Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/May

photo of a public artwork

I have a photo of a public artwork.I had put it under a fair use license {{Non-free 2D art}}. It was taken off wikipedia. I am the author of the photo, the copyright to the artwork is held by the artist. I have been told I need two licenses. Can anybody help? Thank you in advance.UBU07 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your user contributions page do not show that you have any images uploaded and there are no warning messages on your talk page. I suspect you took a photo of a painting, sculpture or other copyright work and you may have tried to release it as a non-free image but tha was not acceptable. A photo of an artistic work is a derivative work and requires permission of the artist and the photographer. CAn you get their permission? if so have them verify that permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. It really depends on the use but in order to help you better we really need to know what image you are talking about. Was it deleted and which admin deleted it? You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page. ww2censor (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing the question is about this file, uploaded in 2007 by another account who also claimed it as his own photograph. The file was renamed in 2016. And then deleted. The deletion was discussed on the deleting admin's talk page. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but it is my photograph, taken years ago. Hanska99 uploaded it for me, as a favor. Oy Vey. I forgot, I should have asked her to handle this... I still don't know how to fix this. I can contact the artist via his website to ask his permission. Ok. What license do I need for my photo then? Can you help? I don't think that admin wants to help any more. I thank you both-ww2censor and Asclepias- for any assistance you can give me. UBU07 (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

May I reuse parts of my college essay in a WP article?

Do I own the copyright of an essay I wrote as part of a college course or does it belong to the college? There are several passages in one of my essays that I believe would improve a WP article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have some specific agreement with your college assigning copyright to them (which I suppose is possible, but I've never heard of such a thing), you, as the author, would be the copyright holder and could use it as you see fit. Is there some reason you suspect it's otherwise? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade None of the copious documentation I have received from the university, nor a search of its website, has turned up any mention about the copyright of students' work. Copyright is only mentioned in terms of warnings about plagiarism. So, you're probably right, the essay is mine to do whatever I want with it. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

However, using extracts from your essay in an article will require those statements to be verified by third-party reliable published sources otherwise it will be considered as original research. Unverified statements generally get removed from articles unless they are common knowledge. ww2censor (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

photograph

The photographic image of Theodore Pitcairn that I have uploaded was taken by a friend and parishioner of Rev. Pitcairn, George A. Salverian, who is now deceased. His wife says the photograph was never copyrighted. It has not been published anywhere. It was loaned for scanning purposes by Pitcairn's daughter, Eshowe Pitcairn Pennink. I have designated it as "public domain." This was the only portrait I felt could be used since the others were professional photographic portraits taken at the Bachrach studio, contract re copyright unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rae 3328 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rae 3328: I understand what you are trying to do and you would think this would be simple but US copyright law is complicated and uploading images is fraught with difficulty. The issues here are:

1. It is less than 70 years since the creator of the image died
2. The image has not been published previously

If it had been previously published then the licence you have used would be valid but that licence only applies to images that have been published so your admission that it hasn't been published makes the licence invalid.

There is one option and that is if the current owner of the image will either grant a licence for its use or place it into the public domain. The current owner will either be the person to whom the photo was bequethed by Dr Salverian or all of his heirs if the estate we split between several people without specific bequests. If they wish to donate the image they can do as long as they all agree. An email from all the heirs following the wording at WP:CONSENT will do this. I know this sounds overly-complicated because it is but we have to abide by the various copyright laws. Nthep (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Images in an article generated from photographs of oil paintings

I have uploaded images which I mechanically manipulated (reduced to a manageable size and format). These photographs are of four oil paintings, works of art that are clearly the copyright of the deceased artist (Arnolds Mazitis)and his estate. They were given to me in a large file of other materials by one of the artist's daughters for publication online and in Wikipedia.

Is the copyright in this case in her name? I didn't think so. She, or her father, hired a photographer to take the images and the creative content is clearly the original artist's. I do have permission from the family. I also know that the photographer has no copyright claim or has renounced it - one was by someone who bought one of the paintings, another was taken by the Art Academy of Latvia and the file was given to me to use, a third was taken at a private exhibition in Latvia on a mobile phone, the fourth was given to me by a research student who wrote her dissertation on the artist and had permission from the family to share her images.

How should I licence these images on Wikipedia? They add substantive content to the whole article and are proof of the nature of the artist's output.

As an expedient - apologies but my aim was to facilitate a quick launch of the page, knowing what I know about the origin of the material - I declared the images 'Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license'. I have clear permission to reproduce them for public use (simply requiring attribution). The family wishes to share these images online within the parameters of the CC licence - should I provide written proof to Wikipedia of this fact?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David V. Edgeworth (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about the four painting images and the portrait in Arnolds Mazitis that were uploaded to the commons. Firstly, except for the portrait, which was taken by a photographer who might be you, the images of the paintings are not your work as claimed in the image pages. They are the work of the artist and in general a slavish copy of a 2D artwork does not attract a new copyright by the person who happened to copy it. The artist died in 2002 so his work is copyright until 2073. So, while the heirs can agree to freely licenced images of his work, they need to specifically give a free licence, not just agree to inclusion on wikipedia. You cannot just select any Creative Commons licence we allow on the basis that you suspect they agree to it but the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} is acceptable if they agree which means that anyone can use the image for anything including commercial or derivative use. The heirs need to verify their permission by following the procedure found on the commons at OTRS. Who is the photographer of the portrait? It looks like it came from a website because there is no metadata and it is a low resolution image. The copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, needs to also verify their permission unless it was in fact your photo. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This and other licence and copyright discussions have been helpful. I have just started as a contributor and there is a lot to learn about the process. I am in discussion with the artist's family regarding the origin of all of the images and it is likely that they'll use the process described in OTRS link to contact Wikipedia directly.Their intention is to make the material public domain and add it to the Commons in one way or another, so my uploads so far have been consistent with their wishes, but a little weak on the process side. I'll put that right asap.David V. Edgeworth (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please credit VINCENT ANTON for FLIPPER'S GONE FISHIN' ALBUM - Vincent Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by VASPhoto (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse logo

