Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2015/January

File:ESTK.jpg

Can someone review this image? Is it really free and can be transfered to commons, or not? --XXN (talk) 11:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but possibly not. Who is the Shawn Sprankle that is stated to be the author? There is no apparent connection between him and the uploader who has no user page info that might connect the two. The uploader made one edit last year since uploading this almost 4 years ago, so they are unlikely to respond to any questions. ww2censor (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

101 Ranch Oil Company

Help!! RE: 101 Ranch Oil Company. Someone has deleted all the footnotes. I have no idea how to restore them. Also, recently someone has deleted the image of the 101 Ranch Oil Company celebration dinner @1915. It is from my family library, and was donated to the CONOCO museum in Ponca City, OK. And I need help to restore this image. Also the image of the gathering at the 101 Ranch Oil Company's first oil well that was originally profiled on CONOCO's web site that is also from my family library has been deleted. It needs to be restored. jcm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmcapital (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by the footnotes, but since this page is specifically for image questions, I'll address that. (You can get help on the footnotes at the more general help desk.)

We take copyright very seriously, and so we have policies about what images are accepted.

The "executive summary" is that images must meet either of these requirements:

1. The image must be free to use for any purpose, including commercial ones, with the possible requirement of giving credit or sharing changes in the same way.
2. The image must have a detailed rationale for fair use on Wikipedia. This means that the image must appear in an article that discusses it in some way.

Your most recent upload, File:Celebration Dinner of 101 Ranch Oil Company.jpeg, was not deleted, but it will be because it does not have a valid rationale for fair use. It needs to be included in an article, and the fair-use information needs to be filled out. If you are unsure how to do this, I will do it for you.

This image may actually be in the public domain, but someone should check this.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

In order to fill out the information, please let us know a few things:

• Who took the photo, and when?
• When was this photo first released to the public?
• Is there an online source where this photo may be found?

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

One point that must be considered is whether the photo was published and if so when. That is more important than first released to the public which I doubt has any easily determined meaning. Created and published are the terms we use and are important factors that influence when it becomes a public domain image in the US. See Commons Copyright rules by territory because if it is an anonymous work not published, or published after 1978, the period of copyright is 120 years. So if it was not published it will remain in copyright until 2035. ww2censor (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I must admit, ww2censor, that I used that phrase as a synonym for "published," as the term "published" is associated mostly with printed works. If I am not mistaken, "published" according to copyright law generally means released to the public by or on behalf of the copyright holder. I was hoping to get some information and then determine if it was in fact published under copyright law. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Anon126, I was probably being rather too picky wordwise. Sorry for that. I don't have anything more to add to the details but suspect it is still in copyright. It's use under a non-free rationale will be determined by its actual usage in an article. ww2censor (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Foto: Elsa Cladera de Bravo

Hi I have problems trying to uppload this file image: File:Sucre,_May_1971,_Teachers_National_Conference._Elsa_summarizes_the_discussions_before_the_creation_of _the_"Asamblea_del_Pueblo"_013.jpg Nadezhda Bravo Cladera (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure the file name is correct? I cannot find evidence such a file ever existed nor that you were notified there was problem with it and that it would be deleted. BTW, we normally use our user page to tell other editors about ourselves and not as a sandbox for article we are preparing; use a sub page like User:Nadezhda Bravo Cladera/my sandbox. ww2censor (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the problem was solved with a Commons upload, see File:013."Sucre, May 1971. Teachers National Conference. Elsa summarizes the discussions before the creation of the "Asamblea del Pueblo".jpg. If you still have problems, please provide more details. GermanJoe (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Public domain or not?

I'd like to upload this file as well as other portraits of California Governors (Culbert Olson and Goodwin Knight) at commons, because there are no photos in the German articles. But I'm confused with the provided license information. Is now PD or Fair Use? Thanks in advance --Jerchel (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is determining which licence is correct. California government work is PD, so could be moved to the commons but, having found the last archived page the image was on, there is no indication of its copyright status. You need to investigate further to find out if it was produced by California state or not. The original uploader is still active so I've dropped a note on their talk page. ww2censor (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Album cover art on draft article

Is it OK to upload cover art for a draft article or should it wait until the draft goes to mainspace? — Brianhe (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor Brianhe: You have to wait. NFCC #9 says that non-free ("fair-use") images must only appear in actual articles. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube images

