Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/September

Company Logo

I'm creating a Wikipedia article for the company I work for, and wanted help understanding how to upload our company logo and what kind of attribution I need to put with the image. Jaredchase (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

First I'll let you know that creating articles on the company you work for is risky, as there is a good chance it will appear more important to you than to others. Any way a logo, can often be used under fair use. When you pick the upload file link on Wikipedia, do the click here to start the upload form, pick "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." and after that pick the logo option (logo of an organization). Tell us where the image came from, and tick "This image will be shown as a primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question" License is not required, but you can pick one from "Special source and license conditions" if applicable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It may help to look at the image description pages for other logos, such as File:Pepsico logo.svg or File:Frito-Lay Logo.svg. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA 2.0

Can I upload to Wikipedia a file with the CC-BY-SA 2.0 license? -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That is one of the acceptable Creative Commons licences. See WP:ICT/FL#Creative Commons for a full listing. ww2censor (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Eligible for copyright?

I uploaded File:123+Bruegel-Parable+of+the+Blind.jpg as a Fair Use image. It's a Renaissance painting with lines overlaid as an analysis of its composition. File:Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. 025.jpg is obviously in the Public Domain, but I didn't know if the ovelaid lines qualified for copyright or not. If not, I'd like to create a new file with the same lies overlaid, but on a higher-quality version of the painting (the one with the overlaid lines is small and in black & white). Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that File:123+Bruegel-Parable+of+the+Blind.jpg is fair use. However if you do a rough reproduction of where the lines are with your own line style and placement on another image I think that would be fine. Your intention is to show the information in a graphical form. You could change lines to dashed, use colour or change thickness, so you have enough creative choices that you can vary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

However, arguably, the analysis (and thus the drawings within it) are not factual data (which is how we allow for free-content recreation of charts and graphs from copyrighted sources) but opinion/expert analysis on the composition. I'm not saying this is clearly a copyright issue, but it's definitely not as clear cut as if the data was factual. A full recreation would be a problem, but I do think that if you add two simple lines, to show the, er, "axes" (the long diagonal going to bottom right, and the shorter one going to top right), you would be okay, but to try to recreate the full lines given might be enough to tip that image back to non-free. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What, you mean if I threw a great big "X" on the image it would likely be fine? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, not so much an X but an X that follows the general angles that the given image provides (and likely arrows as opposed to just lines since the idea seems to be showing composition flow). I'm not 100% sure if there's an issue with the modified image linked above because, again, we're not talking about factual data but analysis. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Would something like File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Blind Leading the Blind - composition analysis.jpg be all right? It's drastically simplified from the B&W file. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that captures the essence but sufficiently generic (on top of the PD image) to likely not be copyrightable. (Make sure to add the free licensing flags, though! ) --MASEM (t) 23:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be moving it to Commons if it's eligible. Thanks! Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Image For Zoo Tycoon For Xbox 360 And Xbox One

Hi, This Is Aozz101x The Image For Zoo Tycoon Is Owned By Microsoft, By Using Paint To Add Both Boxart Version Of Both From Xbox 360 And Xbox One Of Zoo Tycoon

You Can Find The Info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ZooTycoonXB.png With The Waring Removed Sign, And Info I Post On Where I Got The Two Images From — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aozz101x (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Aozz101x:, I have added an incomplete fair use rationale. Answer the other questions in the file description page. --Tito☸Dutta 03:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Haydar Hatemi paintings

From 2006 to 2008, Lachinhatemi (talk · contribs) uploaded a photograph of artist Haydar Hatemi and images of paintings by the artist:

• File:Haydarhatemi1.jpg - photograph
• File:Yavuzselim.jpg
• File:Hatemimoses.jpg
• File:HatemiMurad.jpg
• File:Hatemibeyazit.jpg
• File:Istanbulhatemi.jpg
• File:Beyazit.jpg

All of the images are licensed either {{PD-self}} or {{CC-by-sa-3.0}}; however, the photograph of the artist is attributed to Lachin Hatemi whereas all of the other files are attributed to Haydar Hatemi. I am convinced that the uploader is related to the artist, but not the artist himself, but I suppose that it is still possible that he is the copyright holder.

