Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2014/May

Are copyright laws being violated by an external link from WP to a website with images?

I have reviewed WP:Copyrights, with attention to "Linking to copyrighted works", and "Image description" pages.

If I read these right, it is OK to link (via "External Links section of WP page) to a copyrighted page, such as a journal article. My question is: is that still true if there is an image in the article? I have concluded "yes" Tell me if I'm right.

The section under "Image description pages" is referring to images that are UPLOADED to a WP page - that's when there are restrictions, and permission needed unless the image is on wikicommons. Tell me if I'm right. No problem with linking to an image without getting permission as long as it's appropriate and reliable - right?

Thanking you in advance.

Will your answer show up on my talk page and signal me I have a message? Sorry WP is all new to me

IiKkEe (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Linking to an external link with a copyright image is always acceptable and is not a copyright violation. Copyright violations only happen when you actually use (or reuse) copyrighted materials. Uploading copyright images (that fail WP:NFCC) would be copyright violations, not using external links. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER, actually no, it is not appropriate to link to someone who is illegally hosting a copyright version of a document. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought the question was about linking to articles with copyright content, not illegally hosted material.

Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC) This is a test reply to see if it shows up in the right place.

IiKkEe (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC

Well it seemed to have worked: every time I click the Save Page, WP tells me I am creating an editing conflict. I Don't get it.

Anyway: ToTLSuda - thank you so much for your prompt and clear answer. This will be invaluable in improving articles without cluttering them up with too many images, and to avoid the taxing activity of seeking permission to upload. Now that I know that it is "always acceptable" - I love your word "always" - to do this, I'll ask my second question: is it ever acceptable by WP policy to put an external link in the body of the article instead of at the end under "External links"? Like a parenthesis with something to click on to take you to the link like this: (see *)? That would REALLY help!

Thank you again for your help.

IiKkEe (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Generally not appropriate in running prose to include a EL line. But you often can make an inline citation to the external source assuming this is not an ELNO. For example on stamp images I've suggested instead of an image to link to an appropriate page dedicated to the stamp (this for the US postal museum). But make sure the site is legitimately using the image as Red Pen warns. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've used the convention Masem recommends here. It makes for a clean copy when printed. The image is just two clicks away (footnote, link) instead of one. But the citation is not the link since it could go bad. The note includes a statement such as, "An image of the stamp can be seen at Arago online, 37c Lewis and Clark on Hill stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2014

(UTC)

This is a test to see if this shows up to the right place.

I' m computer dumb and WP dumb, but I'll keep on trying. Here is where I am: I asked a question and Person A answered me. Person B came on and said they disagreed with Person A's answer. Person C answered my second question and Person D agreed. So my question is - who are these four people? Do any of you speak for WP? If yeas, on what authority? How do I know your answer is correct?

On to specifics Person A:TLSuda, would you answer my second question, tell me what your credentials are, and give me a part of the WP:copyright policy that backs you up? Person C: Masem, A two clicks away technique is fine with me. So how do I make "an inline citation to the external source?" What's the mechanics? And as to the "one click away" setup, The VirginaHistorian, why does it matter if the citation I link to directly goes bad? ie what's the difference between it going bad from a citation vs going bad from an external link footnote?

Masem: what does "generally not appropriate" mean? Is it ever appropriate? Is it written WP policy? Should I just do it and see what happens?

I don't mean for my questions to sound hostile. I'm just asking for information. I appreciate everyone's interest. I'm one or two clicks away from legally bringing awesome copyrighted images to the fingertips of the WP reader!

Thanks to all.

IiKkEe (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Citations are described over at WP:CITE, or if you look at the editing window there is a "CITE" tab that will help too. But even a basic <ref>[URL link here]</ref> would be just fine for starting off (someone else can help format the cite correctly). In terms of what's appropriate or not, WP:ELYES, WP:ELNO and WP:ELMAYBE give some ideas. Common sense comes into play - if you have an image you see on a site and you think that the site itself shouldn't be hosting the image, that's probably an inappropriate case. And if you need to relocate the original source or more reliable link, Google's reverse image search is your friend. --MASEM (t) 22:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@IiKkEe: There is no one disagreeing, just another editor pointing out that while you can link to other websites with non-free content, you cannot link to websites that are illegally hosting non-free content. For example, you could link to Coca-Cola's website to see a non-free photo of one of their buildings that they took, but not to a blog with the same image on it. For your second question, Masem is right, no external links in the main article space. As for credentials, Masem and I are both administrators, who were approved by a consensus of Wikipedia editors. No one editor specifically speaks for Wikipedia, but administrators are given a bit more ability and alongside that more responsibility. We are trusted members of the Wikipedia community and we work together with everyone else. (Being an administrator does not make us always right, and in fact more often than not, non-administrator editors are just as smart or even smarter in some cases.) The other two people are also trusted editors, who I have much respect for. Both are well versed in copyright, and especially with Wikipedia policy. I hope that helps. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TLSuda and Masem, for your responses. That does help. Here is the as yet unanswered question. I'll get really specific. There is a terrific diagram in a peer reviewed medical journal article available online. Copyrighted. Legitimate. I want to write a sentence on that topic in WP article, at the end of the sentence (see *) and provide an EL to the diagram. TLSuda said "is always acceptable", Masem says "generally not appropriate". Please resolve discrepancy. TlSuda says "no one is disagreeing".

Thanks!

IiKkEe (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's turn this around: can you point (link) to the diagram? If the diagram is something that might be able to be reconstructed in a free manner because the diagram is based on data (which you cannot copyright), then it might be able to make a free version to include. Barring that, if the diagram is considered extremely important to understanding the topic, we might be able to justify its use as NFC. Otherwise, you can use a reference to the journal (And specific diagram) instead of a bare URL (eg [URL] which both I can TLSuda both agree is a form to avoid) to provide said linkage. But knowing what exactly you want to include and where may make this easier to answer. -- — Preceding comment added by Masem (talk · contribs) 06:48, 2 May 2014; original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors.

administrative break

'Recap on earlier queries. "A two clicks away technique is fine with me. So how do I make "an inline citation to the external source?" What's the mechanics? And as to the "one click away" setup, The VirginaHistorian, why does it matter if the citation I link to directly goes bad? ie what's the difference between it going bad from a citation vs going bad from an external link footnote?"

When you hit an edit button, you can see the coding others used, as in my example above, so you can copy-paste an example onto your User or User/sandbox page, edit it for your purposes and then paste into your article. The technique is a powerful one. Later, sometimes when you do things which is a common mistake, a bot will come along and make an improvement as it is making a global pass, so you can update your User/sandbox example. For instance, a bot helped me out to improve stamp presentations with more elegant coding.

