problematic images (these would fall into it) and believe that you should have been notified, but what you're arguing about the Precautionary Principle is not true. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of that is not exactly clear. I've been uploading PD images from all periods of the 20th century, until the law changed. What "range of copyright" are you referring to? I've seen copyright notices (on the front only) for all periods. As for the Precautionary principle, my comment quoting the rule, simply assumes that an image is either kept or deleted - one or the other. There's no gray area I can see. Therefore, if there's no "significant doubt," it would be kept.

How about simply pointing to any discussions or guidelines or anything else that supports this new requirement, that a reverse-side image should be uploaded. The question has been posted to the Commons ANI for many hours, with no such support besides the mass deleter. And if you honestly feel that some of the images mentioned should not have been deleted, and that notice and proper DR should have been made, feel free to say so there. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If those deletions happened here, on en.wiki, I woudl defend them because I'm well versed in image deletion policies; I have no idea on commons outside of the fact there is deletion discussions and that there's no non-free allowance period. I assume there's some deletion review process however.

You are mistaken to say there is no gray zone. There's nothing that suggests that if there is not significant doubt about the freeness of an image we should keep it; I would assume it is up to the deleting editor to decide that; the only actionable statement is to delete if there is significant doubt. --MASEM (t) 05:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you, or anyone, give an example of "hard, textual evidence" that a photo is PD? My understanding is that an image dated between 1923 and 1977, for example, and published without a copyright notice, is automatically in the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. Therefore, how is "hard, textual evidence" presented? By showing such an image without a copyright notice, I assume.

Nonetheless, one editor recently stated, Unless we have some hard, textual evidence that these files are indeed PD, . . . I'm going to nuke the lot of them. Any suggestions? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Since the argument used is that the image may have the copynight notice on the reverse side, then both sides of such photos should be provided as the best evidence. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Two points: first, that comment was not made in reference to seeing the reverse side of anything, and was essentially a general comment regarding my uploads. Second point, I want to make sure I'm moving images correctly. I first uploaded a PD image to En WP, with a different file name, then added a "speedy" tag to the same image on Commons. I next edited any articles using the file with the new name. Is that a proper procedure, as I plan on moving many, if not most images to En WP, to avoid further arbitrary deletions without rationale or notice. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think that en.WP administrators shouldn't hesitate to delete files here that were moved here to escape review on Commons. You're moving the problem around, not dealing with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not moving them to escape review, but to make sure they are reviewed before being mass deleted, aka "nuked." Eighteen and counting valuable PD images were summarily deleted without a tag, notice, or review. It was only by accident that I even discovered they were deleted, along with all source links, etc. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that you've had a history both at en.wiki (per Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Wikiwatcher1) and at commons, I would suspect that doing this would be considered gaming the system and rather pointy, and ergo would be cause for more blocks and bans. Second, there is a DR like process at commons which you need to engage, as reading through their deletion policy, (and barring any specific remedies on you there - the CCI here doesn't apply) you should have had 7 days to fix these, so the DR is completely in line. And as a third point, in reading the CCI on you, I can point to exactly when that new "rule" was added, specifically when MRG got lawyer feedback that stated the requirements to assert PD-ness of images, circa Dec '11. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Would this be fair use?

There is some support for adding an image to the article Ed, Edd n Eddy that would show the main characters of that series making a cameo appearance in Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. I'm pretty sure that the general policy on Wikipedia is that screenshots are only allowed to be used in articles where the primary focus is on the work that the image was taken from. Might there possibly be an exception in this case though, since the main characters of the series that the article is about would appear in the image? --Jpcase (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It might meet fair use if the appearance is the subject of critical commentary e.g. highlighting the different animation methods of McCracken (Foster's) and Antonucci (E, E & E). NtheP (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the sentence is, "They appeared in an episode of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends and were drawn using that series' style of animation." Would this be enough to justify fair use? --Jpcase (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really, you need to consider all the non-free content criteria but I'm thinking especially of #8 and does an image add to the readers understanding and is the image the subject of critical commentary. So are there any sources that could be used to reference this statement and also compare it to series own animation style? NtheP (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

regarding the uploading of image

File:Navaneeta krishna in thiruvellarai,trichy.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Navaneeta_krishna_in_thiruvellarai,trichy.JPG#filelinks This PHOTOGRAPH OF NAVANEETA KRISHNA IS FROM SRIAADHI THIRUVELLARAI PUNDARIKASHA PERUMAL TEMPLE AT THIRUVELLARAI TAMILNADU IN INDIA I TOOK A SHOT OF IMAGE FROM TEMPLE WALLS I HAVE UPLOADED THIS IN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna WILL IT FETCH ANY COPY RIGHT PROBLEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manavatha (talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No biggie, but please avoid writing in ALLCAPs, this is usually considered as "shouting" on most forums. Assuming this is an old statue, you should be OK uploading the photograph here. However, you need to add a valid license template (for example template:cc-by-sa-3.0) and as much information as possible to the image description. You can use template:information and just fill in as many parameters as possible. If you are the creator, just add "Own work" as source and your user ID as author. If the image was created by someone else or depicts something still copyrighted, you will need to add a detailed source and author information together with the license permission of the original copyright owner. GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