The logo is just simply black and nothing else. It's based on Mickey Mouse, but there is no face or anything like that. Just plain simple. It's been used frequently. You get the idea, right? Is it free to use or non-free? --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Which logo? The figure probably is still copyrighted, wasn't one copyright law named "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" because it appeared to be aimed specifically at extending the copyright on it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• This one, I assume. I normally wouldn't hesitate to tag something of similar complexity {{PD-logo}}, but I'd fully expect Disney to bankrupt me if I tried it here. I'm amazed there's been neither a deletion discussion nor takedown demands. —Cryptic 20:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • It's technically three black circles. If it were any other company in the US, it would fail the threshold of originality, and I don't Disney is that powerful to nullify that. It still has trademark protection, and because Disney has many many facets, no one is likely able to use that for any type of commercial aspect without running into that trademark, but we on en.wiki don't worry about that as long as we are using it appropriately and without clear misrepresenation (eg slapping that unnecessarily onto an article like child labor where it has absolutely zero reason to belong). --MASEM (t) 20:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

New File Labeling Assistance

Hello —

I received the message below from Sfan00 this morning.

I was given express permission by both the photographer of the image in question and the company to which it belongs (Ballets with a Twist) to add this file to the Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. The only request from the sources was that I attach the language "photo by Nico Malvaldi for Ballets with a Twist" to the file.

If any further action is needed to prevent deletion, please send specific instructions as I am not a certified Wiki Magician :)

Thanks —

MF

Message from Sfan00: Thank you for uploading File:Marilyn Klaus Headshot.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miohcal Flork (talk • contribs)

I presume you are referring to this image File:Marilyn Klaus Headshot.jpg. Sfan00 is correct in telling you the copyright status is unclear. As you note on the file page, the photo was taken by Nico Malvaldi and you uploaded it with the {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} copyright tag. The problem is that we have no verification the photographer, who is usually the copyright owner, agreed to this licence. Unless they transferred their copyright to you, or someone else, as part of a work contact, they need to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT or the new copyright owner must do it. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Photo of Personally Owned Art

For a wiki submission on an early 2oth century artist, I would like to include my own photographs of three of his etchings, which I own. Could you help me with any copyright issues please? THe artist is long dead and his etchings that I photographed for WIKI were done in the 1930s.

Thank you. Jeanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurzenhauser (talk • contribs) 21:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

When exactly did the artist die and what country was he from? If you are referring to Halvard Storm who died in 1964, his work will remain copyright until 2035 which is 70 years pma. Owning a painting or artwork does not confer any rights to the person in whose possession it is. The copyright remains with the artist or their heirs until the copyright term has run out. Generally on the enwiki we permit 1 non-free image of an artist's work by way of showing their style but it must comply with all 10 non-free media copyright policy guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

I know that in articles about deceased people a non free image can be used as a historical photograph under wikipedia's guidelines but I've also seen some biographical articles which contains pictures of living people in them. Is that allowed in Wikipedia under any circumstances and if so which?*Treker (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: I'm assuming that we are talking about non-free images and limited to their use as portraits in the infobox/top of the article. Such non-free images of living persons are allowed in extremely rare cases when WP:NFCC#1 is met. By convention, this is taken to mean prisoners, fugitives or totally recluse people. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I've definitely seen a non free image on at least one article where the person was not a fugitive or the like.*Treker (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@*Treker: Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to allow such usage unless it complies with all 10 non-free media policy guidelines not just #1. What article did you see this use in? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I know but sadly I can't actually remember what article it was on exactly. I think it was of a wrestler. *Treker (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries, but thanks for asking. ww2censor (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Logo re-creation

I have created a higher resolution version of the logo for CBL-FM, (original seen here) out of portions of the existing logo images for CBC Radio 2 and CBYK-FM. Would this be eligible to use on the CBL-FM article, and if so, how would I source it? pwnzor.ak (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Walter A. Scheiber

I uploaded two photographs to Wikimedia Commons and added them to the article on Walter A. Scheiber. They have both been removed. I thought that I had indicated their copyright status satisfactorily.

The first, Walter A. Scheiber.jpg, is a studio photo of Walter Scheiber that is in the possession of Barbara Scheiber, Walter Scheiber's widow. She has given permission to use the photo.

The second, Walter_Scheiber_Rockville_MD_1962, was taken by James Hansen and published in Look Magazine. James Hansen's heirs have given permission to use the photo.

I tried to categorize the permissions properly although I didn't understand them completely. If I made any errors, please let me know how I can fix them.

- Mirialova

Mirialova (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Mirialova. The photos, c:File:Walter Scheiber Rockville MD 1962.jpg and File:Walter A Scheiber photo.jpg were deleted because you did not prove evidence that the copyright holders had given permission to use the photos. We don't take anyone's word for it; the permission needs to come from the person who owns the copyright. For how to do this, see Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Images From Google

How can I tell if an image from google meets the copyright requirements, and I can upload it to wiki commons? Thanks Cbuergler (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

When searching Google images if you choose "Advanced search" you can select the usage rights "free to use, share or modify, even commercially" from the drop down menu but the onus is still on on you, as the uploader, to verify the images are freely licenced without any commercial or derivative restrictions. However, some online images you may find might be freely licenced due to age or other reasons but the website still makes a copyright claim. For instance, I've seen the US Air Force's Flickrstream claim copyright on their images but such images are actually US government employee work and as such are in the public domain. Copyright can be tricky but once you have found something that interests you you can always ask us here again. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am absolutelynew to all this.