I am requesting assistance to verify whether the uploader is, in fact, the copyright holder and the images are appropriately licensed. If they are, they should all be moved to Commons. If they are not, then they should be deleted. What is the appropriate protocol in this instance? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• They may take this photograph, but, the other images, specially the paintings have copyright issues. They have not written image description or source too. Sending permission to OTRS is always a fine option in such cases. --Tito☸Dutta 02:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Permission to use image on Wikipedia

I do not understand the permissions info on FAQ. I would like to use an image from the Wikipedia entry for Morganza Spillway in my blog. The image is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Morganza_Spillway_Aerial.jpg/300px-Morganza_Spillway_Aerial.jpg , maybe wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Morganza_Spillway_Aerial.jpg/300px-Morganza_Spillway_Aerial.jpg .

Its Permissions entry in View Image Info, under Load Images, had Use Default checked and Allow bulleted. That seems to indicate permission is granted, but I am not sure of my interpretation.

Thank you for responding and clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunsetc9 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Image info page is File:Morganza Spillway Aerial.jpg which shows that it is in the public domain, and so freely re-usable.--ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Association football team images in footer nav boxes

An editor added the copyrighted images to every MLS and a few NASL nav boxes. One such change is here: [1]. I reverted them all because it appears to be a copyright violation. First, no fair-use rationale is provided. Second, I can't see that one would be granted since the navs are used on multiple articles. Was I right in doing so or are this editor's actions acceptable and I should self-revert? I'm not watching this page so please inform me via a talkback template if I need to self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images are permitted in article mainspace and must have a fair-use rational for each and every use per 9 and 10c, so you were correct to revert them. ww2censor (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello ww2censor, and anyone who is reading and interested in collaborating. I would like to respond to this conversation. To clarify, the description mentioned by the user above is not accurate. The non-free images have all been previously placed in the proper location with the right description, and have been there for over a year. For instance, in one of the clubs of MLS, we have the Los Angeles Galaxy and their respective page. Their logo is placed on the right of the page which links to the appropriate description and use of the image. This image for instance was placed within a navbox that describes the team. It appeared like this. The navbox is only used within the teams' page and had the image as a form of visual description and association to the team.

The purpose of use for the image is as follows:

The image is used to identify the organization Los Angeles Galaxy, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

The image was not used in multiple locations as the previous user might mislead with the wording of his statements. One image and one template for the specific team [see below the main page of the LA Galaxy]. This concept was carried over to other teams in where their logos, which have similar descriptions to that of the LA Galaxy image, were placed within respective navboxes, and visualized only in their pages. [e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc]

If images are not allowed in a navbox, then why do templates exist with this option? The images in question were used appropriately under guidelines available. I would appreciate further assessment on this matter. The previous user took it upon himself to simply revert for the purpose of being right. I'm not interested in glorification. I just want clarity as there is a conflicting issue in this scenario with images allowed in navboxes. Kindly assist. Thank you NYCWikiKid (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Article mainspace rules do not extend to templates.

The image parameter is there for images that have no copyright. You'll notice that the examples are national flags, not copyrighted corporate logos.

Also, there was no fair use rationale on the images for their use in the template and as such had to be removed until the fair use rationale was provide. The rationale would be rejected, of course, for the reasons stated above and the images would once again be deleted from the templates. I wouldn't be the one doing it in that instance, it would be someone from the copyright project rejecting the FUR and then likely a bot removing the image.

And I didn't revert them for the purpose of being right, I reverted them because we could be sued if they remained in-place.

And the templates are used in multiple locations. My example was Template:Vancouver Whitecaps and it is used in the locations listed here: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Vancouver Whitecaps. And as for the Galaxy template, Template:Los Angeles Galaxy, not the team article as you indicate, is linked to even more places: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Los Angeles Galaxy. Yes, templates are used in multiple locations and can be added by simply placing {{Vancouver Whitecaps}} or similar on the bottom of an appropriate page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much WP:NFCC#9. We don't allow non-free images in templates, even if the templates end up replicated in main space. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Masem, as I was interested in hearing from other individuals and not the user creating his defense. So Masem, are images allowed in the navboxes, and which type specifically? NYCWikiKid (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a defence, it's a reason.