I uploaded 3 images of Rubik's Cubes recently (File:Roux Method - First Block.png, File:Roux Method - Second Block.png, File:Roux Method - CMLL.png) using the Rubik's Cube Image Generator at ruwix.com. Does the licensing belong to Ruwix? If it does, what template should I use to add the licensing info? |Randomno| WP 23:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly looks like it considering there is a copyright notice on every page. However, some people might suggest they could comply with {{PD-simple}} but because there is such a low threshold of originality in the UK that may be a stretch. Anyway those images are relatively simple to recreate, so an artist could make freely licenced images and you could use those. ww2censor (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll use PD simple then. Thanks. |Randomno| WP 06:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@WP Randomno: you still have to provide a fully completed {{information}} template fro each image, giving full details. ww2censor (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: What would I put as the source and author? |Randomno| WP 10:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Minnie Evans

I'd like to use an image on Minnie Evans for an article I am writing. The majority of the ones I have found are in a private collection at a University, and clearly owned by the photographer of record. This one is not in that collection. [1] The photo is tagged as Minnie Ka-Ka-Que, circa 1920. (In actuality by 1920 she was Evans). Thanks for your help. SusunW (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, here is the image details page but we don't know if it was published or not even though it says 1900-1930. This image gives a specific date of 1915. As I mentioned a few post above for it to be clearly in the public domain, if it is an anonymous work, as these appear to be, and not published, or published after 1978, the period of copyright is 120 years per Commons Copyright rules by territory. So what else do you know? ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this particular image. 1915 date is even better, strengthens my thoughts that it isn't part of Hauberg's work. Most of the images of her were taken in conjunction with a series of interviews done by John Hauberg Sr. from 1916 - 1918 with her first husband Jesse Ka-Ka-Que, who was a great-grandson of Black Hawk. Hauberg was an attorney, amateur historian and collected images and stories about native americans. All of his images seem to be dated, accredited to him and in a special collection housed at Augustana College. In addition, they all feature Minnie only as Jesse's wife. Since he is not in this photograph, it makes me think it is not part of the collection. If I had my druthers, I'd love to use this one http://www.umvphotoarchive.org/cdm/ref/collection/augsc/id/618, but I am sure it is copyrighted. It includes Minnie, her mother, her sister, her nephew, Jesse and Jesse's daughter from his previous marriage. SusunW (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

One last thought, it says on the description "Ka-KaQue" was "Pottawatomie Indian Chief Ka-kaque," a mistake Hauberg was unlikely to have made. Logan Ka-Ka-Que was Sauk, as was his son Jesse, and his great-grandfather, Black Hawk. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently that was not my last thought. I may not know how to do all the programming stuff, but I DO know how to research :-) The 1915 Image you found of Nettie Wapp and Minnie appears to be from this source. http://www.evamariecarney.com/documents/hoogstraten.pdf page 14. If I am reading that message correctly, they are photographs Nettie made, and were recreated from copy negatives in 1963. Minnie's name is incorrect on the photograph, as her Pottawatomi name is Ke-waht-no-quah and I do not see the image I found in this group.SusunW (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I created the page, but have received no further response. I am assuming from the only response I got, that the initial image I found is not usable until 2035, but that the one found by Ww2censor might be as it was published before 1978? Can someone please clarify? The page in question is Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SusunW (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Erikkalaurenpic.jpg

Is this file eligible to move to commons? 21:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a copyright infringement. The source link is broken and there is no evidence that it was originally released under this free licence. I have now tagged it for missing evidence of permission and if that cannot remedied the file will be deleted after a week. See also this website where the image is used without specific attribution. The latter link was archived by Google in 2009 even before the photo was uploaded over here. De728631 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Open Scottish Parliament Licence

An image I uploaded, File:Kezia Dugdale MSP Scottish Parliament.jpg is licensed under the Open Scottish Parliament License, what image copyright tag do I use? JackWilfred (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @JackWilfred: {{OSPL}} is what you're looking for. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have fixed it. JackWilfred (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%B2%A0%EC%9D%B4%EB%B9%84%EB%B3%B5%EC%8A%A4

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%B2%A0%EC%9D%B4%EB%B9%84%EB%B3%B5%EC%8A%A4#mediaviewer/File:88A82D860F51BC31881D97CE8D00DB0B.jpg

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%B2%A0%EC%9D%B4%EB%B9%84%EB%B3%B5%EC%8A%A4

저작권이 불확실합니다. 삭제해주세요 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.12.158.180 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your request translates as: Copyright is uncertain. Please delete. This is the enwiki, so we cannot deal with your copyright issues here. You have linked to an article and not to the specific images you are worried about. Four images have tags and if the image is on the kowiki, you need to nominate it for deletion there and if it is on the commons, that is the place to deal with it. We can't really help you here. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Spider diagrams" and copyright

In chemical synthesis papers, especially reviews, it's common to include "spider diagrams" which are essentially just a radiated lay-out of chemical equations. Do these meet the threshold of originality ? An example on Wikipedia would be

this

.