I would like to add this image

File:Passport1933

British passport issued in 1933 showing elaborate instruction page.

to the Britannic Majesty page.

The image is a scan of my late father's passport.

All help will be much appreciated.

Signed : Imbricate

Image of Eden POW camp, Malton, Yorkshire

I recently uploaded the above image.

I am the copyright owner and I am placing the photo here free of restrictions. I have added this info to the description but note that I still received an automated reminder today which says that the info is missing. Im quite new to this and a little puzzled.

please advise!

Thank you

StylusGuru — Preceding unsigned comment added by StylusGuru (talk • contribs) 16:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, StylusGuru. Because copyright is a legal matter, we need precise permissions. "Free use" or even "placing here free of restrictions" is not specific enough. In effect, you either need to explicitly release it into the public domain or license it under some of our accepted free licenses. Whichever you chose to do, use the templates found here to indicate it on the file description page: Wikipedia:File copyright tags. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Linda McCartney photo- free or non-free?

The lead image on the Linda McCartney article is tagged for deletion. I came across another which is apparently PD, although it's status is hopefully pending other reviewers at the image's DR. So rather than have the lead empty, I would like to upload a Wirephoto of Paul and Linda at 1974 Oscars as non-free, although it seems to be PD.

The photo would be a cropped portion showing only her, in low res, and attributed, etc. The {{Non-free biog-pic}} license would be used as she's deceased. It can also be uploaded to the English WP as PD if that's an alternative. Can anyone review this? --Light show (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC) `

You can actually justify the existing image as a non-free on en.wiki. It's a good quality photo and itself seems to be the subject of some discussion (eg [1] [2]) which focuses on Linda as a photographer, making this even the best choice for an image. It just has to be uploaded to en.wiki and tagged non-free. --MASEM (t) 00:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion. In the meantime, can you also review the other image suggested for PD on the Commons DR? That way a clear image of them together can be used globally.--Light show (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

How large can a non-free image be? The link you gave at the Commons goes to a larger image. --Light show (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-frees should be low resolution. Given its a mostly upright image, probably no wider than 250px. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you let me know if it was OK to upload this. Seems not, as it was speedily deleted. --Light show (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

As noted there, the issue is not with the image, but your current topic ban on image uploads. I've commented there and willing to vouch for the legitimacy of the image. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is this image allowed

Just so I get the gist of what is and isn't allowed. The image "Jessica Bennett described shock at recognizing this photo showed her resting bitch face pic is at wikipedia as a non-free image. This is a living person who, while she has been interviewed as a girl with "resting bitch face" (RBF) has not released an image of herself to the public domain so that she can be used as the corner-piece to every RBF article in the world. the term has been applied to actress Kristen Stewart also, and she has talked about it on tv, but we don't use her in the article. As I mentioned on the photo talk page, Bette Davis has also often been talked of having RBF and she has photos in the public domain that we could use. It would also nullify the justification of "Not replaceable with free media." There is discussion of using others as examples at the RBF talk page and it seemed to me that Jessica Bennett's face shouldn't be allowed either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It fails the free replacement test. Since Bennett is not the originator of this look, only one of the more predominate examples but not essentially the only one, any Wikipedia can recreate the expression on their own (self-portrait or with approval by the subject to avoid the BLP), and upload it as free. This is in contrast to , say, File:Barack_Obama_with_artistic_gymnastic_McKayla_Maroney_2.jpg the McKayla is not impressed face, where McKayla was the originator of that expression and if we didn't have this free image, we could use the copyrighted shot to document the meme), --MASEM (t) 19:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Photographs from old book

There are some photos in The Life of Sir Edward FitzGerald Law (from Archive.org) [3] which I would like to upload for use in the Edward FitzGerald Law article. The book was published in Edinburgh and London in 1911. The first photo, the frontispiece of the book, is dated 1905, but no photographer's name is given. The other photos I want to use are facing p140, and are dated 1891 and 1893, again no photographer's name. Can I upload them here, or to Commons, and what copyright tag should I use if I can upload them? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

IMO, commons, PD-anon-1923 or PD-1923. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Katch 22 sixties band photograph 1967

I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I represent (Mike Eastman), ] the sole owner of the exclusive copyright of CHOOSE ONE: [attached images/text].

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). (THIS IS THE STANDARD CHOICE; YOU MAY CHOOSE ANOTHER ACCEPTABLE FREE LICENSE, IF YOU WISH TO)

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[Mike Eastman]

[Sender's authority (If applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", )]
[13/05/2016.] 

Mike Eastman. Mike-eastman (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Mike Eastman Mike-eastman (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike-eastman. I think you should take a look at WP:CONSENT or WP:DONATEIMAGE. You may need to send a declaration of consent to OTRS for verification. I don't believe that posting here like you did is considered sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Spirit Unforgettable

I have a couple of questions pertaining to File:Spirit Unforgettable.jpg, which was recently bot-tagged for deletion for lacking the specific identity of the specific graphic designer who created it and the specific identity of the actual copyright holder — however, the fair use template already includes the standard proviso that "the poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the item promoted, the publisher of the item promoted or the graphic artist", which always used to be enough in and of itself to stave off deletion, and I simply don't know where to even attempt to locate more specific information. Even on standard film-poster databases like IMDb or AllPosters, that information simply isn't given, and I'm aware of no other resource where the specific name of a poster's specific graphic designer, or the particular nuances of how to determine who the specific copyright holder of the image is beyond "the distributor, the publisher or the graphic artist", when there are three different production companies involved and no locatable information about the specific identity of the individual designer, can be located.