Images are allowed, but not copyrighted ones. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If your concern, Walter, was actually editing, then you would not have commented, as you are only doing so to fulfill some egotistical trip. There are plenty of dedicated individuals who can partake. Your behavior is quite obvious and petty. I have not requested your point of view. And I am not interested in conversing with you. Debate ended! NYCWikiKid (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

As Ww2, Masem, and Walter have said: ONLY public-domain images can be used in templates of any kind. Fair-use exemptions do NOT apply to templates, and fair-use images must be removed immediately if inserted into templates. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

More precisely, any image that we consider free (that is not tagged with a template listed at WP:TAGS/FU) can be used in templates; this includes those in the public domain (which can include plain-text logos too simple to be copyrighted), as well as images that have been tagged with Creative Commons licenses CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and a few more cases. --MASEM (t) 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike and Masem. Thank you for the information regarding navboxes. I appreciate the assistance that you two have given. I only wanted to hear from others. NYCWikiKid (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted image needs deleting

File:Mo_Yaqub_in_action_for_St-_Mirren_2013-09-06_12-25.jpg is clearly copyrighted, can somebody with the relevant permissions at Commons please delete it? GiantSnowman 11:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Have added a copyright violation template (works like speedy deletion here). It might be faster for you do it on your own next time (and a lot simpler) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• There was no 'edit source' option for me - only 'create source' - and no 'delete' button either. GiantSnowman 12:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• You have to open the Commons page (use the Commons logo in the upper-right corner or the link under the image) first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Which I did do, but it didn't recognise {{db-filecopyvio}}. GiantSnowman 12:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Missing children poster

I would like to add an image to Casitas del Sur case. I am thinking of contacting the author of this picture on Flickr to ask him to release the picture under a cc-by-sa license. As can be seen, the image is a picture of a missing children poster that has pictures of the children. Assume the author does release the image under an acceptable license, can it be used on Wikipedia? Ajax F¡ore_talk 00:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I have answered my own question. The picture is a derivative work and therefore not allowed on Wikipedia. Ajax F¡ore_talk 22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey map extract

The copyright justification for File:Saddleworth Moor-Section of OS map region 8.JPG says "This work is in the public domain because it is an Ordnance Survey map over 50 years old." The map is clearly not over 50 years old. I'm not sure if it's the copyright notice that needs to change, or whether the graphic needs to be removed, but something needs to be done... Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't look to be over 50 to me and I suspect it's part of the 2004 series. Either have a word with the uploaded or list it at WP:PUF for review. NtheP (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The map is an extract from the OS Landranger 1:50,000 series. It cannot be any older than 1974. A 50 year old map exactly (ie: 1963) would still use the One Inch Seventh Series, which had black gridlines, not blue. It's a blatant copyright violation of the Ordnance Survey, and I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Sayyid Shamsullah Qadri.jpg

Good Morning ,

I have loaded a family picture which are my personal belonging File:Sayyid Shamsullah Qadri.jpg and many other historical pictures related to famous academics of South India . Now i want to know how i can get copyright of 50-60 years old photographs for the personal family picture . ( (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)), please need help .

The photographer or their heirs would own the copyright. If you are the heir, then you can grant the license. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Logos of Colleges

Can Logos of Colleges be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons?If no free version exists,can a free version be made?What about examples like File:Calcutta National Medical College LOGO.png, File:Ucms.gif, File:Delhi University's official logo.png. It seems that the uploaders do not know that the logos of colleges are copyrighted.Guru-45 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The first two appear to be copyvios and I have tagged them for deletion as such. I guess for the third one, we have to accept the facts presented as to its date of first publication and that therefore it is now PD in India.--ukexpat (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFTABLE

WP:NFTABLE states that exemptions are "...non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis." You should start a discussion about content removal, before deletion.

Bes2224 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

To whom is this specifically addressed; which situation? This is a board for asking questions. Chris857 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

game was downloaded but then lost when trying to save

we went through everything to put the game on computer . we downloaded it from iPhone everything went well download commenced, ran for 1 hour or so. while waiting for download to finish, i had to then ring my son, so he could tell me what to do next , which was 2hrs after download started. my son told to save. but when i went to do that it had disappeared. ≤ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.149.185.239 (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, specifically a page for discussing copyright concerns for images and videos, and as such, we have no role in any iPhone games. Chris857 (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Rotating_Legionary_2.gif

Hello, please see this question on the Reference Desk about the two images https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotating_Legionary_2.gif and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotating_Legionary.gif

The questioner is concerned by a historical error in the depiction (and note on the talk page for the image another user brings up a second factual error), but I am bringing it here because the person who answered the question said The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator.