The convention for footnoting is to make citations in text so that the reader can always go to hard copy references, even if a link is embedded and later broken. So rather than [:http://arago.si.edu], the convention would be Arago: people, postage & the post, written [http://arago.si.edu Arago: people, postage & the post]. The page link to your chart may be relocated, but the text reference will allow the reader to search for it at the new site, or if it is no longer online, in the published journal referenced. And if you put the page on your watch list by clicking the star at the top of the article page, you will see Bot activity which removes broken links, and know to return to replace it.

A broken link to an illustration is not so critical to the reliability of the article, but again it can be styled in such a way that a broken link does not lose the reference. Articles may be vandalized for some period of time, but the citations are solid leads for online and library investigation. Lots of good resources and links for help coding at the WP:MOS, WP Manual of Style. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this poem in PD?

DeCSS haiku, per the first lines of itself at [1] ? If so we could Wikisource it, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it would be legal to copy it to Wikisource, but may not be in the policy of that wiki, due to no grant of permission to create derivatives. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't abandoning the listed rights also abandoning the restriction on creating derivatives, thus making this work PD? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

family photo

Hello - I'd like to upload a picture from our family archives for which we don't have all the attribution. It was taken ca. 1925-1935 in the U.S., and is a "headshot", probably professionally made. A copy has been in the possession of our family ever since. We do not know the identity of the photographer. All the surviving descendants agree to the uploading of the photo. Can we do so freely, or under fair use? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You best chance is to use this under fair use, since copyright will be unknown. The image presumably was not published before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If you have made a reasonable effort to identify the photographer, then it should be OK to upload to Commons "author unknown". I suggest you try that first and watch the page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any discernible copyright notices on it? If not, it may qualify for Template:PD-US-no notice if I'm not mistaken. Connormah (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, all. No copyright notices, so it should qualify there. Dohn joe (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No it does not qualify, as it was not published before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you define publication? Otherwise I'll say that publication, i.e. making something public, also includes publication within family archives, such as photo book, which may be made available to others. Therefore PD-US-no notice seems ok to me. Arguing to the contrary would be a sad example of meta:copyright paranoia, IMHO. Sigh. Publication does seem to confirm this. So I think fair use remains the only option. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

taking images from a book

is it still a copyright issue if a scan a photo from a book then reference it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Tomas (talk • contribs) 11:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Werieth (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• A flat "yes" is much too generic. How old is the photograph, and how old is the book? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Country also is a factor here, for example pre-1994 Polish books are usually ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wouldn't those fall afoul of the URAA? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think so, through nobody really raised this at commons:Template:PD-Polish. You could ask there, I guess? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you notice everyone (i.e. my mom, your moms, maybe an aunt or two) the hard 'yes' from Werieth? Flip me, don't flop with Werieth! This is someone who obviously knows their 2 +2 from 3 + 1. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

" will not harm any commercial opportunities "

Can we use this image [2] in the article Earl Durand. I thought it was a slam dunk FAIR USE, but got to the question where I had to verify that its use " will not harm any commercial opportunities " of the copyright holder and I was not sure that I could make that assurance. Is there a pro forma wording? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't even approach meeting WP:NFCC#8, so I would worry about the commercial opportunities question later. What do you think someone would fail to understand about Earl Durand before seeing that image that he would afterwards, and why do you think you cannot explain that in words?—Kww(talk) 01:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Windows Phone 8S picture

Basically, was wondering if I can upload [this] for use on this page, as I really didn't think the image currently there is much good at all. I don't really know anything about the copyrighting system, and neither did I understand the guidance articles on uploading to Wikipedia Peter13542 (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Media which is copyright only in some places

Dear copyright experts: The Afc submission Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Douglas Richard Ferguson displays a number of images which are claimed to be in public domain. I am surprised that major magazines would have no copyright notices relating to their content. I am planning to improve the referencing of this article so that it can be moved to mainspace, but I want to be sure that the images are not copyright violations. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

One copyright notice will cover an entire magazine (see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf) except for any adverts which need to be separately copyrighted. So a copyright notice on the title page will suffice for the magazine content. Harper's Bazaar for the years mentioned in the photos is most definately copyrighted (see here and here). I can't work out if File:DouglasFerguson-KellyLeBrock-Bazaar,1980.jpg is an advert or not, if it's not an advert then it's copyrighted in the above. If it was an advert then there needs to be a check of the entire page (this looks cropped) to see if there is a copyright claim on the page but not on the image itself. Incidentally with images like this there are two copyrights to be consdiered - the work that forms the subject (Ferguson's design) and the copyright of the photographer (Scavullo) who took the image. As the image appears to have been uploaded by Ferguson himself, that covers his copyright but Scavullo's has to be addressed.

I suspect File:DouglasFerguson RichardAvedon Revlon,1985.jpg is also copyrighted (see this registration).

As for File:DF©Deniau2012.jpg he might have commissioned this as a work for hire but I think this needs confirmation via an OTRS ticket. Nthep (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

File:DouglasFerguson-KellyLeBrock-Bazaar,1980.jpg certainly appears to be editorial work not advertising so the magazine copyright would most likely apply unless the photographer retained the copyright which is unusual for such work. File:DouglasFerguson RichardAvedon Revlon,1985.jpg appears to be simple advertising in an editorial style. ww2censor (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't the fact that the image was in an advertisement just mean that the image copyright was held by the company whose product was being advertised, or by the photographer, rather than that it was not under copyright at all? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I or Ww2censor are suggesting it's not copyrighted, just that we haven't definitely ascertained whose copyright it is. As per the link I posted above I think File:DouglasFerguson RichardAvedon Revlon,1985.jpg is copyrighted to both Revlon Inc and Avedon, the photographer. There are a whole series of images registered to this pairing all of which relate to the "The Most unforgettable women in the world wear Revlon" campaign, the one I've linked to relates to the four subjects of this ad but is dated 1986 whereas the upload claimed it appeared in 1985, hence my saying "certain but not absoutely certain" that it is copyrighted. Nthep (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete image

Hello! I just want to delete the image I uploaded, I don't even know how I uploaded it, I did not mean to. How do I do this? Shelbyknorr23 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, how can I find images I can use? Shelbyknorr23 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I've deleted the image for you. You can find images to use by searching for files in the search box. If you are looking for images that are not currently on Wikipedia, you will have to find resources that release images under free licenses. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Federal Way School District Logo

In looking at the logo for Seattle Public Schools, it appears to have been a non-free media file added by DASHBot, which you are the owner of. I was interested in adding a the logo for Federal Way Public Schools using the same citation. The file can be found here: http://www.federalwaymirror.com/news/257697671.html . Can you add the file for the wikipage in question or instruct me on how to do so? ThanksChamp68 (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Picture for James Toney

I want to upload a picture for boxer James Toney. There is a picture I'm looking at which is on Google images. I need to know if I'm legal to upload that image here on Wikipedia.