If you plan on downloading more images, i suggest to read through the basic guidelines about image licensing and permission. See the links on top of this page for further info. GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

regarding the uploading of image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Velukkudi_krishnan_delivering_discourse_in_star_vijay.PNG I HAVE NO COPYRIGHT IN THIS JPG IMAGE I THOUGHT A PHOYOGRAPH OF SRI.U.VE VELUKKUDI KRISHNA SWAMI WILL BE MORE INTERESTING TO READ THIS ARTICLE THIS JPG IMAGE I LOOK A SNIP SHOT WITH SNIPPING TOOL FROM STAR VIJAY PROGRAMME (Velukkudi Krishnan-Vidura Neethi-Control Anger) WILL IT INVOLVE ANY COPY RIGHT PROBLEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manavatha (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

See my answer to your previous question. But if the original image is not your own work as you say, you will have to provide proof of the original author's permission to use it (either via a WP:OTRS mail or an active link to a source including a permission statement). Images without source and author info, or with no permission of the original author, cannot be kept. GermanJoe (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of photos

I have a series of photos that the photographer who took them has given me permission to use them however I see fit. He has not granted permission for other people to use them, but they can be viewed on Wiki. There are lots of options on the upload page, and I'm not sure I understand which ones apply to my situation! I want people to be able to see them, but they are not free for all to use and publish. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GemmaFrohlich (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Then we can't take them. We want photos that are free to be used by more than us. Secretlondon (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

copyright of photographs of famous paintings

If I take a picture of painting do I own its copyrights ? On internet there are many beautiful paintings but most of them are not on public domain . So how to identify which can be uploaded onto wiki and which cannot? Another thing is that there are many famous paintings uploaded on wikipedia. These paintings are copyrighted. How did people manage to upload these popular paintings on wiki without copyright infringement? There are times when I check for the source they direct to some magazine or blog. is it right to use them on wiki? w— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljackson56 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an important and tricky set of questions. First off, if you take a simple photograph of a painting that merely reproduces the painting itself, you do not create an additional copyright (meaning you don't hold a copyright on the photograph). So if you find a photo reproduction of a public-domain painting, the photo is also public domain. (Note that this does not apply if the photo is at and angle, includes the frame, includes someone looking at the photo, or has any other aspect that's not in the original painting. In those cases, the original painting is still in the public domain, but the additional choices and content may be copyrighted.)

Any painting first published before 1923 is not considered copyrighted in the U.S. We usually tag these with {{PD-US}}. In addition, any painting first published in the U.S. before 1978 without a © copyright notice prominently displayed are also in the public domain. We might tag these {{PD-Pre1978}}. There are a lot of different tags for different situations. It can take a good bit of knowledge and experience to determine whether a specific painting is copyrighted or not, but we're here to help with that. If you suspect that a specific image here is a copyright violation, feel free to ask us; just link to the specific image in question. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 11:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There are two other possibilities beside public domain: On the one hand an original painting or (more likely) an authorized photograph of it may be licensed under a licence that allows reuse by anyone for anything; then it could be used on Wikipedia by citing the specific license. On the other hand Wikipedia can sometimes use non-free content without permission, such use is severely restricted; when this is allowed, photo has a non-free use rationale for each use, explaining how the use meets the restrictions. —teb728 t c 08:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Good day,

I want to add images to my article on Wikipedia, but are trying to protect the photographs from being commercially used. What copyright licence can I use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorinda63 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately we do not accept image with a commercial restriction. We accept freely licenced image that anyone can use for anything, including commercial use, so if you are not prepared to allow that use we can't use them. You may however be prepared to release a low resolution image with a free licence and not make a higher resolution image freely licenced. I see that you have uploaded several freely licence images to the commons so wonder which images you are wanting to protect. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Boeing logo

Is there any particular reason why Boeing's logo is only here under fair-use? It doesn't really look that complex (just the word Boeing and what appears to be a planet), and I've seen more complicated logos that are on Commons. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 19:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The curve going across the globe and the tail fin are enough to tempt the line of originality, and so it is better for us to consider them non-free unless proven otherwise. --MASEM (t) 01:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The image on the logo could plausibly ruled as worthy of copyright protection, so it's best to be safe. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons has File:Boeing Sign.svg. You could use that one. It has never been taken through deletion review there so you may wish to do that to confirm it one way or another.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

image copyright

Regarding the previous question, now if a pic is merely reproduced then we don't own the copyrights.But if the photo of painting/person is edited/manipulated(trimmed/cropped),do I own the copyrights then?And what about screenshot from a video/movie?If I don't own it then, do I own the copyrights after editing or manipulating them?And also the ,to find out the copyright status of a random pic on internet it is suggested that the pic can be send to you and it will be found out. But how do you guys find that out?Could you share your process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeljackson56 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

As a partial reply: If you make a change that is sufficiently original as to warrant copyright protection (see threshold of originality), you have a copyright on your changes (see derivative work); so nobody can use your derivative work with out your permission. Note however that this does not abrogate the any copyright on the original work; so nobody including you can use your derivative work without the permission of the original copyright owner. And your changes may be a copyright violation if the original copyright owner does not permit derivative works. —teb728 t c 08:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My answer may be long but may put it in a nutshell. Start with older first. Most works created 120 (1893?) years ago should be public domain. Works published before 1923 should to be public domain. Those created after depend on who created it, when it was first published and where. Most works created after the 1980s are copyright regardless of marking, registry or publication. Works between 1923 and the 1980s can vary widely as to copyright or public domain depending on whether they followed proper copyright procedures. If they failed to mark them between 1963 and 1977 then they are public domain. If you paint a simple moustache on a public domain work that may not be enough to protect your work with copyright. If you add a fancy hat then that should be enough to protect your modified work with a copyright. You need to look at the dates of the originals, sort the laws out from there, and then act accordingly. I hope this makes a little more sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

What about the question regarding the screenshots?

exactly the same applies. Your screenshot is a derivative work so unles the movie is in the public domain, use of the screenshot cannot be covered by a free licence.