Is this then a copyright issue? 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If the original model isn't the work of the editor uploading the image, then we have two problems:

• The licensing for the image is wrong. It doesn't credit the model author or the source.
• (possibly) the model's licence must also permit a derivative work like this, for such derivative images to be distributed, and it may also specify what licences such derivatives could use.

It's possible that this image can still be used, if the model has a suitable licence and if we update the image licensing appropriately. It's unlikely that the image can be used as is with the current licence (only if the model had a very free licence indeed not even requiring attribution, which is unlikely).

Obvious next step is to ask the image author and uploader where they got the model and to sort this out.

NB - are we sure where the model came from? Adding an assertion that it's originally someone else's work is easy to do, but such claims aren't always correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll copy here the rest of Sleigh's comment on authorship. I should have copied it all, instead of just the sentence that I understood! Hope it makes more sense to you. Model is from an Autodesk 3DS Max file from Rome Total War mod called Roma Surrectum II. The "author" probably didn't get permission to use the model from its creator. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I've left a message for the image uploader here (sorry I can't figure out how to do it in diff form since it's the only edit to their talk page). Please let me know what to do next. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

These are both commons images: any outcome will take place there so the discussion should be taking place there too. Neither image has any tag indication any aspect of its copyright status is being questioned. ww2censor (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. I need to leave a message somewhere else? Where? What is a tag indication? Do you mean there is no copyright problem? 184.147.120.88 (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The images are not hosted here on the en wiki, but on Wikimedia Commons. You may want to ask for a licence review at: commons:Commons:License review/requests or the commons: Commons:Village pump/Copyright because while we can give you some advise we can't do anything with the images. I don't know if there is or is not a copyright problem. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I left all the info at your second link. 184.147.120.88 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Album cover which possibly does not exceed the threshold of originality

I think this album cover does not exceed the threshold of originality since it only consists of text in a simple typeface so its license could be changed to PD or its reproduction made by me uploaded to commons, am I right? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, textbook case for being ineligible for copyright. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo being removed, but not clear why

This is in reference to File:Giant Hula half.jpg.

On the Talk tab of an article that includes this picture (Ashrita Furman) it states "Thank you for uploading Image:Ashrita-hula.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page."

However, the image description page includes the following text:

Licensing:

After reading through the relevant material on Wikipedia Commons, I still cannot understand what is missing.

I'd be grateful if someone could help me figure it out.

Thanks

There is a link at File:Giant_Hula_half.jpg to the discussion page. Go there and explain that you took the photo and release the rights to it. RudolfRed (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Her is discussion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Giant_Hula_half.jpg --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

File:SasanianinvasionofYemen.jpg

I'm confused about the copyright status. It's a 1915 litho and I'm assuming that the copyright notice is standard and doesn't apply to this specific image. It's from [2]. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Hutchinson's History of the Nations" appears to be a UK (London) magazine or book. So UK and US copyright would need to be both checked per Commons guidelines. But it's probably better to ask that question on Commons directly (it's a Commons image). GermanJoe (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion at Commons on the basis that it's not PD in the UK. If deleted there it could be uploaded locally as {{PD-USonly}}. January (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No derivatives

It's been awhile, so I might be remembering incorrectly, but isn't it the case that images that are under a license that doesn't allow derivatives aren't considered free (eg. this one)? If that is the case, why is that? Ryan Vesey 04:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

that is correct, no derivative images are not counted as free here. The reason is that "wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" also applies to the pictures, so we allow people to change the pictures as well as the text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

NFC question

I'd like to use this image from this web page in Charlene Richard as a NFC image and as the only image in the article. There's no indication at that web page that they had permission from the publisher of the prayer card, the Friends of Charlene to use the image, but that page is itself a reproduction of a journal article and the permissions might have not been carried over. More likely, in my opinion, since those prayer cards were published with a view to free mass distribution to promote the sainthood of Richard, no one bothered to ask. Prayer cards about Richard are referenced in the article, though this particular one was published later than (but probably as a reproduction — and possible copyright violation — of) the early ones described in the article. So, the original source of this particular card is clear: the Friends of Charlene, but the ultimate probable origin is unknown and the current use of the card may be a copyright violation. There's all the warts. Does it qualify under NFC? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that the sound of crickets I'm hearing, the silence of befuddlement, or have I just struck everyone dumb by my utter stupidity and cluelessness and no one is talking because they're all busy searching for a trout? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

First is to consider the original prayer card's copyright. If the article is true and these weren't published (without copyright notice) in the late 1960s (and more specifically after 1963), then by default it would be copyright for 95 years from publication. So any scan/image of these prayer cards are non-free.