Shane Pike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spp8912 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shane. Pictures of living people generally have to be free content, which means that the owner has allowed people to reuse it for any purpose, with few restrictions. This may be the case for your image, but it is most likely not. If you provide a link to it, we can give some more advice. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've found a picture that meets these conditions, but if you still want to add the other photo, we can discuss it. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3?

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#RfC:_Is_stamp_non-free_content_use_explained_by_WP:NFCI_Guideline_.233.3F This is a policy/guideline issue and should be discussed there. Werieth (talk)

I have restored the above post without the time stamp. This section has deliberately undated posts to avoid automatic archiving while the RFC starting 29 April at the new location is ongoing. PrimeHunter (talk)

At about two weeks, eight support, one opposes, two made comments relative to stamps on topical philately articles in the context of other NFC concerns, one wondered what the purpose of the RfC might be, passing judgment on an individual stamp in context or policy change. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Olympic Games 1936

Greetings! In 1936 two books appeared (winter and summer games) with excellent B/W photographies. The books were edited by the Reemtsma cigarette company. I inquired whether they bought/hold the rights, but they informed me that the rights still lie exclusively with the 30+ photographers (whose names are not given). E.g. the picture from the Indian field hockey team (which can be found in WP) is part of one of these books. Some of the pictures can be found in The 1936 Olypmic Report - but in the books the quality is much better.

My question: Under which licence can I upload these pictures and for which year do I have to set the publication date ("time capsule"?). Rough estimation: 2032 ? Is this proceeding desired or do I just forget about the photographs and leave them to the next generation? Thanks for helping! GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 14:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

First question, in which country were these two books first published in 1936? As you say the Reetsma company I'm assuming Germany in which case the images, if anonymous, will have become PD in Germany (and the rest of the EU) on 1 Jan 2007. However to upload to Wikipedia they need to be PD in the US as well and I don't think they are. As the books weren't PD in Germany on 1 Jan 1996 and (I assume) weren't published in the US within 30 days of their original publication then they won't be PD in the US until 2032. The exception to this will be if they were published in the US within 30 days and either this was without a copyright notice or with a copyright notice that wasn't subsequently renewed in which case they will be PD in the US. So second question, was there any publication in the US and if so, when? Nthep (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the test for anonymous merely that their names aren't given? I doubt it. The EUR-Lex servers are down as I post, so I can't check the directives. I should think the test is whether their names are known or not. I suggest User:Grey Geezer re-enquires of Reemtsma. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the 1936 report, the photographers are named in very comprehensive "Register of Photographers" at the end. For their copyright to endure at 2014, they must have been alive after 1943. I should imagine most were, though I dare say there will be war dead amongst them. Worth researching for the choicest photographs perhaps. But URAA (Imean the technical issue which makes these images copyright in the US until 2032) certainly applies notwithstanding, so Fair Use only I should think (in which case the excellence of the images becomes academic because of minimality requiremments 0.1 Mp max being the brightline rule it seems) unless one wants to run the uncertain gauntlet of the new URAA dispensation at Commons (unfathomable). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked the 1936 books on archive.org. It's true that most photographs are uncredited and there's no register of photographers, but I'm pretty sure there will records at Reemtsma unless they were destroyed in the war. And those that appear in the 1936 report are certainly recorded. HTH. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is what I got from Reemtsma:

"ich kann es Ihnen nicht mit letzter Sicherheit sagen, aber wir sind immer von einer erworbenen Veröffentlichungslizenz ausgegangen. Das könnte im Einzelfall anders geregelt gewesen sein, aber bei vielen Aufnahmen z.B. von der Olympiade 1936 oder den NS-spezifischen Sammelbilderalben sind in der Hauptsache Agenturbilder u.a. von Heinrich Hoffmann abgedruckt – die werden alle nur für diese spezielle Verwendung honoriert worden sein."

"Not completely sure, but we always assumed that a publication licence was acquired. There might have been differences in individual cases, but most of the photographs (Olympic games 1936, NS-specific collector albums) printed by Heinrich Hofmann, probably will have been paid for only for these specific occasions."

You see: Very vague - so I think there is no use in digging deeper.

The interesting thing about some of the pictures is the very natural settings - away from the propaganda stuff. And it is those pictures which in my mind could be interesting for WP.

Now I have to decide: Do I put the work in (scanning, cutting, documentation, uploading - but not using them...) or do I continue to work in the garden... GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 12:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S this photo is also from the book, but it seems to have been taken from a newspaper... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

If there is a list of photographers listed in any of the books then {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} doesn't apply because even though we can't attribute anyone image to anyone photographer, there is a public claim of ownership. So as CoMC says fair use is going to be the only route open for some time to come. Nthep (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Grey Geezer: I see what you mean about Reemtsma. I would be satisfied about an anonymous claim in that case. Nthep makes a good point but the Reetsma books don't include a register of photographers. So, providing you have checked the photo doesn't appear as credited in the 1936 offical souvenir or other sources you know (you seem knowledgeable about the possibilities) then I think you can you can use {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. But I warn you now that these images strictly can't go onto Commons because of the URAA technicality that makes them copyright until 95 years of their publication in the US. Of course this is enormously frustrating and there seems to be some sort of tendency at the moment to assume it's not there and there are indeed masses of images on Commons that shouldn't be there. Fair Use is also limiting. You have to justify each use under a Fair Use rationale and basically you are rationed to one Fair Use image per article unless you're inventive in your excuses. In particular no lists are allowed: forget about illustrating a list of Ice Hockey player who won a 1936 medal sort thing. It depends I suppose how committed you are. I suggest uploading a few of the nicest images you find to Commons and see how you get on, But really GG, if we're talking wiki or gardening you know there ought to be no contest :). Good luck. Not an expert here BTW. Just passing on my own learning curve. be prepared to be frustrated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I became aware of these books when we were working on the German article "Olympia-Eiche" ("Olympic oak tree"s, which were given to the gold medal winners). Is it possible - maybe not? - to crop some of these pictures to just show the athlete with the oak sapling? There are at least 12 photos, showing the gold medalists (and we tried to document their stories in the article) with the oak trees in the pots. If this is also hindered by the copyright, I will just leave the exact references of the books (+ page number + names of the winners) on the Discussion page, so that future authors will know, where to find those pictures. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 12:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That latter would be a useful service. Can't advise about cropping. I should imagine the same copyright issues arise. Really I can only advise you have a go at uploading a selection to Commons, investing no more time than you feel you are prepared to lose, and just see what happens. Keep a copy of your scans so that you can upload them as non-free content if Commons decides they can't host them. I mean it's not as if you're about to embark on an industrial-size raid of a German archive. I can't see it merits intense scrutiny as to its copyright status. There is a certain degree of laissez-faire at Commons you can rely on. But I only advise this if you're prepared to shrug your shoulders and walk away "did my best" attitude if the fuzz do bust you (whoops, sorry) if it gets deleted by the patrollers. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will limit myself to the "oak" pictures and watch what will happen... Case closed. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 07:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright ownership

Hello, I bought some paintings from Bryan Ingham in the 90s and he gave me the copyright to them. I was one of his executors - he died in 1997. The images I want to upload for his page were made by me, but I do not feel able to say that I created the paintings, however nevertheless I am able to grant free licence. Can you please advise me what I should do on upload.