If they are indeed copyrightable how different would my own diagram have to be copyrightable ? I assume Wikipedia won't pay me royalties ! O3O TatanyaGolding (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Voice of America

I am inquiring about whether media created by Voice of America can be considered in the public domain such as other work by government agencies like the DOD is. - SantiLak (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@SantiLak: I'd imagine so, but I do get conflicted answers for VOA's website. From their FAQs, "Video, audio, photographs, text and material originally produced by the Voice of America are in the public domain and may be reused free of charge...If you produce a commercial product from this material, we appreciate a copy." However, their terms of use say that the content is "is intended for your personal, noncommercial use only." Hopefully someone else can shed more light on this, though my instinct would tell me that their FAQ is correct as they are ultimately a federal institution.

What I would like to make note of is that a lot of the content (pictures especially) are licensed from other vendors (Associated Press, Reuters, etc.), and that this content would still be protected by copyright. Only original content produced by VOA may potentially be in the public domain. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes thank you, I understand the vendor part, I was just interested in their original work. On a side note, does that mean that media created by other US government subordinating broadcasting agencies such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia would be in the public domain as well? - SantiLak (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Works by VOA published since July, 2013 are not free. See C:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-VOA. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this PD even though someone else scanned the original image

Hello. I'm trying to make sure that the PD documentation is in order for a file I uploaded to commons, File:Chief Irataba of the Mojave Nation, February 1864, artist's impression.jpg. The original is clearly PD, but since it has been recently scanned and prepared I wanted to make sure this doesn't constitute an original work. Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. In the US (and by Commons policy) scanning a 2D work of art does not attract copyright. I don't know exactly what "prepared for use" means but I can't see anything about the scanning that looks to have been creative. You have credited the person doing this work and given the immediate source which is good practice. (I have corrected the immediate source URL and tidied the licensing information a bit). Thincat (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Thincat! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

i want add some pictures.....

this picture is evidence (firearms used by suspects) photo of some case. and this photo is probably captured by japan national police agency, and this thing is captured over 40 years (after 1972, feb 29th). in this case, how can i upload the image to not removed for copyright problem?? please tell me.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww1541 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the image in question, so we can determine what its copyright status is. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

http://ameblo.jp/haramoto-miki/entry-11266184958.html

Here, this is the photograph what I talking about. It write about talk show information of asama-Sanso incident(1972, February 29th), but I want only that firearm evidence picture. That picture is definitely captured by police. (I mean, look at that evidence number)

Please reply to my email....thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww1541 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence this is a freely licenced image but I am sure you can see the copyright notice at the bottom of the page. Besides which this looks like a blog post, so we don't know where the image actually came from and who really owns the copyright. I am pretty sure you can convey the meaning that they used this type of gun just fine in prose. ww2censor (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

umm... So I can't upload the image because original source is unclear, and I can text explaning only...?(sorry to my poor English...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww1541 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

See also the same question on Commons:Help desk. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Incheon Women Artists Biennale page

Not sure what Eeekster is asking for. I took the photo.--A21sauce (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe the image you are asking about is File:OpeningDayIncheonBiennale2009.jpg. The problem is that we don't accept non-free images when free images could be made. You need to release this image under a free licence for us to keep it because non-free images MUST comply with all 10 non-free content policy criteria and this does not. Just revise the image details choosing one of these free copyright tags (the Creative Commons ones are often chosen by photographers and are the most suitable) plus a fully completed {{information}} template. Then all will be well. You can choose to not freely licence the image in which case it will be deleted. Good luck @A21sauce:. ww2censor (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bodybagstyle Productions image

Hello, I'm just realizing that an image that I used was deleted. The image was created by Cedric Clark using his computer. So if I get him to send me an email granting me permission to use this image and I forward that email to you all, is that all I would need to do to use that image without further deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D420world (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Far better is to get the copyright holder to follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT but they must release it under a free licence without commercial or derivative restrictions. ww2censor (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding a picture from an newspaper's online website

Hi there,

I want to add a photo to a page. The photo I want to use is from a newspaper's online website. Can I add it to a wikipedia?