To answer your final point, nobody at wikipedia finds out the copyright status — that's your responsibility as the person seeking to upload the image. If you claim it is being used with the owners permission then a volunteer will check the information you have supplied to make sure it is accurate and correct but they do not conduct initial investigations. As a basic rule, assume any image you find on the internet is copyrighted unless is specifically states otherwise. NtheP (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically. Unless it was created before 1893 or published before 1923 then you can't even upload an eyeball without proving it is public domain or you are the original creator (copyright holder). I think we won one with File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg, but the deletion review has yet to be closed. If you have the time you may wish to twist your head around that one. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Marilyn_Monroe_Playboy_centerfold_1953.jpg is one we lost when even the copyright holder chimed in to help us confirm it. That one is a twist of a different law because of the creation and publication differences.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Running with something mentioned in Canoe1967's response of 0856 above: I am considering introducing a version of perhaps the first published Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (at least, it is the oldest one I've been able to find), which were published in a 1914 issue of Popular Astronomy: the source is here, with the figures being on pages 285 and 288. With the 1914 publication date, my impression is that this would be OK in terms of copyright: before I make the final decision whether to do this, is this right? BSVulturis (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm is the guide that commons links to most of its USA public domain licenses. I would say yes because it was first published in the US before 1923.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The Story of a Small Town

I have added a film poster and three different album covers of the singer Teresa Teng, which are significantly different from the poster. Which one must I remove if amount of images is too excessive? --George Ho (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say all three should be removed since neither of them is being discussed in the article and cover art for identification is usually only allowed at the top of an article in the infobox. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

However, two (or four) songs were used in the film, while others were not. How would omission of all images not affect the quality of the article? --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

One doesn't need to see cover art of an album containing the film soundtrack in order to understand the article about the film or even the section about the soundtrack. Clear violation of WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 19:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess that these images are unneeded, as there is already an image of Teresa Teng. --George Ho (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, File:Teresa Teng.gif is being used in Mandopop and clearly fails NFCC#8 because there is no critical commentary about the image; it is just decoration. ww2censor (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Citing documents on scribd.com as a source

Given that scribd.com has frequently been accused of copyright violations, what is the Wikipedia position regarding citing material from this website as a source? Do we assume by default that material is legitimate unless evidence to the contrary is given? Or do we assume that it isn't legitimate? I'm sure that this must have come up before, but can't seem to find anything that answers the question.

I suspect that there may also be a reliability issue regarding some scribd.com material - but that isn't really a question for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Scribd.com is currently on the blacklist of urls, so citing anything from there with a live link won't work in the first place. From what I was able to track though, Scribd has mainly been blacklisted for repeated spamming and not so much for copyright issues. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found at least one working link to a scribd.com document: see reference 5 in Gabriel. Or am I misunderstanding something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently that link was added before the whole scribd domain got blacklisted. De728631 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You can't use a URL link to scribd, but you can use that information to track down the legitimate source and use that as the direct reference. You may end up not having a URL (the work only available in print, for example) but you'll have a legit reference to use. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Cockpos.jpg

I have uploaded a new image with the usual material and I am still getting your message. Could you elaborate pleaee?Foofbun (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you got it from a web page, including a url to that webpage is appropriate to use here. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the "source" information and removed the bsr objection.  Fixed – Quadell ^(talk) 11:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Status of copyright Los Pianos Mecanicos (1965) movie poster

Hi,

I would love to see the movie poster in the Wikipedia article "The Uninhibited" (1965) corrected. The one shown there with the "peep show" et cetera is not right. I see a better one at <<http://miralabocas.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html>> listed under "Melina Mercouri". How can one tell if such images are copyrighted or not? Perhaps there is another image that is not copyrighted of this same movie poster? Please advise.

Cheers, Jesse Lynam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Scuffers (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It looks to me like the image you link to is an earlier and more appropriate image than the one we currently use in the article The Uninhibited. Both movie posters are still under copyright. We can still use one (and only one) in the article under our non-free content criteria. If there are no objections, I will simply upload the better poster image over top of the current one. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the image.  Fixed