Thanks very much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A J O'Malley (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide the printed evidence that the copyrights were transferred to you (As normally the sale of paintings does not infer this transfer), then I would suggest that you send these scans in an email to meta:OTRS with that to describe the matter and provide that evidence. There's more details at what to do at Commons:PERMISSION (since if you are willing to put under a free license we'll want those images at commons). --MASEM (t) 14:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

John Romero

I just wanted to run File:Daikatana ad - John Romero is about to make you his bitch - Suck it down.jpg past the noticeboard. Wanted to confirm that it doesn't pass the threshold for originality and that it's in the public domain as tagged. czar ♔ 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No way that is PD. The splatters and paint effects used on parts of it are creative enough to qualify for protection in the US. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Photos from US military websites

If I come across a photo on an official US military website, such as army.mil, can I assume it's "prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person's official duties"? Our article Public domain in the United States says this includes military journalism, so a news article from army.mil seems like fair game. If it matters, I'm referring to the pictures on this page, as I'm working on a Wikipedia article on the person it's about. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The author of that article is from AFN (American Forces Network) Europe which is owned by the Department of Defense. As both the author and the subject of the piece work for AFN, and the photos are taken in AFN studios, I would believe that both are {{PD-USGov-Military}}. I don't think that we can blanket state that any image from an military website can be assumed (like we can't for NASA) but in this case, it seems that the images are AFN photos. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll use one for now. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Picture for article

Do you have donkey pictures available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliannai (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Donkey. Nthep (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Detailed map data

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#KML file for U.S. Route 20 is too big: essentially Thewombatguru has exported the vector data for a specific highway from Google Maps, and plans to add it to U.S. Route 20 as a KML file (for example, see the top right corner of Broadway (Manhattan) for one that wasn't generated in this way). My take is that this preserves certain creative choices that Google and its contributors have made in deciding exactly how to represent a two-dimensional roadway as a one-dimensional line. The specific page would be Template:Attached KML/U.S. Route 20, and the data appears in the history (compare Template:Attached KML/Broadway (Manhattan)). --NE2 12:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not appropriate. Google map imagery is still copyrighted even though the underlying data is not. You may use OpenStreetMap, however, to acquire a equivalent free image, however. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The argument is that this is the underlying data. My rebuttal is that there's some creativity in how the data was created. --NE2 15:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Google Maps is copyrighted data that is incompatible with our licence. OpenStreetMap trout slap anyone tracing from it. On the other hand, OpenStreetMap itself is volunteer run, so is not what we'd call a reliable source as there may be mistakes on it at any time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

For a 2500+ mile long highway that crosses the US, the degree of mistakes that may come out of OSM that otherwise can't be validated by looking at any other highway atlas for the resolution that we (as an encyclopedia) are going to use is going to be negligible. Hence why we want people to pull street and highway maps off that. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

But a KML file is only raw data, not map imagery, or am I mistaking? Thewombatguru (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter - Google (or whoever generated the data) worked hard to get it and don't want some random person on the internet stealing it. And what use is a KML file for an encyclopedia anyway - does it work with the iPhone app? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

But User:Masem said the underlying data isn't copyrighted, and we rty to add KML to every highway article. Thewombatguru (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

But by that logic, I could rip the audio off this (which is an official channel and therefore correctly copyrighted) and put it as an ogg in Argument sketch as "underlying data from Google", and use the argument "we try to add OGG to every Monty Python article". I'm sure lots of random readers would love that, but it doesn't mean it's actually legit. (And I'm very sorry, but if you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not like I'm trying to say it's legit what we do, because I personally don't always know if it is, it was just a question about something someone stated. Thewombatguru (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The route that a major US highway takes across the US (which I will consider as a long list of lat/long coordinates) is uncopyrightable data, even if one spent the time to collect it; there is no creativity considered here under US law. Any textual presentation of that data in a textual format also is uncopyrightable (eg the KML file of this route from Google is not copyrightable), this has been determined case laws regarding information databases like phone books. The graphical presentation that Google uses however is copyrightable hence why we require free license maps (of the type OpenStreetMap offers), where they have allowed the graphical elements under a free license. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, I can just continue making KML files using the data that Google gives me? And when a KML file is created and put onto wikipedia, you can view it on Google and Bing maps, those links are automatically generated by the {{Attached KML}} template so that's allowed too? Thewombatguru (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are correct; Reviewing the KML format (which is just XML wrapping) as long as as the KLM file is limited to the coordinate sets needed to plot out the route, I cannot see how, using the uncopyrightable nature of data, the KLM file would even be copyrightable, at least in the US. (For UK and other countries where "Sweat of the brow" comes into play, that might be different, but we're talking Google and en.wiki, all US copyright laws.) You may want to toss a quick Q over at the Graphics Labs Maps division to double check but I'd think if there was a problem with KLM files we'd have the issue come up already with how many times that Attached KML is used. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Asked it: Wikipedia_talk:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Question_about_KML_mapping_regarding_to_copyrights

Has anyone that has responded to this thread taken a second to learn how google obtains its data? Oh, no? I thought not... because if you did, you'd know the base source for US data is TIGER, open source data from the US Census Bureau. Derp. It is free content; do your research next time, experts :) I'll happily link info showing that the road data across the world for Google Maps comes from government data. What... did you honestly think they looked at satellite images and traced it themselves? lol to you. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if it was the case that Google outfitted a car with GPS and outfitted with computers to accurately track the route themselves as to use for their own map data, the route is factual, uncopyrightable data. The fact they pull from US gov sources makes it even more so not an issue with the copyright on the data. --MASEM (t) 04:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Lol to you. New construction is traced off aerials (either by Google employees or suckerscontributors using Google Map Maker), and there may be creativity involved.

Would I be able to take a screenshot here and upload it to Wikipedia? It's likely that everything displayed (roads, water, city limits) comes from government data. --NE2 06:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, because the choice of colour combinations used to display that data, the choice of which data to display, and the interface in general, are what are unique and "creative". Tracing a set of points on an aerial photo to create a map isn't creativity, because anybody can replicate that data. You cannot copyright facts or data, because they are absolute. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Choice of colors is not copyrightable: File:Sofa Song DVD.jpg --NE2 23:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is the artistic and creative values that are considered. The combination of the elements I listed are what gives a map those values. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

All this said and done, when I see people loudly asserting they know lots about copyright, experience shows me that in fact, they don't.unless perhaps they have a signature implying they're a lawyer working for the WMF Example. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

UK PD? RN Crown? Any advice?