Here is the link to the photo http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Opinion+Renewable+energy+vital+First+Nations+remote+communities/8875596/story.html

The wiki page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Nault

Thanks for your help

Fabflamesfan (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Fabflamesfan

No, we cannot use that. The picture is, barring any other indication, owned by that newspaper so it is a non-free image and must meet our non-free content policy; this includes not using images where a free replacement (one licensed as public domain or using certain Creative Commons licenses) can likely be made. As this person is still living, we presume a free image can be made, and thus we cannot use the newspaper's image. --MASEM (t) 02:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Upload of self-portrait of the Scottish Artist Adam Bruce Thomson (1885-1976)

I am preparing a Wikipedia entry for the Scottish Artist Adam Bruce Thomson (1885-1976). I would like to upload a self-portrait painting that I have in my possession and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the artist's heirs.

It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags. However, it is believed that the use of this work qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law for the following reasons:

There is no alternative, public domain or free-copyrighted replacement image available. Inclusion of the image is for information, education and analysis only. The text discussing the significance of this art work, or referencing it as a key example of the artists work, is enhanced by inclusion of the image. The image is a low resolution copy of the original work, and of such low quality that it will not affect potential sales of the art work.

Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.

I would be grateful if you could advise me if I can upload this image to accompany the Wikipedia entry on thsi artist. Thank you very much for your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHall1953 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It would fall into a historic non-free image - that of a deceased person that no free image likely exists or could be created now. So it would be okay in that manner. --MASEM (t) 21:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Need help with Wikipedia copyright options

Hi, I have a photo given to me by the original owner/creator. The owner has given me permission to use the photo for a page I'm editing on Wikipedia, but he doesn't want it available for any other uses without permission. How should I proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leghorn (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We unfortunately cannot use that type of license - we require free images to be redistributable and able to be modified by anyone. If the file meets our non-free requirements we could use that way. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

CAPTCHA

how can i join ,i want the copy rite of my song transform my heart by ten.i da writer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoKq11_tz_A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.138.13.159 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think we can help you here. This is for questions about using images and sound on Wikipedia.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe copyright nowadays happens automatically, without you having to do anything. But, there is still copyright registration, where you pay a fee to a government agency to keep a record of your copyright, in case there is a legal dispute. If you are in the United States, you can go to the U.S. Copyright Office's online system to register.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

We cannot offer you any legal advise, so your should consult an intellectual property lawyer to discuss your situation. ww2censor (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Katch 22 Hatchetts advert.

This advert was photocopied from a page cut out of a Melody Maker magazine in 1968, and pasted into a scrapbook. It was uploaded to assist in proving Katch 22 is a real band , and help as a reference to have our biography posted in Wikipaedia. It does not come under any copyright rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike-eastman (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 January 2015

Copyright rules certainly apply for advertisements too. To work out copyright, which country was Melody Maker published in? Was the picture published elsewhere too? (very likely). Was there a copyright notice attached (if in the USA)? It may be template:PD-US-no notice but that needs to be proved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is a British magazine, so forget about this being public domain. We need the author to be dead for 70 years. Also File:Hatchetts..jpg on commons is a problem too. Did you yourself create this advert in 1968? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture on Christopher S. Ahmad's Wikipedia page.

My image has been flagged for not proving copyright adequately for Christopher S. Ahmad's page. I am working with Dr. Ahmad, and he owns the file File:Christopher S. Ahmad MD performing a surgical demonstration.jpg. It originally appears here (one of 3 rotating pictures on this site: http://www.elbowsportssurgeon.com/). Dr. Ahmad owns the picture and can do with it what he wants. He is fine with it being used on Wikipedia and is aware that, by posting it on Wikipedia, it would be then allowed to use in a variety of ways. How do you recommend we go about making this picture "legal" for Wikipedia so we can use it and not have it get flagged for deletion since our original rationale wasn't accepted? Thank you. Hidden EA (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

To editor Hidden EA: He would need to send confirmation of permission through e-mail, according to the instructions here.