And furthermore, I just spotchecked a dozen other random film posters, and not a single one of them listed the name of the graphic designer or the specific identity of the specific copyright holder either — every last one of them, in fact, contained even less detail than the fair use template on this image already does, so I'm simply not grokking what the problem is.

As always, a film poster is expected to be present in a film's article, so this needs to be fixed — but I simply don't know how to fix it. Can anybody help out? Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bearcat. The file had to come from somewhere, right? You uploaded it as non-free, but did not provide any information about where you got it from. When source information is not provided, the non-free use rationale template will just add some generic text to fill in the field. WP:NFCC#4 requires that non-free content be previously published so that the copyright status can be verified. WP:NFCC#10a requires that specific information about the source be provided for basically the same reason. The template is bascially asking for this information. It's not specifically saying you need to provide the specific name of the person who created: "Where did this image come from?", "Who created it?", "Who holds the copyright to this image?" are just example questions saying "please provide some information about the source". If you don't remember where you got the file (i.e., the source url), then I think you might be able to use the image found on the film's IMDb page as the source, since they appear to be the same. Essentially the same image (minus the bottom third) is also found on the film's official Facebook and Twitter accounts, so either of those might be used to be used as well. On a different note, it might also have to be reduced a bit to comply with WP:NFCC#3b (WP:IMAGERES). -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The copyright notice is at the bottom of the poster: "(C) Spirit Unforgettable Films Ltd.". -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of photo printed with Wikipedia article --- https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=william+h.+hand+jr.

the question is whether the photo of the JUANITA published with the Wikipedia article on William H. Hand, Jr. can be used by anyone for general publication. This particular version of a photo of JUANITA is found at several Internet sites. This particular boat is of public interest for several reasons, 1) it is now offered for charter in Greece, 2) it was built by a Maine boatyard and has survived for 76 years, 3) It was proposed and tested by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in 1950-51 for use as a seagoing antenna for a propaganda radio station.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luckyal5861 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no photo in that article. If you mean one of the external links, that would be governed by the copyright policy of the external site, or the terms set by the photographer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

And we don't give legal advice. You need to make your own conclusions about reuse. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

2 photos of my ancestors

i have uploaded 2 photos of my ancestors on the chennai jews article. These photos belong to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davvidlevi (talk • contribs) 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The photos belong to you only in the sense that the physical photos belong to you. The copyright to the images in those photos, on the other hand, depends on when they were taken and by whom and in what country. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Logo of Solo (DC Comics)

Is this logo copyrightable in the US? --George Ho (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A ring, four coloured cicles, four stars and 6 characters ard not sufficient to pass WP:TOO. ww2censor (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A 1941 gramophone recording by Fred Astaire

I want to upload one of the images to Commons. However, it has layers of vinyl on background. Is this image okay to upload as PD-ineligible (or PD-textlogo)? --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

ww2censor, can you evaluate this image? George Ho (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Problematic user

User:Ronald Galope Barniso claims that all the pictures that he took and uploaded on Wikipedia he "Owns". Can some one explain to him why this isn't the case? Thanks, ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If he took the photos, then he still owns them, in the sense that he is the copyright holder. Once he uploads them to Commons under an acceptable Creative Commons license, then anyone can reuse them for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without asking for permission. However, he still has the right of attribution. In other words, he is still entitled to proper attribution, which is the only remaining benefit of ownership that he has not released. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Barkha Sharma - Profile image

Hi,

I uploaded a file File:BarkhaSharmapreviewatAzastore.jpg which was pulled down due to copyright issues. I have noticed other such files on Wikipedia from the same source (Bollywood Hungama).

Could you let me know if the image from the below link could be used for Barkha Sharma's Wiki profile: http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/more/photos/view/stills/parties-and-events/id/1558698

Thanks, Dxcu12 (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The original upload was deleted because it did not have a copyright licence tag attached to the file. It looks like the image you now linked does comply with the requirements for Bollywood Hungama's licence per the commons template c:Template:Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama so you should upload it on the commons not here. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Live streaming webcams

There are now many live streaming webcams of animals, for example, see here[4]. (The ants are not very active at the moment!) Are these live streams subject to copyright and is it permissible to place links to these in WP articles? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

By default, yes. Just because they are taking shots of non-artistic animals, the framing and placement of the camera is eligible for copyright. So images from the live streams would be considered non-free unless the publisher has said otherwise. A link to these streams may be appropriate for an article, particularly on a topic page of the related project, but that should be determined by consensus. --MASEM (t) 18:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

CCTV footage may or may not be an analogous case – and may or may not pass the threshold of originality. See: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-recording device. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Image from NYS Dept. of Corrections published by NBCnews.com-Known copyright status?

I understand that images created by the federal government are free and fair use, but that state governments may be different story. I am attempting to upload a picture of a May 15, 2012 mugshot of Mark David Chapman to his Wikipedia page, because I do NOT think that the main photo is appropriate (it's mostly a picture of John Lennon, with Chapman in the background. Not appropriate for a page on Chapman, but perhaps for Lennon's main page and/or assassination.