Also, to answer your general question, whether a poster is copyrighted or not depends on where it was first published. For any poster first published in Mexico, if the "author" (artist or photographer) died before 1952, then the poster is in the public domain. If the author died in 1952 or later (or if the author is still alive), then the poster is still held under copyright. But it's different for every country. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's only true in Mexico; in the United States, if it's not published before 1923, there's a good chance it's copyrighted. US law is what Wikimedia has to abide by and IIRC the only law that en.wp concerns itself with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right that if a work was first published (anywhere in the world) before 1923, it's considered PD in the U.S., and we can therefore consider it PD on the English Wikipedia. (That's true whether the country of origin considers the work copyrighted or not.) But if a work was first published outside the U.S. in 1923 or later, then U.S. law considers the work to be PD in the U.S. if and only if it was PD in its country of origin on January 1, 1996. That's due to the URAA. So if a poster was first published in another country (not the U.S.), then if it was PD in its country of origin in 1996, then it's PD according to U.S. law. For posters first published in Mexico, these would include any where the artist died before 1952. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

acquiring a public domain image

If a woodprint was first published in 1805, can I grab a copy of it from a poster vendor's website? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If a work was first published before 1923, then it is not considered "under copyright" in the United States, and it can be used on the English Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, as long as the vendor's website has added no additional embellishment of copyrightable nature to the image, then as Quadell said, it remains PD and can be free. It is possible to take works in the PD and rework them in a creative way to create a new copyright, but this doesn't like it is the case. --MASEM (t) 20:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Uploading a photo of my boss taken by a colleague

First, thank you for this forum. Second, I'd like to upload a photo owned by my boss and taken by a colleague. The colleague gave the photo to my boss with no restrictions, we've sent it off for other uses, such as to identify him in a book as a contributor (and those uses do not restrict his further use of the image). May I upload it to Wikimedia Commons with my boss's permission, since he is the owner? Or do I need to track down the photographer for a formal release of copyright? Thanks for your kind assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leishalynn (talk • contribs) 00:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Technically your colleague, as the photographer, is the owner, unless he transferred the rights to your boss. But that said, as long as your group intents a free license, either the person that owns the photograph can upload it to commons (by far, the easiest way), or follow the advice at WP:CONSENT to have the owner mail the Foundation to assure the rights to use the photo under a free license. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, we will do this. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leishalynn (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Need to delete a picture I uploaded.

I need to delete File:Lucas Radebe.jpg from my user file (blevey88). Please let me know how I can go about doing this or if you can do this for me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blevey88 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to go to commons to do that, as the image is located there. This [7] is the direct link to it. If you are logged in there (you should be if you're logged in on en.wiki), there will be a "Nominate for Deletion" on the left side of the page, and from there you can explain why it needs to be deleted (In this case what appears to be the wrong type of copyright allowance for commons). The Commons admins will take it from there. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot of a Musical Video

Can I upload a screenshot from a U2 Musical Video to add it to the main article of that song, with the proper licensing for this kind of files?? (Just like what people do with Album Covers) Miss Bono (zootalk) 17:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: also asked and answered at the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Video Screenshot Tea House.--ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@Ukexpat: The answer there was that she should come ask the experts here. Technical 13 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I consider myself somewhat of an expert so I answered there, before you directed her here. Is that a problem?--ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. Have a nice day. Technical 13 (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of non-free image for future uploads and certainty

I have uploaded File:ShashiKapoor.jpg.jpg. I request Admins to take review of this file to make sure whether all the details are correct as per WP:NON-FREE. Because I am going to upload images of few persons surrounding such circumstances and I don't want my images to be deleted in future for copyright violation or because of some other policy. Thanks. neo (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to bring you bad news, but we can't use this image on Wikipedia. It's good that you want to upload photos here, and I understand our rules can be complicated. But Mr. Kapoor is still living, and so it should be possible for someone to take a new photograph of him and release that photo under a free license. That means that the photo you uploaded is non-free and replaceable -- replaceable because in theory a new, free photo could identify the actor. We therefore can't use a non-free photo of him on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If subject was beauty pageant winner in her twenties and if only free photograph available of her is taken when she was 90 year old in wheelchair, then according to your logic it is OK to use such free image for the article? BTW, this other actor Rajesh Khanna is deceased now but look at his free image. Do you think reader can associate this image with contents of the article? neo (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There's already a free image in the article. Since the subject is a public figure who has recently made public appearances, the free image is an appropriate identifying image. Tenuously related hypotheticals are irrelevant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There would have to be significant sourced discussion of a living person's younger/earlier appearance and how it impacted their career to allow a non-free from their earlier life to be used. Movie stars and the like are certainly to look better when they were younger, there's no question, but unless specific facets of their youthful appearance have been made by independent sources, the fact they looked better younger is implicitly taken for granted and non-frees can't be used. A case where we can make that exception is at Weird Al Yankovic who had a signature style which he was well-known for (established in sources) but then had LASIK and did other things to make himself over. The latter, we have plenty of free images of but his original look that established him, we do not, and because his original appearance is discussed in detail, a non-free is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria does not state that non-free images of living people are not allowed. But Admins say we don't use non-free images of living people. If there is consensus, it should be written clearly in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. Admins, users should not argue in edit summary. Second query- Actor Rajesh Khanna is dead. His old age, ill health free images can't be equivalent to his youthful image and article is about his work in his youthful days. Will his non-free image be allowed to visually identify the contents of the article? neo (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It says it at both WP:NFC as well as a specific case listed by the Foundation in the resolution. As for Rajesh Khanna, if there is sufficient sourced discussion that talks about his appearance in his youth in his career, a non-free can be used even though we have the free image already. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• The requirement in our policy is that for "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance". Given the fact this person wasn't an actor anywhere near the time of the free picture we have, I can't see how this wouldn't apply. In any case, sources like [8] make it plain has heck that his "boyish good looks" were key to his success. Given just how popular of an actor this man was _and_ how well covered his family is, there are a massive number of sources. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The source doesn't say anything like that; the opinion piece, borderline blog, just refers to his "boyish good looks" in connection with his extensive experience and training. If we're going to allow nonfree images in any article where we've got any source that comments on the subject's appearance, we might as well just scrap NCF as it applies to people, living or dead. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The exception is correct but that still means that all the criteria on NFCC have to be adhered to as part of the upload, and references need to be included into the text of the article to meet NFCC#8 and give the image it's contextual significance. If his career was started or furthered by his looks and this is supported by reliable sources then it's that discussion that give significance to using a non free image, otherwise it becomes decorative only. As part of this I think it is necessary to put some sort of date on the image (currently there isn't one) to assist with the context. NtheP (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of photo of Naval Training Station graduation