I'd like to use the images found here. The device in question was constructed in 1925, and the image was taken some time between that and 1931. The image is known to appear in the Admiralty Handbook of W/T, in 1931, but is known to have appeared in earlier versions of that work as well, and it is not clear which version this particular image first appears in.

So, what copyrights might apply here, if any? The curator of the museum says it's in the PD, but I need to be sure before uploading it to the commons or here.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

UK crown copyright would apply. It would have expired by 1982, (after 50 years) and therefore be pre US copyright restoration date in 1996. So would be PD now. You can use {{PD-UKGov}} Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

UK Crown Copyright expiration is considered worldwide by the British government. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikimapia

Can i add maps from wikimapia.org--prathamprakash29 09:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathamprakash29 (talk • contribs)

Although Wikimapia grants a CC-BY-SA license, the underlying images are from Google maps. They are not free and cannot be used here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Trademark sign

This question was asked at the Graphics Lab about two weeks ago and nobody there was sure, so I'm moving it here. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 21:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the trademark sign embedded in File:Sony Entertainment Television.svg appropriate or can someone remove it? Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks which says that ® should not be used. Since the symbol is outside the main trademark you could remove it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Qt logo

I suggest that this logo is actually available under either GPL or LGPL license since it appears as a part of software distributed under these licenses. Am I right? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 21:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the QT logo is covered by either the GPL or LGPL. The fine print at Qt Project says "Qt® and the Qt logo is a registered trade mark of Digia plc and/or its subsidiaries and is used pursuant to a license from Digia plc and/or its subsidiaries." Digia's official page for the logo says "All logos are © 2014 Digia Plc and/or its subsidiaries. Digia, Qt and their respective logos are trademarks of Digia Corporation in Finland and/or other countries worldwide." It's actually not uncommon for open source and other permissively licensed projects to protect their logos. For example, Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA/GFDL licensed, but the Wikipedia logo is not free. —RP88 ^(talk) 12:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

But can it be nonetheless below the threshold of originality? --ɴõɴəχүsƚ 21:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct tag HELP!

Hi what is the correct tag to use for this photo: File:The Who live at Oude RAI Amsterdam (1972).jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukejordan02 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 May 2014‎

There is no acceptable copyright tag right now because, besides the Flickr uploader limiting the licence as non-commercial which we don't accept, the reverese of the photo is shown here and includes a copyright notice which attributes the photo to someone else. Unless the photographer released the image freely we can't use it. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

How to replace an older image which has a tricky license

The Museum of the American Revolution wants to swap out their building rendering image on their Wikipedia page with an up-to-date and more correct one (the original building plans have been revised, so the previously released rendering is inaccurate). The image currently used is located here: File:Museum of the American Revolution Day Rendering 1.jpg. You'll note that it's a complicated license, for a copyrighted image, for use on the musueum's identifying page. It's been up since 2013.

I was asked to advise on how to replace the out-of-date rendering with a newer image, and since it's usually recommended that someone create a new file upload and replace the link, rather than replacing one version of an image with another that differs, I recommended that they try a new upload, using the same licensing as the file above, which seems to have passed muster.

User:Jddionisio (who I can vouch for as being an authorized representative of the Museum of the American Revolution) tried to upload their new file as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MoAR_April_2014_Rendering.jpg but it was speedy deleted.

If someone can help us out with this, or give some advice on how best to proceed, that would be much appreciated. Many thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You simply would want to upload the new rendering here at Wikipedia (not Commons) using the File Upload Wizard, selecting the appropriate non-free content information. (It should look similar to the current one.) You would then want to update the article with the appropriate image. Then you could tag the old image as {{Di-orphaned fair use}} so it can be deleted by an administrator. Alternatively, if the image is hosted elsewhere, you can request that it be uploaded by clicking Submit a Request at WP:FFU to request the image be uploaded/replaced. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Michel Haddi, deleted version check and other concerns

See the content at User:Michel haddi, which appears to be a translation of (or the other way around) of fr:Michel Haddi (both created in their current forms in 2013), while Michel Haddi was deleted in 2010 due to copyright concerns (and previously in 2007 under an unspecified CSD criterion). I'm concerned that the userspace version is just a recreation, or might otherwise by a copyvio; could someone take a look? (I'm also very concerned about the images given there's no OTRS, no proof the uploader is who he says he is, and no proof they weren't all works for hire anyway, but that's a Commons issue.) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: The text content of the userpage versus the deleted article is vastly different. The userpage seems to be rewritten and expanded greatly. I'm not saying that its not a copyvio; rather, I'm saying its not a copyvio of the same source/information. The photos have all be tagged on Commons for not having permission. I've watch-listed them all, and I'm sure through a reverse-GIS we could find enough to show they are copyvios without permission. If they were local, I'd probably delete them as such. Anything else? TLSuda (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's all I needed. Thanks very much for your speedy attention to this! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are images on in one article and not another?

Ok, so I'm new, and very frustrated trying to understand moronic US copyright law (which seems to hurt the content owner more than protecting them by restricting how their content can be promoted and information on it distributed), so I learned a while back some really stupid rules like you can't put a book jacket on the page about that book without copyright holders permission (even when I had their written permission it seemed to make absolutely no difference though...) Now common sense would have told me you'd only remove those if the author objected...and what author would object to their book jacket being in an encylopedia...why would they object to that at all? Anyway, I knew these rules were stupid, so I decided to avoid uploading new images entirely in my contributions as the rules seem nonsensical to me, and the reactions when you accidentally broke a rule automated, hysterical and ridiculously over the top...but this one I have to ask.

My question is this: Why is an image ok in one wikipedia article but not ok to use that same image in another? In this case I'm talking about a DVD cover and two book covers. I put them in another article to illustrate what were the 3 major works in a genre, and they keep getting deleted because of copyright rules...but the reason I choose them from existing articles is, I assumed if they were already on wikipedia without challenge they were in accordance with these stupid rules...but now it seems they're not...so why are they ok on the pages about the book/movie but not ok in a page about the genre those movies are in? To me this seems inconsistent and random. Can someone explain this to me:

1. In simple English 2. Without referring me to a wiki policy page that is more confusing than it is helpful (I've read them already, they don't make any sense and I'm a well educated guy) 3. Without an automated robot like response which is all you seem to get around here.

I would appreciate it. I enjoy contributing but some of these inconsistent rules are extremely off putting for a new contributor.