Some notes about that:

• Because you've uploaded the image here at Wikipedia as a non-free image, do not click the large "Donate copyrighted images to Wikipedia here" link or the link to Wikimedia Commons.
• The e-mail should come from an address that ends in elbowsportssurgeon.com, so we can verify that the message is legitimate.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 17:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

However, for clarification, ownership of an image does not confer any ownership of the copyright of the image which is most often still held by the photographer unless as a work for hire the copyright was transferred to the person who commissioned the photo usually for payment. You first need to verify the copyright status of the image and that person must then follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Christopher S. Ahmad may not actually own the copyright which is why we need to verify its status and even if he does, it must be freely licenced and not restricted to use on Wikipedia because I see that, at th ebottom of the file page, it shows a non-commercial and non-derivative creative commons licence. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Tea House question

Resolved

 – Thanks to those who stopped by.--ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please stop by the Tea House and answer this question? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this enough legal information?

So I intend to upload screenshots of a space simulator called Universe Sandbox. The creator of the software has provided this information related to copyright. Is that enough? If so, would I upload it under what? He doesn't mention specifically if it is "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0" or something. I've been told about this attribution template, so I was wondering where or when I could use it

Thanks. PS: Preferably I'd upload on commons Tetra quark ^(talk) 00:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no specific mention of a CC license, so we presume this will be a standard copyright image, and as such, we'll treat it as a normal non-free image. The attribution requested can be put on the file page. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As as for commons, no, you can't. The material has to be explicit under a Creative Commons or Public Domain license, and that is not appearent from this page. You'll have to upload here at en.wiki under non-free content rules. --MASEM (t) 00:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, the owner doesn't specifically mention a CC license, but we can infer from the information which one it is, right? This seems confusing Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, unfortunately, we need content providers to be very explicit about copyright terms. They have to either spell out a CC license, or explain enough that it is clear they are releasing the work in a format that is compatiable to allow redistribution and modification. The statement on the FAQ is nowhere close to this for that, so we'll assume standard copyright for ourselves; you can still upload it, but it's been under non-free, assuming a fair use of their material. I will point to WP:CONSENT that if the copyright owner wants to license some of their material in an CC manner, we have a process to affirm that. --MASEM (t) 01:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you. Luckly I've got contact with the owner and he agreed in adding more specific licenses. Again, thanks for the help. Tetra quark ^(talk) 01:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if they are willing to change their license overall, or put a few shots into CC as per CONSENT, we'll be good for commons upload. --MASEM (t) 01:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Old picture of unknown publish date (imminent DYK)

Hello, I've got a DYK headed for the Main Page but I want to get clarity on the copyright status of the accompanying picture. The article is Ernest Cashel. The pic in the article is File:Ernest Cashel 1903.jpg (see that page for the source and crop history). The picture was clearly taken no later than 1904, and was apparently taken at the NWMP barracks where he was being held, but the source claims copyright and there is no other information to clearly determine a publish date that I can find, so I bring it here for the media copyright experts to evaluate. An alternate image, from a Wanted Poster (making the publish date fairly clear) is File:Ernest Cashel.png cropped from File:Ernest Cashel wanted poster.png. I'm on travel at the moment so availability is scattered, so take whatever action is appropriate. I'd rather be certain before it makes the main page. Thanks all, Crow^Caw 17:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The wanted poster clearly appears to have been published so its copyright tag looks fine. The Glenbow Museum image may be good too but specifically claims copyright though that might be considered copyfraud. I'd go with the wanted posted image especailly considering the subject's "career". Sizewise there is little difference. ww2censor (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Euroblk2Modified.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Euroblk2Modified.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Having been rebuked, and rightly for presuming to use Google map images without permission, I searched Google for Public Domain maps, and was sent to the said site. The source image is reputed by the site holder to be public domain. I take this at face value. My modification is my artistic work, and I dedicate it to public domain.

Now this should all be ok.

What we clearly need is a human being to guide newbies through the complex legal maze.

There are two related images, both from the same site, and both presented as PD. I expect them to be subject to the same complaint. Dave at 168 01:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveat168 (talk • contribs)

What you needed to do was add your copyright license to the page. I added {{PD-self}} on your behalf, based on what you said above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The others, File:Coevolution.pdf does not state whether the original is public domain or has some kind of free license. We must assume it is not if it says nothing. File:Ie blkModified.jpg I have fixed up for you based on your typing. You did give the source. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Odele-CRATER-CHAIN.jpg you say it is fair use, but it does meet Wikipedia criteria WP:NFCC, the reason is because it is replaceable by a map you draw yourself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Leupold.jpg

I am not at all certain whether I have properly tagged the image Leupold.jpg, which I linked to the Urs Leupold wiki page. Any additional guidance will be gratefully accepted. From earlier conversations with editors, it appears to fall under the non-free fair use category, but I am not sure that I have corrected formatted this information.