A reader supplied a photo of the graduation of a Naval class, company 591, taken June 2, 1943 in Sampson NY. Photographer unknown. The photo is posed, so is likely to be the official photo of the event. Does this qualify as the work of a federal employee, or do we need to know more?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We would need to be assured of the identify of the photographer to call it a federal work. That said, as a 1943 work, it would have also had to been registered within 28 years to retain its copyright today, which sounds like it is unlikely but that still needs to be checked. If more details on how the photo came to be (possibly using tineye.com) there might be some help there. --MASEM (t) 13:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is very likely {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. If not, it would have to have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1943 and renewed in 1971, or else it would have lapsed into the public domain. I've searched through the comprehensive 1950-1977 copyright renewal database at Project Gutenberg, and I can't find any renewal info for "Company 591" or any navy class image from 1943. (Photographs like this were rarely registered, and even more rarely renewed.) I'd say you could tag it {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} with a note explaining why it would be in the public domain even if it were not a Navy photograph. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That database is only for books. You'll have to check the scans at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ manually to find images about renewals for photographs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the Gutenberg list is for all copyrighted renewals (except musical works) from 1950-1977. Perhaps you're thinking of the Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database (or Rutgers' version of the same list), which only include books? The UPenn list you linked to has the exact same list of renewals for 1971 that the Gutenberg list does, but it's not as easily searchable. At any rate, no Navy class photo was renewed in 1971. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and resources. One challenge with looking at a 30 file is that one cannot look at all entries, so you have to know what you are looking for or know how to search it. Obviously, if I get a hit, I have proof of copyright, but, as the saying goes, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Am I right in assuming that one doesn't have to literally review every single item ant he data base individually, one has to make a good faith effort to search for the item, and if it does not turn up, one can make the assumption that the copyright wasn't filed? I did a search of the database, using the same search terms, as well as some others, and failed to find it listed, so I am planning to use the PD tag. I saw one person suggesting that the Gutenberg list was only for books, but a response that it does cover everything (except musical works), so I plan to assume that a review of the Gutenberg list is a sufficient review.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Uploading image available in the web of a company that doesn't specify its copyright

Hi, I'm trying to include some pictures to an article that I'm writing. The article is about a measuring device that is commenrcialized by a certain company. It's a descriptive article, I'm trying to do it neutral. The problem is that the only pictures available are in the website of this company. They don't say which copyright have the images. What can I do? The images can be freely download from the web. Thanks, Amaia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaiamarruedo (talk • contribs) 09:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You could try emailing the company. The would need to release them under a 'free license'. They are probably best hosted at commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS has the details. There is a huge backlog there though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Amaia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaiamarruedo (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, be aware that under current global copyright law, you must assume an image is copyrighted unless you can prove otherwise. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are talking about what is in your sandbox: User:Amaiamarruedo/sandbox, this WISP device. It's going to get more complicated here, unfortunately, though I see someone's starting an OTRS attempt to make the images free, which would make everyone's lives easier, but if it is the case that you can't (and only if you can't):

• The pictures from the website would be copyrighted as Orangemike says even if they aren't explicitly labeled as such. (The device clearly is recent, and thus any works produced by the company would be copyright).
• But, the design of the device, as a utilitarian object and with no visible labels or other elements that would be copyrightable, is uncopyrightable.
• So any copyrighted photos without a free license of the uncopyrightable device would be considered unusable at en.wiki, as per our WP:NFCC policy, someone else can take a photo of the device and make that photo with a free license. That is, any non-free photos of the device would be replacable by a free image, and thus can't be used here. (This is working on the assumption the device is common enough, and currently being sold, as it appears to be from the sandbox).

All these concerns go away if you're working towards a free license from the company, but if you can't secure that, the situation becomes complicated. --MASEM (t) 12:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

1963 record sleeve and label

OTRS received a photo of record sleeve and a record with the label.

It was published by Cavalier Records about 1963.

Am I right in assuming that {{PD-US-no notice}} applies, if there is no copyright notice on either item?