Thanks

Jericho.Trinity.Omega (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Trivially simple explanation: we make minimal use of copyrighted material. Using something twice is twice as much use as using something once, so it isn't minimal use.—Kww(talk) 14:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Slightly more complicated explanation: it is possible to use the same image twice, but each usage has to be individually justified with a separate explanation of how the usage is justified by licensing or fair use. Using an image once doesn't make it OK to use it again and again.—Kww(talk) 14:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to what Kww said, on articles about individual works, cover images are considered vital in identifying and conveying an understanding of the work, something that, for each individual work, is not as essential to do on broader genre articles that cover many different works. Some background information: as far as I know, in genre articles and other similar overviews, the use of copyrighted images is not completely settled, so you kind of inadvertently stumbled into a bit of a quagmire. There is something in the policies that it's OK to use copyrighted images as typical examples of a genre, but in practice images like that seem to get removed eventually. If I may make a suggestion, if you can find free images of people involved with the works (authors, directors, actors) and use those to illustrate genre articles instead, there shouldn't be any copyright issues. Siawase (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Siawase: It all depends on the medium, Art for instance a visual medium, has a large number of works in the wider articles. Books however are not the same. Very little of a book is on its cover the critical work is inside it. Thus usage of the cover outside the primary subject isnt needed. Werieth (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: thank you for clarifying/expanding on that. However, in practice even in articles about visual art genres/schools, I have seen copyrighted images get deleted because there was no critical commentary about that specific work. In practice, just being a typical example of a genre doesn't seem to be enough, even though policy seems to imply that should be the case. (Apologies if this is veering a bit far from the original question.) Siawase (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Siawase: Again it depends on how its integrated into the article. Just including a work and saying that X is an example isnt enough. Critical commentary is what determines if a work should be included or not. If you include a work and then also accompany it with sourced text that explains that it is a key example and what makes it a key example, you shouldnt have any issue keeping a file in, unless it becomes an issue with the number of examples you start to include. However what often happens is users dump 3+ files into a work claiming that they are important examples, but never add the needed associated critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Screengrab from twitter

Would use of a screengrab from twitter be acceptable? The image in question is this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Mo_Ansar%27s_tweets_about_Jesus.jpg In what circumstances would it satisfy fair use? Crystalfile (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

First off, the images for profiles are copyright their owner, and possibly the layout is copyright by Twitter. As an actual Tweet is simply text, one could just use the quote in the text of an article. Unless there was very specific sourced, third-party discussion about how a tweet looks, is formatted, etc, there would be absolutely no situation where the Tweet couldn't be replaced by a text quote, therefore all instances would fail WP:NFCC#1 and should be deleted. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sony Glasstron image

Although this file uploaded in 2006 is claimed to be in the public domain, the link to the Sony website does not provide confirmation. It is tagged for move to commons but I do not wish to proceed without a clear copyright. Should the licensing info be switched to a (quite justifiable) claim for fair use and the file be retained on English Wikipedia?  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Since we have nowhere that says its in the public domain, fair use would be the best (as long as it fits within WP:NFCC). If you view a 2007 version of the link (which has the image) nowhere does it say that the image is public domain, and the bottom says (c)2007 Sony Electronics. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the response, TLSuda. I will alter the licensing to a fair use claim. AFAIK there are no NFCC issues, but I will check thoroughly first.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If this product was publically available in 2007 as it appears from the archived link page text (Introduced In The U.S. 1997), then a freely licenced image could be made, so it clearly fails WP:NFCC#1. While it may be hard to find one to photgraph, it is possible to get one somewhere. ww2censor (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding settlement of Contributory Provident Fund for deductions from December,1976 to September,1979 in respect of Kashmir Singh Dhatwalia Ex. Supervisor / S.O.(Civil)

This due payment on account of CPF deductions is not paid although there was correspondence with CPF Commissioner Faridabad but no action so for.

K.S.Dhatwalia House NO.97, Ward no.8 Hamirpur (HP) Pin-177001 Mobile:+919459505762. Dated:26.05.2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.103.163 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 May 2014‎

Quite possibly - but this is the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page, and this has nothing remotely to do with Wikipedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Countess of Munster 1904 frontispiece.jpg

Hi everyone- I'd appreciate some help. File:Countess of Munster 1904 frontispiece.jpg is the cover of a book published in 1904. As such, it's PD in the US ({{PD-US-1923-abroad}}). However, it was first published in the UK. No information was provided about the photographer/copyright holder- can we call it {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}, or do we call the copyright holder (for age purposes) the book's author (who is also the photograph's subject)? If so, {{PD-old}} applies. Any help appreciated! J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think either {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or {{PD-old}} are applicable so use both as well as the US compliant one. Nthep (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe PD-old is applicable? J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to say {{PD-old-70}}, basis being that work very likely to have been for hire therefore rests with the Countess who dies in 1906. Nthep (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Political Map

I uploaded this picture, but I'm not sure how to tag it. I originally found it on a forum, but they again found it on some French anonymous image sharing site, thus unabling me to track down the original uploader (asuming it was the original creator in the first place.)

I also altered the picture, added some more details. But yet, I do not know what to make of the licenses (because it's a looong list.)

This is the image:

I really don't know where it belongs. Is it a public domain, or something else?Tal.beelen (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not public domain unless the original creator released it as such. Since you cannot find the original creator easily, we have no way of knowing whether or not this image is released under a free license, so we treat it is a copyrighted non-free file which we cannot host on Wikipedia. We cannot just pull images from random sites and upload them unless we have the appropriate permission. If you can find the data/information for this map, you could probably get an editor at WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop to make a high quality map of the same information that would then be released under a free license. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, just because the image came from an "anonymous imagesharing website" does not mean the copyright holder would "deny any copyright on your content." See WP:Copyrights to better understand image copyright law. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Do I have to delete it then? Or is this going to happen anyways?Tal.beelen (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That will likely happen within the next 7 days or so. You can always add the template {{db-author}} (include the brackets) to the image file and note the reason in the edit summary, and it may be deleted sooner. ww2censor (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding Content from A Public Presentation

Hello,

I would like to add an image from this article: http://www.typoday.in/spk_papers14/sridhar-typo14.pdf It is an official presentation given at a Typography Conference in India earlier this year. Since this is officially available to the public, I think it qualifies as Fair Use, but I'm not sure, and I just wanted to double check. Of course, I will credit the original source, but I just want confirmation that I can use an image from this document for a Wikipedia page. Please let me know when you get the chance. Thank you!

Best regards, Subbupedia95 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

At a very high level, yes, because it was a presented conference paper, we consider the work to have been published and thus under non-free content criteria we can at least consider it. There may be other reasons to not allow it, but that's hard to say without seeing what you want to include and what article you plan to use it for. --MASEM (t) 19:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I downloaded the results map from 2010 and it said it was freely distributable and just rehashed it and uploaded it, but tehy need more information File:Chorley_2014.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenjolley (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because an image is "freely distributable," does not make it have a free license. This map image is copyright by its original creator, and therefore we would treat it as non-free. As a non-free file, it would have to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. It currently fails WP:NFCC#1 as the map could be replaced by a newly created one that is released under a free licenses. There are some great volunteers over at WP:GL/MAP who can assist with making a map similar to this for use (and a better quality one too). Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

image rights?