This is the article that I want to take the image from, but I'm too unsure of what category it falls under:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/29/13553386-chilling-details-of-john-lennon-shooting-recounted-at-chapman-parole-hearing?lite StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As you will see from Wikipedia:File copyright tags/USA, very few states work is in the public domain, so any such use would be a non-free claim. I'm sorry but, as he is still alive a freely licenced image could be taken so this image would fail WP:NFCC#1. You are correct about the current image which only shows about half his face and even its use in the Mark David Chapman article is questionable for the same reason. ww2censor (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I will continue trying to pursue a free license picture of him for the article. The original image was his mugshot after the assassination back in 1980. Not sure if it failed for the same reason, but I will check.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Public domain image tagged with permission template

A few years ago, I uploaded this file and tagged it as public domain.

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

I think this public domain as the photo dates to 1910, and has been published.

http://www.themagazineantiques.com/news-opinion/discovery/2009-02-19/edward-f-caldwell-and-companys-legacy-of-lighting/

The image was just tagged with a lack of permission template, which based on the above I believe is not correct. Rather than just deleting the tag, though, I wanted to check here first. Thanks for any insight. Kschlot1 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You wrote that the copyright holder to File:Caldwell portrait.jpg has released the picture to the public domain, but you have not provided any evidence of this. The page [5] is not mentioned on the file information page, but the information on that page reveals that the file is {{PD-US-suspect}}. However, it is unknown when the picture was first published. The website apparently obtained the picture from someone called Margaret Caldwell, and she has the same surname as the subject of the photograph, so she might be a relative to the subject of the photograph who was able to provide a previously unpublished family photograph. If the first publication was in 2009 (when the picture was posted to that website), then the copyright expires 120 years after the photograph was taken, meaning that it enters the public domain on 1 January 2030. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I've reached out to Cooper Hewitt, which holds the Caldwell archives and has also published this image, to see if they have further insight on the copyright status of this image (in particular, whether it was published back in the 1910s).

http://library.si.edu/digital-library/collection/caldwell/introduction I'll update when I hear back. Kschlot1 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

BAA Logo copyright correct?

I've just been looking at this BAA logo and it has the logo copyright tag on it. However I'm not too sure that it meets the threshold of originality given it is essentially just three letters and three triangles. Given that the Virgin Atlantic logo is deemed to not meet the threshold of originality and the fact that BAA no longer use it due to becoming Heathrow Airport Holdings, is the current copyright tag correct or am I correct in assuming that it does not actually meet the threshold of originality? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The UK has a much lower threshold of originality compared to the US; they use "sweat of the brow"-type determinations, so any creativity, like the green part of the BAA logo, would be protected by copyright. It would fall as PD-USonly. I also disagree that the VA logo is PD as well for the same reasons (the coloring on the wing aspect is unique enough to meet UK thresholds). --MASEM (t) 13:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Does the historical photograph rule apply to animals?

If I find an article about a famous animal who is dead can I use the same image rationale as I would for a person? I would assume so but I would just like to be sure.*Treker (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The actual article is about the animal? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I had this article in mind but in general as well.*Treker (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember the question ever having come up before, but in a full article about that animal, I see no reason to treat it any differently. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, we do frequently illustrate articles of deceased people with non-free images of them when no free ones are available, for identification purposes. I think the same logic can apply to animals for which no free image can be created or found.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you guys.*Treker (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

copyright question regarding the Carlos Cazurro image

Dear Wiki, I have been following all the necessary steps to correct the copyright question regarding the Carlos Cazurro image: Maureen Selwood ANIMAC festival 2008. Carlos has sent permission: I hereby affirm that I, Carlos Cazurro, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work depicted in the media attached to this eMail. I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

We got an email saying Carlos has to send written permission!! This seems a bit strange. Can you let me know how to correct this? It is getting a bit difficult as Carlos lives in Spain and has been great in assisting this but doesn't know how to proceed. Please advise asap.

Thanks, Weebuefweebuef Weebuefweebuef (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually it is quite easy and physicial location is no problem. If Carlos Cazurro is the copyright holder then all he has to do is verify his permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT making sure to note the names of the image. I assume it was File:Maureen Selwood at ANIMAC International Animation Festival 2008.jpg which was deleted because no permission was verified, but if everything check out it will be restored by the OTRS team who deal with permissions. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

IambakeyOkuk.jpg on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Iambakey_Okuk

This photo is in wide circulation and I believe it should be considered public domain. I received a copy from Iambakey Okuk himself before his death in 1986 along with some other I will scan and add to the article. How should I mark these photos to satisfy the copyright conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisryder (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Being "in wide circulation" implies nothing about the image's copyright status. For reasons why an image might be in public domain, see WP:PD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)r

Peștera Muierilor

Hi, I'm interested in using these two relevant pictures taken from this published journal article: Figure 1 and Figure 4 from http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17196.full. Is it ok to do so? Would this qualify as a fair use claim? Thanks, Fraenir (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what fair use claim you could make here. Please elaborate. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this, so that's why I'm asking. Thanks for answering my question.Fraenir (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