Per the advice given at this query, I assume I have to ask the contributor to check both sides. Other than that, are we good to go?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In 1963, if a record sleeve and label were first published in the U.S., and if there was no © sign affixed (anywhere) the first time it was published, then it was never held under copyright and it is in the public domain. If you can be sure of these two things, then you can be 100% confident that it is free to use. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will confirm those items.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Images taken by an unknown relative

I tagged File:South African Oceanographer Nils Bang, March 1969.jpg as needing evidence of permission since it is sourced to someone other than the uploader. It turned out that the image was taken from a private family album and that the photos were taken by relatives to the uploader, per User talk:Stefan2#Correct copyright licence. The problem is that the uploader has no idea about who the copyright holder is. This is the usual problem with old family photos. For example, I can't tell whether a given photo in my own private photo albums was taken by my grandmother or by my grandfather. Sometimes, a photo may have been taken by my mother and sometimes it may have been taken by my uncle, which gives different copyright holders. What do we do with images like this? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's an official policy dealing with this, but if it were me, I would get everyone who might have taken the photo and ask them: "No one remembers exactly who took this photo, but do you consent to transferring the copyright to me (if it happens to have been you)?" If they all say yes, then I would say "A family member took this photo and transferred the copyright to me, and I release it under cc-by" or whatever. (Note that when a photographer dies, the copyrights to his works are passed down to the next of kin.) – Quadell ^(talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Commons has a licence to deal with this commons:template:PD-heirs, I sometimes wonder why there isn't a similar licence here on en:wp? NtheP (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The image in question was taken on a research vessel (not a family outing), so I'm dubious about the claim some relative took the picture. A colleague could have supplied the picture and it just ended up in the family album. The photographer -- who could be anybody on the March 1969 expedition -- needs to be identified. Glrx (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears this image was not published before being uploaded to Wikipedia. According to §302-c of the 1976 U.S. Copyright Act, if a photo was never published (before 2003), and the photographer is unknown, the copyright lasts 100 years from creation. The 1978 law would apply, since it was the first time U.S. copyright law covered unpublished works. This duration was later extended to 120 years. If we can be certain the photographer released it under a free license (because every possible candidate agrees to do so) then that's fine, but I suspect Glrx is right: we can't know that in this case. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this photo is likely to have been taken at work by a colleague. The author would be the photographer and the copyright would be owned either by the photographer or by the photographer's employer if taken in the performance of this employment. Even if the photo had been published in South Africa around 1969, it would still be caught in the net of the URAA. The uploader could try to track the origin of this photo by a research through the University of Cape Town and other organizations involved in the work. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PD-heirs does not deal with this. It is a wording for situations with known heirs of copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Attribution for a vanished user

There was a user who invoked his "right to vanish" a little over a year ago. His name was changed to User:Vanished user sflgjhaerp98q3iv8j3qp8uti. His image uploads (here) are used in the St John Ambulance Australia Cadets article, and are all tagged {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}. I was thinking of moving them to Commons, but I have a few questions.

1) In general, what do we do when the license requires attribution, but the uploader has invoked his right to vanish? If we simply credit the nonsense name "Vanished user sflgjhaerp98q3iv8j3qp8uti", are we violating the terms of the cc license? Do we have a policy or precedent for this?

2) Aren't these images wrongly tagged anyway? It looks like he photographed or scanned patches that he did not create, and I don't think he created a new copyright in doing so. If they are copyrighted designs, their use would violate our NFCC, right?

3) Some of them are probably {{PD-ineligible}}. Which ones should I tag as ineligible and move to Commons, and which should I nominate for deletion?

Thanks, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 1), 4. Restrictions. c. (i) of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license requires that "...the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied..." be kept with the image. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Uploader previously went by "Flipper24". It definitely wouldn't have been a problem to attribute them to Flipper24 before he was renamed, and I can't see how it would be a problem now. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

When uploaded them under the user name "Flipper24", he allowed anyone to use the files by attributing "Flipper24", and that right can't be revoked. When he vanished, then I assume that he relicensed the files so that you can choose to attribute him under either the old user name (Flipper24) or the new one (Vanished user sflgjhaerp98q3iv8j3qp8uti), whichever you prefer.

When the items were copied, he became the copyright holder in some countries. If the underlying patches are free (which probably needs to be determined on a case-to-case basis), then consider using the template {{Licensed-PD-Art}} so that the images can be used worldwide. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

PD-US-no notice

Imagine two pieces of music, both of which appear (without any changes whatsoever) in multiple editions of a book, all of which were published in the USA; the composer granted permission for them to be published, so there are no irregularities with the publication process.

• Piece 1 appears in the 1965, 1966, and 1967 editions
• Piece 2 appears in the 1964, 1965, and 1966 editions