For our considerations, the article does discuss the prayer cards, and they do include (even at that resolution) a photo of Charlene so there's reasonable allowance to use the image. It does appear difficult to trace down the true copyright owner or original publication, though importantly, scans of paper works are not considered new copyrights, so as you state, you believe that the copyright owner is the Friends of Charlene group who are known to have published these. I would upload it and explain all your rational on who you believe is the owner (along with the all the other details for NFC) and you should be okay. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Proof of ownership?

On the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files page, I saw several disputed files where the uploader says they took the photo and "proof" is requested. Exactly what kind of proof can be provided here? I understand that Wikipedia can falsify the claim by doing a Google image search to see if the photo is posted online anywhere else. But assuming that those searches lead nowhere, how does anyone prove they took the photo themselves? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Some ideas would be uploading a full resolution version, where previously only a lo-res was available, taking a photo with the same camera and thus show that exif or hot pixels match, or sending an email to OTRS that can show that the claimed person is the same as the uploader. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The proper type of evidence in each case would be whatever addresses the nature of the doubt and plausibly clarifies it. If User:AnonymousX0 uploads as his own work a photo attributed to professional photographer John Doe, then the proof can be a mail to OTRS from the professional mail account verifiably associated to that photographer, thus providing the evidence needed in that case: a credible identity link between photographer and uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Rarely will definite proof be possible. I have seen it argued that someone else might have taken the photo using the the uploader's camera, or that an exif might be fraudulent. Hopefully, a PUF nomination will give a reason for doubt but, unfortunately, nominations lacking a substantive reason are not closed for lack of rationale. Worse, if no one challenges the nomination, the file will likely be deleted after seven days. Looking at the current rash of "no proof" nominations in WP:PUF it looks to me that quite often there is a legitimate doubt but the nominator has provided no hint as to what the doubt might be. In one case I see someone asking what the doubt is.[3] In another case it looks to me rather likely that the uploader did indeed take the photo.[4] I'll look back in a few days to see what has happened to these files. Thincat (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Altamont Corridor Express logo.jpg

IMHO this file has a rather low threshold of originality. Should it be {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible}} (but with {{Trademark}}, of course)? Useddenim (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is too simple for copyright so PD-textlogo should be OK. or PD-simple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Abbotsford Bridge over Murray River - Nov 1984.jpg

Would just like some opinions on whether I have appropriate tagged this image? If not I will nom for deletion . Most specifically whether "Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." if it isnt explicitly stated or ruled out beyond "Use of this work allowed provided the creator and SLV acknowledged" -- Nbound (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds free enough, but who exactly is the copyright holder? is it SLV? Heirs of the photographer? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Unsure, apparently the author gifted the photo collection to the SLV in 1987 (before his death in 2001). By the way SLV want attribution it sounds like the SLV is probably the copyright holder, but without seeing the paperwork exchanged at the time it would be hard to know truely who is the copyright holder. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually Ive just noticed the blanket ban on commercial uses for the website and content as a whole. Without something specifically to counter that I shall remove the picture -- Nbound (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My pics have been copied from my facebook fanpage

I have a fan page on facebook where i post different pics made by me.I never claim any copyrights and i dont mind anyone sharing or copying them. However, now i am trying to upload the pics on wikipedia and i am getting a deletion notice stating my pics are copied from other sites, but actually those sites have copied those pics from my fanpage. I can even prove this by letting wikipedia compare the dates of my posts on facebook and those sites which have posts after the dates when i posted my pics. Please let me know how can i fix this issue Islamicdua (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