KML representation of text description

My objective is to be able to provide accurate boundaries for Australian wine regions (Australian Geographical Indication). These have a textual legal description, such as the one found at https://www.wineaustralia.com/en/Production%20and%20Exporting/Register%20of%20Protected%20GIs%20and%20Other%20Terms/Geographical%20Indications/New%20South%20Wales/Southern%20New%20South%20Wales/Tumbarumba.aspx The website provides a map as an indication of where the region is, as a Google Maps mashup. From the page above, I could click on "view in a larger map" then from the resulting page, use the menu to "Download KML". I deleted the text and uploaded the remainder to the KML page corresponding to {{Attached KML}}. The result shows the boundaries as I intended in the WikiMiniAtlas, however I am uncertain on whether I have stolen someone else's intellectual property. If I have, I need to find guidance on what steps I must take myself to create a copyright-free version of the text description that can display on the WikiMiniAtlas (and/or a locator map). My current proof-of-concept is visible in the mini atlas at Tumbarumba wine region. I hope this is the right place to start asking. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Image Files Fail to Load (Red Link)

File:VSkmCalendarP1.PNG File:VTanzaniaGregCalL1.PNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nghwaya (talk • contribs) 12:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Image taken from a newspaper or official website of that person

What if I don't know who holds the copyrights but is taken from a newspaper or official website of that person(Governor of the state in my case)? How do i remove the tag after answering the questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haldipoor (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to the image c:File:Viken Joshi.jpg that you uploaded to the commons, or to a different image? Newspapers often own their own images but also acquire them from photo libraries and other news organisations and they each own the copyright to their own images. Often a newspaper will provide an attribution line near the image, such as Getty Images or a named photographer. Unless an image is specifically noted as being freely licenced you have to presume it is copyright to someone and you will need their permission, unless it is old enough to have fallen in to the public domain. Generally most images you find on the internet are copyright. Provide a link to the image you are interested in and we will review it and provide guidance. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Does copyvio apply to sandboxes?

If I copy-and-paste a large section of a copyright publication to my sandbox in preparation for paraphrasing, but then save the sandbox page before the paraphrasing, is this copyright violation? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, if the copyright terms are not compatible with ours. "Paraphrasing" also is often not a good idea because you can end up with a derivative work; c.f WP:CLOP.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In addition, it can be or lead to problematic WP:Plagiarism. Note, "paraphrasing" is a nuanced concept (used often rather vaguely in WP discussions) involving degrees from the original. In general, where possible, the WP writing process aimed for is putting it in your own words, while staying true to the verifiable idea. If actually paraphrasing, one should explicitly identify the original author in the text, itself. (In short, DrChrissy, what you describe seems poor process and can be problematic, under cv and plag)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks both for your help - I wonder if copyvio in sandboxes is widely known about. A follow up question, please. How do I find out if copyright terms are compatible with ours? I deal mainly with science articles, so, as an example, copyright in Elsevier science journals. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It can get quite tricky quite quickly. Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Licenses is the best I can find quickly. These days you'd probably be looking for a Creative Commons licence which permits commercial use - CC BY-SA. You'd need to avoid licences which have Noncommercial (NC) or No Derivative (ND) restrictions - see, for instance the foot of this CC page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If NOINDEX is used, so a sandbox no longer appears on web searches, is it then okay to use the sandbox to rework material containing copy violations. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. Publishing materials without the consent of the copyright holder is infringement. It does not matter where or how you publish it. Even NOINDEXed websites are publishing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

But that begs the question. Can it really be said to be "published" on the web if it is not publicly available through web searches? Even if it is in some sense legally published, then presumably it is still okay to work fixing copy violation in the sandbox providing the copied parts are enclosed in quotes. Could users be given truly private sandboxes, accessible only with their password, so they can use them for work on copyright issues? Is there any point where common sense can intervene, and Wikipedia editors can be given working tools to fix copy violations? Too often Wikipedia discussions on copyright and paraphrasing are met merely with rigid censorious judgements, and are not relieved or balanced with helpful and practical ways of actually dealing with the issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It can be said to be published if, by inputting a URL, the system returns a page with the information in it. Really. Please rest assured on that point. Indexability is entirely beside the point. "rigid censorious judgements". Yup. Copyright law is, err, law; not a cuddly thing. "Practical ways of actually dealing with the issues". Use a local text editor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

But are password protected pages legally published? Web design applications allow users to develop applications on the web before formally "publishing" them. Why can not Wikipedia do the same for its content builders? Working with a text editor is not the same thing as working in a Wikipedia sandbox which interprets wiki markup. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's called copyright. It's the action of copying that is problematic. It matters not whether there's a password or not. And in the case of sandboxes, there is not a password. I appreciate that a text editor is second best. Such is the protection of intellectual property: it brings with it costs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit more nuanced than that. Making copies for personal use is (mostly) permitted. I can photocopy a book I have. I can even go to a library and photocopy a book I don't have. I can even upload that copy to a web drive. I can even send that copy to you by email. Here it's content on the internet that's behind a password and accessible to more people than me, but it's not considered publishing. If I start to hand out that web drive password to enough people, or send that email to a dozens, then it turns into publishing instead of personal use, though I gather that this varies by jurisdiction. For a legal definition, see c:COM:Publication. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

So then it would be legally possible for Wikipedia to provide established users with personal sandboxes with viewing rights restricted in such a way that they can rehabilitate text with copyright issues. The foundation won't of course, because the idea they might do something to facilitate content building is not part of their culture. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Technically speaking, "private drafts" have been discussed and rejected because they could be used to store unsavoury things.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This should be a purely pragmatic and legal issue. If the drafts are truly private, then, like private thoughts, why should it concern anyone else whether or not the occasional one was "unsavoury"? Perhaps a control freak might be upset if he or she was seriously obsessed with playing God and wanted to remove everything that might conceivably be naughty from the world. But surely Wikipedia wouldn't have anyone like that controlling policy? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagishsimon said above "It can be said to be published if, by inputting a URL, the system returns a page with the information in it." Does this mean if a WP article contains a copyvio and an editor comes along and edits the article (unrelated to the copyvio) and then saves it (i.e. publishes it), that editor is violating copyright? DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Better to just ask Tagishsimon for reliable sources confirming his assertions, since it seems from above that his assertions are questionable. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status of book cover image File:The_Last_Raja_of_West_Pakistan_(Cover_Photo).jpg