No copyright notice appeared in 1965, but the other editions all had them. Is #1 PD-US-no notice because it was first published with no notice, i.e. the later editions' status is no more relevant to #1 than they are to a piece by Mozart? Or is it copyrighted because it appeared in a later book that complied with formalities? Meanwhile, #2 was obviously copyrighted upon publication. Does its appearance in a later non-copyrighted publication cause it to be ejected in the public domain, or is that superseded by the proper publication a year earlier? Note I don't have any specific pieces of music (or other works) in mind; these are simply some convenient examples. I'm trying to clarify for myself the way we'd apply PD-US-no notice in the case of works that have been republished by the same authors when different publications have different copyright stati. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In your example, piece #1 would be PD, and piece #2 would be copyrighted. Thought it may seem counter-intuitive and arbitrary, U.S. copyright law before 1978 really did require for a work to published in full compliance with U.S. copyright formalities on first publication in the U.S. in order to be copyrighted, and publishing a work in the U.S. without compliance (the first time it was published) placed the work irrevocably into the public domain. "Full compliance" required the © symbol (or the word "copyright") and a year to be affixed to the work. (It also required the work to be be officially registered with the U.S. copyright office; if a book was published with a © symbol but was not registered within a year, it was likewise placed irrevocably into the public domain.) No other country, so far as I know, had such a strange law, and it was of course reversed in 1978 -- though not retroactively. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all strange; it makes a lot more sense not to grant rights to people who don't care, and it helps prevent orphan works; we'd be in a better spot if we'd not followed other countries' lead. So there's no way for republication to affect the status of a work? Or is there some way that doesn't appear in my scenario? Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A copyright notice was needed each time a work was published, as far as I have understood. Also, a copyright registration is only supposed to be necessary if you wish to sue someone over copyright infringement, although it is much better from a legal point of view if you register the work either before the publication or shortly after it. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Cover-1.jpg

I merged the comic book article into C.O.P.S. Is this image necessary right now? --George Ho (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Map image published by US Govt, but hosted by State Archives website

This database entry (click link at bottom to actually see the image) shows that it was published in 1922 by "Washington : Government Printing Office". Does that mean that I can upload this map or a portion of this map as a work of the government? File:Old Choctaw Country Mississippi.jpg appears to be a similar situation that has already been uploaded.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is currently hosting it, only its publication history (I've found PD materials from flickr marked as copyrighted). It is also PD in that is was published in 1922 (which is pre1923) presumably in the United States. Chris857 (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah I didn't think about the pre-1923 thing. So if I were to upload it, I should use {{PD-US}}? Not {{PD-USGov}}? Or should I put both? Also, This map was published in 1820. Is this also a PD-US?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If it was published before 1923, then you can always use {{PD-1923}}, no matter who made it. You can only use {{PD-USGov}} if the author was an employee of the US federal government, regardless of the publication history. If you don't know by whom the author was employed, then {{PD-1923}} is safer. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And anything published by the U.S. Gov., even today, is public domain. Material printed by the GPO is therefore PD. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I just uploaded cropped portions of both images here and here. Do they look ok to you guys? I've only uploaded pictures I've taken myself before.. this is the first time I've uploaded anything thought to be PD.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Although the template PD-US on Commons may not be exactly deprecated, its use is not recommended, because it doesn't specify the actual reason for the statement of PD with respect to the files. As Stefan2 said above, a better template for files published before 1923 would be PD-1923. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Two-dimensional representations

Requesting a sanity check, as this is first time I've bumped up against "two-dimensional representation" fair use and may be misunderstanding it. Among the files uploaded by User:Areaseven are several pictures of toy Nerf guns (eg. this one) which invoke fair use as "a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture, statue or any other three-dimensional work of art". However, they aren't the user's own photos, they're images he or she has lifted from the Hasbro website. Is this a valid invocation of fair use? --McGeddon (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In general a copyrighted work can be used in the United States without permission of the copyright owner if the use conforms to American fair use law. To be used on Wikipedia the use must also conform to Wikipedia’s non-free use policy. So for example, a photo of a copyrighted statue could be used (as the tag says) to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs. It is not the fact that is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional work that makes it useable but the fact that it conforms to fair use law and Wikipedia policy. Is that what you wanted to know? —teb728 t c 05:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I think so. So simply being a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object doesn't trigger any automatic get-out clause? I can't lift a professional photographer's copyrighted photo of the Venus de Milo, put it on Wikipedia and say "tough luck, it's a 2D image of a 3D object!", and I can't take an image from Hasbro's website that's a picture of their own product, on the grounds that it's a 2D representation of a 3D product. That seemed like the common sense interpretation, but given that it applies to several uploads from this user, I thought I'd check rather than wasting time speedying them inappropriately. --McGeddon (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If these are pictures of existing products, then while using the "2d representation of a 3d object" is the proper license/rationale, we cannot use the photos take from Hasbro's website for them; instead, we need to have someone take a photo for free for us. There's actually 2 copyrights involved here: the copyright on the 3D object, and the copyright of the photographer in setting up the light and angles for the photo. Thus, while we recognize there are copyrights on the 3D object that we can never get around until the copyright term expires, there are copyrights on the photographer that we can. The image will still be non-free with a Hasbro copyright aspect, but with a free license on the photo, that's only one copyright to worry about instead of two. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Kristine Bonnevie.jpg

The usage of File:Kristine Bonnevie.jpg does not qualify as fair use. There is a free file at the commons. Unfortunately, the two files have the same name, so I don't seem to be able to replace it in the article about Kristine Bonnevie. Surtsicna (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically you have two options; nominate this one for deletion and the commons image will now show up because the name is the same; or suggest moving the commons image to another name. I will do the move for you if you suggest it as I am watching the commons image. The former suggestion is propably best because a commons rename still requires a nomination for deletion here due to the image them being an orphaned non-free image. You choose. ww2censor (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The non-free image should be deleted, but it should also be replaced with the free image as soon as possible. Nominating the non-free image for deletion and then waiting for the outcome would take days. Isn't there a way to have a speedy deletion of the non-free image? I doubt anyone would oppose the nomination; either way, the case is clear and there can be no sensible argument in favour of retaining it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't a speedy tag then just replace it with the commons image in the article and then ask at ANI or help desk and an admin may delete it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Status for File:Original-john-brown-words-george-kimball-1890.jpg

Hello,

Looking at the summary page for File:Original-john-brown-words-george-kimball-1890.jpg I see a notice that the file could possibly be transferred to Wikimedia Commons since it is no longer under copyright.