Charlie Hoffman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmacs (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, assuming a free image of him is not available after a reasonable search, the usage for identification should be OK here ("unknown author" is unfortunate, but you provided a detailed explanation). I went ahead and cleaned up the information a bit without changing the initial content's meaning, some information was duplicated. More details about non-free usage on Wikipedia can be found at WP:NFCC. Image is at File:Leupold.jpg, if anyone else wants to double-check. GermanJoe (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

do I need to discover copyright status on image

Hi,

Do I need to discover copyright status on the image below, and other similar noncredited images, posted by the Bosnian NGO nonprofit organization Archaeological Park Foundation (piramidasunca.ba)?

http://piramidasunca.ba/media/k2/items/cache/42bfbea03cce865b2f6f3be1a87895b7_XL.jpg

Here is the full URL where photo appears:

http://piramidasunca.ba/eng/latest-news/item/203-conclusions-of-the-icbp-2011-conference.html

Or is the Foundation's posting of this image evidence that it is a publicly available image?

If I do need to discover copyright status, what legal terms of permission do I need from the Foundation and/or photographer?

Thanks for your help.

Jock Jockdoubleday (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jockdoubleday (talk • contribs) 17:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you not notice both the copyright notice and the text "All rights reserved" at the bottom of this page you linked to? Those are usually really good clues. Unless the image is clearly marked as being freely licenced you can assume that the vast majority of images you find on the internet are copyright to someone. A publicly available image does not mean it is in the public domain or otherwise freely licenced. However, if you can persuade the copyright holder, who is often the photographer and not the subject of the image or the owner of a copy of the image, to release it under a free licence, they can verify that permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, That's astoundingly helpful. Thank you. Btw, I spent a ridiculously long time trying to find the most basic possible information on how to create html code for a photo for a Wikipedia article on conferences -- something very simple, like the way they uploaded the single photo on this Academic Conferences page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_conference . . . Still trying to figure it out. It's probably so simple that few care to describe it. Sadly, the word "image" does not appear in any of the nine web pages comprising the official Wikipedia tutorial, nor does the word "photo" appear. There are many help pages "out there" that talk about "uploaded photos," but eventually one discovers that they're not talking about any old uploaded photos but about photos *specifically uploaded to Wikipedia.* Anyway, you've saved me a lot of time by giving me good information on image copyright, and that's a good start in the photo arena. My journey into "First Wikipedia Article Land," with its charming but lengthy Introduction, "Insanely Steep Learning Curve in Greek-to-Me HTML," has been pleasantly and unexpectedly boosted. Thank you ww2censor.

Jockdoubleday (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum:

I have found the Grail of my desire (basic html code for a linked photo) here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#How to place an image

Jockdoubleday (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. You will probably find them WP:MOS and its subpages quite helpful. JUst ask me and I'll try to answer but you can always add a {{helpme}} template to your talk page. ww2censor (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Photo Copyright?

Hey there Wiki community!

I was wondering how do I know if this image/logo is copyright free? I also have a dropbox link of the same logo if this helps answer the questions...http://www.emerging-strategy.com/wp-content/themes/emerging-strategy/images/Emerging-Strategy-Logo.png

Cheers!Debtang1019 (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably free due to it being too simple, ie PD-textlogo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No, our National Seal/Logo is not a copyright. We made it our own as our Official National Sea/Logo.Please link our website for additional information; www.atophilippines.webs.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ato phil68 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Historic Congressional Web pages

On Talk:Ted Kennedy (please review) the question of ownership and licensing for a set of screenshots of original Congressional pages has been raised. It is my understanding that these would fall under public domain as they are produced for official business by an agent under Federal employ. There is also some uncertainty as to the images being produced by a contractor and if these also fall into PD status (it is my understanding they do). However, the images are also wrapped in the border of a browser, which happens to be Netscape Navigator, and these may or may not fall under Mozilla Public License or Netscape Public License (which could be cropped out if they do not).

The images in question are below. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)