Hi, I spotted this image File:The_Last_Raja_of_West_Pakistan_(Cover_Photo).jpg recently and I opened a discussion with the uploader (Abhinav619) on their talk page (See here). The uploader says the original copyright holder has released the image into public domain and he has a written permission. However, the image is tagged as "Own work" and the permission is not evident here. I'm not very well versed with IUP but I feel either the licensing needs to be corrected or the evidence needs to be checked and stated on the file page. I'm not sure what are the next steps - use OTRS? Can someone else help out with this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please guide me on this? I will share the written declaration that due permission had been provided. The owner is non well-versed with Wiki, hence passed the image to me to do the needful. Abhinav619 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Abhinav619 (and Lemongirl1942). I think perhaps a couple of things need to happen to resolve the situation. The image tagging should describe who the work was by - so Own Work changed to the illustrator's details. The written declaration needs to be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and a template {{OTRS pending}} placed on the image's talk page ... all this is discussed here. Make sure the email references the image by stating the URL of the image on wikipedia - presumably commons, if it is public domain. The idea is that the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team satisfy themselves about the permission and add an OTRS ticket onto the image talk page. Everyone goes home happy. I'm sorry, Abhinav619, that you're being dragged through this, but Lemongirl1942 is absolutely right to police claims of public domain applied to images which do not appear on the face of them to be public domain - i.e. are within the class of images which we expect to be under copyright. I hope it all works out well. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagishsimon and Lemongirl1942, thanks for the brief. The needful would be done. Abhinav619 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about a tag posted to my user talk page

Please help me with the tagging posted to my user talk page. My question was posted there. --Nerdvana (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been responded to on the user's talk page. ww2censor (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status conflict?

Yesterday FastilyBot tagged File:Logo of the Kokoda Track Foundation.png with "BOT: Tag file with copyright status conflict". I moved the file here from Commons a couple of years ago (after it was deleted on Commons) following the advice at the Commons deletion review, which is probably worth reading (along with the original deletion discussion). Note that I was not the original uploader on commons – it was uploaded by an empoyee of the Kokoda Track Foundation. The file is the logo of the Kokoda Track Foundation and consists merely of a PD image with "The Kokoda Track Foundation" in Calibri typeface below the image. It is currently tagged {{Non-free logo}} {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and {{PD-ineligible}}. This is likely why FastilyBot is unhappy with the tagging. I added the {{Non-free logo}} and fair use rationale based on the advice from the Commons deletion revue. The file should probably have stayed at commons, since I'm 99.99% sure it's public domain, but it was argued that adding the text could somehow make the entire logo protected under copyright in Australia. So, the question is: how should it be tagged? Leave it as is (and possibly tell FastilyBot to ignore it)? Remove {{Non-free logo}} (and possibly move back to commons at some future time)? Remove {{PD-AustraliaGov}} and {{PD-ineligible}}? Something else? Mojoworker (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd remove the PD-ineligible. The image is PD in Australia but because Australia is only 50 years from publication, compared to the US's longer term, it will not be PD in the US for some time. It cannot be stored at Commons since Commons follows US law, and requires the image to be PD in the US and host country to be used here, so having it here and marked non-free is fully appropriate. The PD-ineligible is the tag in conflict because the image actually fails that, the photographic part make it a potential copyrightable image (though the timing becomes an issue). --MASEM (t) 00:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is in the public domain in Australia if it was published more than 50 years ago. We only know when it was created but not when it was first published. It could be that it remained unpublished until the 1960s or the 1970s, in which case it is still copyrighted in Australia.