I would certainly think that if the file has been scanned from the original issue of New England Magazine back in 1890 then it would be okay as no longer under copyright.

However, if the picture's source comes from a proprietary database then I would assume that would be problematic (e.g. if the picture was taken from JSTOR or the like).

If that were the case I wonder if the database might even place some kind of watermark in the bytes of the file.

On the other hand -- if it was taken from some database where the content is available under some kind of Creative Commons License then I think that would be okay also.

I can leave a brief note on Bhugh's talk page pointing back to this comment here.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A faithful digitization of a two-dimensional work would not create a new copyright (even if in a proprietary database, even with digital watermark, even if the database claimed copyright). —teb728 t c 04:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Is a fair use rationale possible in this case?

Charlie Strap, Froggy Ball and Their Friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please will someone review my edits to this article and its talk page. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the cover image is inappropriate on that page. The footnote at WP:NFCI#1 says "NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover." The cover appears to be from a book, which is not the subject of the article. The image therefore should be removed per WP:NFCC#8. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

upload photo

i don't know to upload my photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar singh joshi (talk • contribs) 05:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Kelly--54th-grammy.jpg

Should this image be deleted? It doesn't look like a free image. The image was taken at the 2012 Grammy Awards red carpet and looks professionally shot. 0z (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion on commons. Werieth (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Using Wiktionary Data in a commercial App

Hi, we are thinking of building a language learning app. For the vocabulary content, we would like to

• Implement an aggresive caching that mirrors part of wiktionary to make content available offline
• Embed hardcoded links that point to wiktionary articles and display those in the app
• manually download wikipedia articles during dev time and bundle the content within my app
• offer a subset of the words to be learned for free and other subsets we would charge for

I am very sorry, but I just don't get the GNU licence. Maybe a good video about it would help, or a list of (many) examples. I apologize to ask this question, which you have probably been reading and answering a million times before. Thank you and all the best, Simon 217.87.102.31 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why do you think we would assist you in charging people for access to material that they can get for free? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AndyTheGrump, sorry, there may be a misunderstanding. We are worried only, if we do something against the Licence of Wiktionary. Building the App we will do ourselves. We are not bad guys, we just want some content for our app. 217.87.102.31 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We cannot give legal advice. If you wish to ensure that your commercial product complies with the Wikipedia and Wiktionary licensing requirements (a complex issue), you will have to seek advice from a person qualified to give such advice. I expect you will have to pay for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! If you or anyone can think of a company or a lawyer that has dealt with a similar issue before, please email me at wikipedia at prais dot in . If you want, you can also post it here, but I understand that advertisement of this form would be unwanted. Again, thank you very much! Simon 217.87.102.31 (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

File:YesAsia logo.gif

Is this logo eligible for Commons, despite glossiness? --George Ho (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be careful. While the logo is essentially typefaces and two simple geometric shapes, the reflection effect might push it past WP:TOO. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 05:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, it is from Hong Kong which was former part of the United Kingdom. Does this mean that the source country uses Commons:COM:TOO#United Kingdom? --Stefan2 (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright release

I am a member of an organization (Vital Ground) which has a number of copyright brochures. One of these includes an image I'd like to upload for an article or get into the Wikipedia Commons. The organization is willing to supply whatever release is necessary, but we're stuck on how to go about it. What form should such a copyright release take? Who is authorized to supply such a release? How do I decide whether to upload it to Wikipedia or to Wikipedia Commons? Camdenmaine (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN.--ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If the files are of common interest and you are able to provide a completely free permission for usage (see Commons:Licensing), you should probably upload them to Commons. It's the more general repository with a wider audience, not only for Wikipedia but also for other Wikimedia projects. GermanJoe (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Q1. "What form should such a copyright release take? "

A1. A suggested form of declaration is available at Commons:Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries. You will find other details about the release procedure on the same page Commons:Commons:OTRS.

• Q2. "Who is authorized to supply such a release? "

A2. The owner of the copyright on this particular image is the person who must supply a release. Normally that is the artist who created the image (i.e. the graphist, the photographer, the painter, etc, as the case may be). However, if the artist was an employee of the organization in the course of this employment, it would be the organization, unless otherwise agreed. You should probably first ask the artist and he will tell you if he owns the copyright or if it is owned by someone else somehow. If it turns out that the organization owns the copyright, then find the officer or staff member who is mandated to alienate or to grant licenses on this type of intellectual property assets of the organization. If nobody is mandated, ask the board of directors.

• Q3. "How do I decide whether to upload it to Wikipedia or to Wikipedia Commons? "

A3. If a coyrighted work is released under a free license, that license must be suitable for Commons as well as Wikipedia. Then, it's better that you upload it directly to Commons. (If you upload it to the English-language Wikipedia and the image is interesting for other projects, and hopefully it will be, someone else can copy it to Commons anyway.)

-- Asclepias (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)