The owner has permission to use the picture of herself. What tag do I use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfnyc (talk • contribs) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to File:Helen Fisher headshot.jpg in which case it may actually be the photgrapher who owns the copyright unless it was a "work for hire" and the copyright was sold to the subject in that contract. Ownership of an image does not confer any copyright rights to the possessor. Either way we require the permission of the copyright holder and they can verify it by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Metropolitan Museum of Art "Open Access for Scholarly Content" images

The Metropolitan Museum of Art has released a large number of it's images into the public domain as part what it calls "Open Access for Scholarly Content" (OASC) [3] [4].

Are these images suitable for upload to Wikipedia and if so which license is applicable ? --Racklever (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The license is for non-commercial use so it's not free for use by default. If the original artwork is still copyrighted (assuming 2D), no, we can't use that material particularly as a high-res image; if the artwork is notable and we don't have an image, we can use a scaled down image from them under non-free. However, if the original artwork has fallen out of copyright (and again, strictly 2D) that would be possible to upload to Commons under PD-old. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(To be clear, 2D faithful reproductions of 2D works of art in the US do not gain any new copyright, so if the original art is PD, their high-res offering is PD as well. Hence why there are some images we can use clearly, and some we can't.) --MASEM (t) 21:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. I think you will find, Racklever, that most of these images have been thoroughly mined by the community. Sargent's famous Madame X, for example, illustrated in one of those pages you link, has long been available high res as a Google Art Project image. However there may well be images from less famous artists to upload. Anything executed before 1923 and the artist deceased by 1943 can safely be uploaded to Commons. Outside of that you need to familiarize yourself with copyright law. Believe me it's a long learning curve! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What about OASC photos of 3D exhibits such as antique clocks and pocket watches ? --Racklever (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Photographs of 3D art have the copyright of the photographer (this case, the OASC) in addition to any copyrights that remain on the work of art, so such are automatically non-free even if the original work was PD. We would prefer that we have someone who can take a photograph and release it with a free license be used instead of these photos from OASC. --MASEM (t) 07:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

OASC is "Open Access for Scholarly Content", a scheme by the Metropolitan Museum of Art to release images into the public domain. The photographer is the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Are these images suitable for upload to Wikipedia and if so which license is applicable ? --Racklever (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried with a MoMA image of Eva Hesse's Repetition Ninteen III. It was instantly tagged for deletion by the folk here. Another go with a Flickr image was also instantly tagged for deletion as it wasn't released for commercial use. In the end I had to settle for third best with an image that showed only 18 of these pieces but was released CC BY 2.0, one of only two Flickr tags allowed in Commons.

I don't really see why Fair Use should be as strict as Commons, and in particular why release for commercial use should be insisted on in the way it is, since the files are necessarily kept low-resolution to comply with the "not suitable for commercial use proviso" anyway, but I know that if was to apply for the concession here I would either get a blunt "No" from Werieth or a debate until the end of time from Masem.

When I started this account, I thought I would spend part of it pleasantly uploading images of contemporary and 20th century artwork. It's extraordinary, for example, that's there no image illustrating Cy Twombly's article. I was rapidly disabused of that, and save for the occasional very iconic work, I have given up on doing any meaningful editing there. Good luck your efforts! Coat of Many Colours (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the OASC license restricts commercial reuse and by the definition the Foundation uses, it is non-free, and because we are encouraging free media, particularly when it can replace non-free media, we must do so.

2D artwork is one case, at least under US law. A faithful reproduction (eg a photograph or high quality scan) introduces no new copyright. So if the 2D art is in the PD already, the OASC license can't "de-PD" it, and such works can be uploaded to Commons with the appropriate PD-old -like license tag. If the artwork is otherwise still in copyright, then by that nature alone it remains copyrighted (the OASC-licensed image can't remove that), and we have to follow proper process to determine if it is appropriate under NFCC allowances, but it will be treated as non-free. And since one goal of non-free is to minimize the non-free taking, high resolution images coming from MOMA won't work unless they are scaled down. But they can be used in articles as long as the NFCC criteria are met otherwise.

3D artwork is a different cast. US Law has found that the way a photographer lines up a shot, choosing lights and shadows to play on the work, is creative for protection. So every photograph that the MOMA has published under this OASC initiative (and I'm assuming all digital photographs, and thus recent) immediately have a copyright to the MOMA. This is an additional copyright beyond the copyright that the original 3D art may still have. That makes it definitively nonfree, even if the original art was PD. But as long as the piece of art is in an area where photography is otherwise not restricted, anyone can make a similar photo as what MOMA's given under OASC, and that means that we can get a "free"-r photo of the 3D art. In the case of the 3D art in the PD, then a photo taken of it and licensed under a normal free license is good to go up to Commons; for 3D art still copyrighted, the freely-licensed photo is a free-r version of the MOMA photo and can be uplodaed here as long as all other NFCC criteria still apply. Only in the case if there's clear established restrictions on photography of the 3D art, such that we cannot create an equivalent freely licensed photograph without violating museum rules, would we allow the MOMA OASC photos to be used under a non-free license (again as long as NFCC is fulfilled).

Or to summarize better:

• For 2D art, the OASC images should be uploaded to Commons if the art is out of copyright. If the art is in copyright, and the work meets NFCC, then reduced versions can be uploaded to en.wiki.
• For 3D art, located where photography is unrestricted, then no OASC images can be used, irregardless of the copyright on the original work, on the basis that a freely licensed photo can be obtained. If the 3D art is where photography is known to be restricted, then the OASC image can be used at en.wiki again under NFCC criteria. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Anything published before 1923 is okay in the US, as well as those things that were first published after 2002 by an author who died more then 70 years ago. They're not connected. Commons will generally assume that works done before 1923 were published then under the broad definition of publication then, but it's not strictly guaranteed; if it wasn't publically sold or displayed, they could still be under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Clayton Brook image

Hello it is Chelle40 here I have successfully upload a picture onto Wikipedia and now it is say I have to tag the picture I am not sure which one to click as ,, it is all my own work our photographer for Clayton Brook Community House took the picture ,, it is legit and all our own work please help me , as it look so much better now the image has changed yours faithfully chelle40 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelle40 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 May 2014

You appear to have uploaded this image three times: File:Clayton Brook Village Green View.jpeg you claim to be your own work, and on the commons commons:File:Clayton Brook New Village Green.jpg also as your own work, and finally you overwrote File:Clayton Brook Bus Stop.jpg on top of someone elses photo and that has been reverted. You should never overwrite someone elses image. To answer your question, if you did not take the photo yourself, as you suggest above it was taken by another photographer, then you don't own the copyright and cannot give a licence, you need to get the copyright holder to verify their permission by having them follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. If you actually did take the photo you can give it a free licence such as {{PD-self}}, {{Attribution}} or one of the Creative Commons licences you find here. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A sequence of 4 picture uploads that *might* indicate misunderstanding of the "Own Work" answer for the Source field.