You can first make it clear on your Facebook page by putting a notice of the copyright license you are granting for the pictures, which without looking may be CC-BY-SA-3.0. When you upload to Wikip/media, upload your original picture rather than on copied of Facebook, as Facebook will tend to reduce resolution and drop info from the image. Then we can see that you have the original and others have copied your Facebook page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

File:WiX logo.gif

I meant to upload the image to Wikipedia Commons but it was upload Wikipedia by accident. The Template:CPL and Template:Common Public License is missing from Wikipedia but not from Wikipedia Commons. Now I have a problem with the image I uploaded. But I cannot get this image moved to Commons without the proper license. What should I do? — DarkFrog (talk) — 07:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not see any evidence that the image is freely licenced on either the source page or the rest of that website, so the licence will be questioned and may need an OTRS confirmation. You can actually move or even reupload the image directly to the commons but the verification of the licence will still be necessary. Get the copyright holder to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. If you do upload to the commons, please add the template {{now commons}} to the image here. ww2censor (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There's also a possibility this logo fails the threshold of originality (it is text and the arrow shape), and thus ineligible for copyright. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this picture free or not?

Since the trial against Deputy President of Kenya has begun at the ICC I've been looking for a larger picture to post of him. Is this free? CNN Thank you. Kiplimo Kenya (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not - it's listed to the photographer and Getty Images, meaning it is copyrighted and not released under a free license. I will note that a quick Flickr search brought up this image [5] taken in 2009 when he was still Ministry of Agriculture there, and while it's not the best shot, it still very identifyable and usable and can be uploaded to Commons (it has CC-BY-SA licensing) and used here. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Snap008.gif

File:Snap008.gif is a screenshot of a game, but it seems that the image meets what Template:PD-text says.--Sasuketiimer (Download now/Report a bug) 07:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

X-rays

Hello. There is an ongoing debate about the copyright status of x-rays. Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Original enough?

Is File:23-MikeWillMadeIt.jpg simple enough to be classified as public domain due to lack of originality? Adabow (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No, that tear off edge has too much detail. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY-ND - fair use?

Can images under the licenses CC-BY-ND be used under a claim of fair use? Gbawden (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

They can't be used as free images (the no-derivatives aspect prevents that), but as long as they otherwise meed WP:NFCC, then yes, they can be used as non-free images. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting advice !

Hello, I AM looking forward to upload this picture of Kishenji on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images says: "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." The picture is in accordance with that. Right now, I AM thinking to use {{Non-free use rationale biog}}; but I welcome suggestions. As this would be the first Image that I would be uploading, I seek an opinion first, before uploading the Image, to avoid any mistake. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 12:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That picture of Kishenji is from this set of images. Thanks !! ← Abstruce 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the question ! I have realized that though Wikipedia:Non-free content#Acceptable use says, "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely."; but still Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use says, "A photo from a press or photo agency, unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." I won't upload the Image. Apology and Thanks !! ← Abstruce 11:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Hick.jpg - File:BaronCarpenter.jpg

I would like to open a disscussion concerning those two images. I am certain that they have been misstagged as non-free, but I would like to raise the matter to a noticeboard before trying to fix it.

So, what's your opinion?--The Theosophist (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Both public domain due to age. The derivative is due to cropping only. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So, does this mean that they are non-free?--The Theosophist (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It means they are free to use, and should have {{PD-art-life-70}} or something like that... Christian75 (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done--The Theosophist (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Free Use

Hello, is it permitted to add a company logo of the business I am writing an article about as a photo to the page, when it is retrieved from a reference? And same question about a picture of the company founder. SHurley619 (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A logo is usually usable under WP:fair use in an article on the company. A picture of the founder depends. If the person is alive then no, but if the person is dead and no free pictures exist there may be a reason to have their picture on an article about the person, but not the company. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Free Use? [[File:https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-gg_chl-9SJ8/UeWnMPLy6VI/AAAAAACTqP4/tzb6rHssTXE/s166/PCN%2BTechnology%252C%2BInc.]]SHurley619 (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This logo looks to be complicated enough for copyright to apply, so not free use, but can be used under fair use in the article about the company. You should show that it is genuine, so it should not come from the Google cache. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That logo does not look exactly like the one on the company website but being an American company quite a low threshold of creativity applies, so because the logo shown there http://www.pcntechnology.com/images/header01_plc_005.jpg is actually only composed of text and shapes it is most likely in the public domain. However, the other issue of concern is that you may have a conflict of interest and ideally you should let others write about your company if you are in anyway connected to them, if it is notable enough and supported by reliable third party sources. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Public domain