Hi! I'm ill and can't pursue this, so I'm posting here and then leaving it be. Please talk to this good faith (and possibly new) editor & figure out what if anything needs to be done.

I noticed that the user name & the painting signature don't match for the lovely painting at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Namazu_2014-04-08_14-45.jpg

So then I looked and found that user Kendr_Atkins_21 has only uploaded (in Commons) & added (in en.wp) four images as the sum total of contributions, all recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kendr_Atkins_21 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kendr_Atkins_21

The images are so scattered in time and media: one modern photo, one photo from perhaps the 1970s, one photo from before 1938, and one watercolor painting.

He might have thought that if he'd taken a picture of an image that the photo was his own work and therefore okay on WP. I've seen people get confused by that before. (WP-wide, I'd even like to see separate "Photo taken by" & "Source of image subject" fields to try to fix this, but again, I'm chronically ill, so adopt that idea if you like it.)

OOH! Just found the original painting at the last moment! Derrick Likes To Draw...: Namazu on Derrick Dent's blog. Hope this helps.

Thanks, --Geekdiva (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ledt a note at their talk page. I agree with you entirely that there needs to be much greater clarity in the upload process in identfying the original creator of works and that Own work doens't mean you're the one uploading it to WP or Commons. Nthep (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

United States Flag Code

I posted this a year ago on the talk page, and nobody's replied. However, as stated much of the article is lifted directly from the code itself verbatim: [5].

Again, I'm not American, so don't have that inherent understanding of the Flag code, nor of the law surrounding reproduction of Government documents. (The only Government documents we get to see in our country are ones left on trains, taxis or leaked to the newspapers.)

What's to be done here? Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a page for discussing verification issues but the inline citation and the one you give are one and the same and verify the statement exactly except for the additional explanatory text (the starred blue union in the Canton). US federal work is in the public domain so citing it verbatim is allowed. I don't see any need to change anything there. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm after help with verification of sources? I know the statement matches the text (and thus inline statement) which is why I brought it up. I wanted to know if it was a breach of copyright - being a verbatim copy of the code. However, you also answer that question, so cheers. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The work is released into the public domain, thus no copyright claim exists. Werieth (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That said, a better home for this is Wikisource (where unabridged PD text inclusion is encouraged), while the article here should be a higher-levels summation of the code in an encyclopedic manner, but that's not an issue with copyright. --MASEM (t) 13:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please review…

File:SunRail logo.png and File:Tri-Rail logo.svg. IMHO, there seems to be a disconnect, as the clearly “artistic” work is supposedly PD, while the other which is barely more complicated than a text-logo is ©opyrighted (©opywritten?)? Useddenim (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It all depends on whether the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority is a state agency or not (I'm not American so I've no idea), if it is then {{PD-FLGov}} would apply to the Tri-Rail logo. The SunRail logo looks to be correctly licenced as it looks to me like it is a directly run part of the state transportation department. FWIW I don't think {{PD-textlogo}} would apply to the Tri-Rail logo due to the graphical bit in the centre. Nthep (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The SFRTA is a distinctly separate organization from the FDOT, and although it does receive public funding, it is considered a non-government organization (NGO) and is not covered under {{PD-FLGov}}. I agree with Nthep (talk · contribs) that its logo is not {{PD-textlogo}} either. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, then; do the squiggly arrows fall within {{PD-shape}}, or do they cross the threshold or originality? Useddenim (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It passes the ToO. and should be tagged as copyrighted. Werieth (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority is a state agency. It was created by the Florida Legislature and enacted by the Florida Department of Transportation. Here is their website: [6]. Notice that it is Florida.Government on the URL. {{PD-FLGov}} would apply. - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the entire Governing Board is County Commissioners, County Representatives or Governor's Appointees.[7] Indicative of an Angency of the state of Florida. All of their records are public (See warning at tthe bottom of every page). They are subject to Florida Statues Chapter 119 Public Records Requests. Finally, per 768.28 (10) (d) of the SFRTA Legislative Act, everyone working for SFRTA, even contractors, shall be considered agents of the state, covering {{PD-FLGov}} if some how nothing else here does. [8] - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 18:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems good to me, go ahead and change the licence and thanks for doing the research. Nthep (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not confident in that analysis. Just being hosted on the FL Gov website does not necessarily make it an agency of the FL Gov. Reading all the material I can find, I get the same read on the relationship between STRTA and the FL Gov, as there is between the US Postal Service and the US Gov - that is, the Gov't has set that organization in place, but they are considered a separate arm, which in this case means that works from the USPS are eligible for copyright despite their work being dictated by law. --MASEM (t) 19:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also reading that marked section (768.28) it doesn't clearly doesn't delinate the agency as a whole, but those actually operating the rail system. We should be a bit careful here on that aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, here's what I was looking for: [9] SFRTA is defined as "an agency of the state" per 343.53(1) so definitely anything under it will be PD-FLGov. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The key of {{PD-FLGov}} is that Florida public records law trumps copyright. STRTA is my their own admission subject to that public records law.- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 19:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine calling the works from SFRTA as PD per the public records law; just a point to make clear is that we're not talking about "trumping copyright", simply that the state constitution requires such materials to put into public domain and ineligible for copyright. But I think we've got the answer here now fine. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Balkar flag.svg

Hi, I recently uploaded File:Balkar flag.svg, and I'm not sure what to say about the copyright. I got the original image from here, but then traced it in Inkscape. I wanted to know what to say on the file page: that it's my own work, because I traced it and it's only simple geometry, or that it's not my own, because it's based on/copied from the linked website? If the latter, how should I mention the copyright based on this? Thanks in advance. Shikku27316 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the flag itself is minimally {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. I cannot tell the country of origin for the flag's design, so I'm not sure of the Threshold of Originality for that location, so it would probably be best to not transfer to Commons unless we are sure. I would put two copyright tags on it, one of {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for the flag and a second one of your copyright for the SVG. That's my thought, but others might think differently. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I put the license on the page. When you say "country of origin of the flag's design", do you mean where this exact one was drawn, where my source was drawn, or where the flag was designed in the first place? I traced it in the USA, and it was originally designed in Russia by I. Ẑankuŝev. I think the person who drew my source, Roman Potapov, is also in Russia, but I'm only guessing. Shikku27316 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the original flag. If it was designed in Russia, we don't have enough information about the threshold in copyright law, so its best not to transfer it, but it should be safe to use here locally. I cleaned up the file a bit to make the situation more clear. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)