I believe that this image of the old Briarcliff Train Station (now Public Library) is in the public domain, but I cannot find a specific date or publisher. This website has it here, and it's stated here as early '1900s'. Can I use this image under public domain or another license, or not? Thanks.--ɱ (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't determine whether it's PD either. (There are lots of images like this.) You could try contacting the Briarcliff Manor Scarborough Historical Society - if anyone knows, it would be them. Their "contact us" page is down, but they list an e-mail address and phone number on their membership page. If they can confirm that the image was published in a pre-1964 book, and you can get the title of the book and author, then we can find out more. Or if they can confirm that it was "published" (framed and hung on a wall in a place open to the public) before 1978, and it didn't have a (c) symbol on it, that could work too. Good luck! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will try them and see further.--ɱ (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bikes May Use Full Lane MUTCD Sign

I uploaded this image of the MUTCD R4-11 sign:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bikes_May_Use_Full_Lane.jpg

I notice that while we had many PD-USGov templates we were missing the MUTCD one that is in Commons:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-USGov-MUTCD

So I copied that template here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-USGov-MUTCD

Did I do that right?

--B2C 17:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

My question is: why is this file not on Commons? And why do we have a .jpg here of File:MUTCD R4-11.svg? Jpegs are best for photgraphic material, which this isn't. Chris857 (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know about the SVG file on Commons until after I posted the JPG file here. I created the JPG from the MUTCD's PDF. Don't know how to create SVG files. --B2C 19:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Indian Parliament Bios PD?

The article Nathuran Ahirwar Bhamoura is a copy&paste from its source[6]. The page is on a site maintained by India's National Informatics Centre for the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the Parliament of India, and linked from the official site. This seems to fall under the description of a "Government Work", as described by Hand Book of Copyright Law. I have not found a straight answer regarding whether this bio is in the category of "laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports" described by Template:PD-India. Is the text public domain? DPRoberts534 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I need to verify the image I uploaded

How do I edit the information of my image File:Portrait of Irish flutist Patrick "Packie" Duignan.png step by step so to verify that Wikipedia has legal rights to display it? I very much appreciate your help, thank a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorccán Duignan (talk • contribs) 07:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You go to the image page File:Portrait of Irish flutist Patrick "Packie" Duignan.png and click on the edit link at the top, then fill in all the information in all the fields of the template I added for you. We cannot tell you those details because you provided the image. You also need to add a copyright licence tag which depends on who, if anyone, owns the copyright. Where did the image come from and do you know that is is freely licenced? If you cannot provide all that information it is likely still in copyright and will probably be deleted. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Images generated by an applet on a website

If I make a screenshot of a sphere packing image generated by this applet, would that screenshot be covered by any copyright of the author of the applet, or would I be the sole copyright holder in the screenshot? I ask since if it were the latter, then I could use the applet for creating some images for an article I prepare. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 14:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The shape and placement of the spheres is purely functional and mathematically determined, and so it is not copyrightable. Same for the gridlines. But the colors of the spheres and indications of lighting could be deemed "creative content". I would say that such a work is probably not creative enough to merit copy protection, but I'm not 100% sure. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation of Wikipedia by hearnes.com?

I was GA reviewing Bournemouth and noticed that this page from Hearnes Estate Agents is pretty much a word for word copy of our article (or at least a recent revision of it). I dug around the history to see who added what and when, and I'm pretty convinced that they're copying from us rather than the other way round, so shouldn't they have an appropriate attribution including the CC-BY-SA 3.0 / GFDL licence tags? They certainly shouldn't claim its "Hernes Estate Agents. All Rights Reserved." Is there anything we can do about this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've found so many websites that copy at least some information from Wikipedia that I've been led to believe that half of all web resources are just Wikipedia copypasta. It's ridiculous, but isn't significant.--ɱ (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethically, you're right, they are clearly in the wrong. Legally, Wikipedia doesn't actually hold the copyright to the content; the individual authors do. Any of the content contributors could send the company a cease-and-desist letter and force the company to take it down. (There's a decent sample here.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)