In the United States, it is probably in the public domain if it was published before 1946. If not, then the copyright expires 95 years from publication (if published before 1978). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, the organization was established in 2003, so it can be assumed that its logo was not published before 2003. If this information is correct, the photograph, used as one of the components of the logo, is in the public domain in Australia. And in the United States, if it was published before 1989. Commons considers that the addition of the name of the organization to a public domain photograph might create a derivative work copyrighted in Australia. The question for en.wikipedia is what is the status in the United States of the logo made from a public domain photograph, below which is added the name of the organization, and does it make a difference for the copyright status in the United States if that derivative is copyrighted or not in Australia. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Masem and Stefan2: not just published date, but for photographs, the created/taken date. See {{PD-Australia}} (and the link above that Asclepias provided), which has more detail. Note B1 – Photographs (where the author is known) : "PD in US if...taken prior to 1 January 1946" and E1 – Commonwealth or State government held photographs or engravings: "PD in US if...Technically material created prior to 1 January 1946}". I guess D "Published editions" (the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint) could apply to the "the Kokoda Track Foundation" text, but that hardly seems an "edition"... Mojoworker (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Clearly, the issue is the photograph part - the text logo is not the issue here. The photograph, going by the Commons discussion, was PD in Australia in 1992. For the US, the US will only respect the PD nature if that photograph was originally published without failing to mark up or meet copyright requirements for the US (per [6]), since the image was PD in Australia before 1996. If the photograph was marked with copyright, then we have to wait 95 from its publication date (which seems to be at least around 2030-ish). Unfortunately, this factor does not seem to be known, and hence it makes sense to treat it as PD-Australia (it clearly meets that), but it is not a free image for en.wiki as stored in servers in the US where it remains likely under copyright, until we can prove the photograph failed to have the right copyright markings. --MASEM (t) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: This is confusing. At the {{PD-Australia}} template why are there two separate columns labeled "Copyright has expired in Australia if ..." and "As of URAA date material was PD in US if..."? Doesn't the last column imply that's the US status? Looks like URAA is Uruguay Round Agreements Act, FWIW. Mojoworker (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Because foreign copyrights are a mess, unfortunately. Here at en.wiki, we are looking to what the copyright is under US law. When it comes to works first published in a foreign country that we have reciprocal copyright agreements with (like Australia), we have to use the URAA to determine if the US treats the image as PD - just because the work is PD in the foreign country doesn't necessarily make it PD in the US. Hence for en.wiki's determination of free or non-free image status, we do need to look at the last column in the template. (I note that the Cornell link I included above does not consider specific country-oriented details, so let's stick with the template here). So obviously this is a B1 case (regardless if the photographer was a government employee), so the question becomes if the photograph was taken before 1946, which is not clear. If the photograph was taken before then, then we would consider the photo PD, and would treat the derivative logo as PD-Australia and PD-textlogo (removing the nonfree) but because AU has UK-like threshold of creativity, the complete logo can't be transferred to Commons. If the photograph was after 1946, then we would treat it as non-free with PD-Australia. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Why exactly do you doubt the 25 December 1942 date documented unanimously everywhere for this photo, on Commons, at the Australian War Memorial and in many other publications? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't doubting it, I was unaware we had a date for the photograph part. If its documented 1942, then the photo is PD in the US as well as Australia. The logo that includes the photo and text is PD-USonly since the combination of a PD photo and typeface is not creative enough, but likely copyrightable in Australia under "sweat of the brow" originality. So we should treat it as free, remove the PD-Australia tag (since that only applies to the photo, not the derivative logo), add PD-USonly/do not copy to commons, and should be okay, documenting all factors relating to the photo itself appropriately. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that {{PD-Australia}} isn't entirely accurate. It says As of URAA date material was PD in US if... but it should say As of URAA date material was PD in Australia if... It is in the public domain in the United States provided that it 1) satisfies {{PD-1923}}, 2) satisfies {{PD-US-unpublished}} or 3) it was in the public domain in Australia as of the URAA date (see the column in the template) and fell out of copyright in the United States for some reason before 1 March 1989 (then it's {{PD-URAA}}). c:Commons:Subsisting copyright describes when something did or didn't fall out of copyright in the United States before 1 March 1989. The main situation where an Australian work from the 1940s hasn't have fallen out of copyright in the United States is if it wasn't published before 1 March 1989. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not find a copyright notice in the 1943 book. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Commons does not seem to dispute the public domain status of the photograph, hosted on Commons. Commons questions the status in Australia of the logo made from that public domain photograph with the addition of a name. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The advice, to which you refer above, by one of the Commons users, was to upload the image to en.wikipedia either as non-free logo *or* as a public domain image with a combo of PD tags, it was not to tag the image as both a non-free logo and a PD image. I understand that you wanted to be safe, on one hand tagging the image as PD because that is what it is, and on the other hand tagging it as non-free logo, just in case someone would dispute the PD status, so the image could be kept anyway and be used in the article about the organization. In other words, you were telling the readers that the logo was certainly fine on en.wikipedia for one of the two reasons, although you were leaving the readers choose which. There's logic to it when seen like that, but that created the conflict noticed by the bot, because it's apparently illogical to tag something as both free and not free. It is a bit strange to see the explanation of why the image is actually in the public domain inserted into a template for a non-free use rationale. I agree with you that that logo would probably be public domain in the United States (as essentially a reproduction of a public domain photograph and the name of the organization in simple letters). It may be a stretch for Commons to consider that logo potentially above the threshold of originality in Australia, but even if it is, I don't think that would make it copyrighted in the United States if it is not above the threshold of originality in the United States. Another question could be to decide if the name of an organization is copyrightable as such in the United States, independently of the look of the letters in which it is written. To answer your question, maybe it is possible to just remove the bot notice and leave everything as it is. Or, if any tag must be removed, then make your choice between the two options, as has been advised by the Commons user. If, as it seems it is, that logo is in the public domain in the United States, then in theory the tag that should be removed is the non-free logo tag. Technically, the PD-Australia tag may not be necessary either, as the wording of the PD-ineligible tag may be inclusive enough to cover the fact that the logo is made from components that are all common property in the United States, the photographic component because its copyright is expired and the textual component because it is simple text in a simple font. But the PD-Australia tag could be kept too, although users will have to understand that it's there as additional information about the photographic element. Alternatively, if you believe it's safer, you could choose to keep the non-free logo tag and then remove the two PD tags. Either way, there's no certainty that someone will not decide to dispute the status. If it is tagged as non-free, someone may complain because it is actually in the public domain and so it should be tagged as public domain. If it is tagged as public domain, someone may complain because they're not sure if it is. I think your explanation in your own words on the description page is very good, so whatever you choose to do with the tags, I think you should keep the clear explanation. It makes things much easier for the reader. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm tempted to leave it as is, even if that means the {{Wrong-license}} tag stays on there, but I'll ask Fastily if there is an ignore setting for the Bot. Mojoworker (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all. After the additional discussion above. I think it makes the most sense to tag with either {{PD-USonly}} or {{PD-URAA}}, remove the non-free fair use info, and link to this discussion, which I will do shortly. Mojoworker (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help

I'm uploading my own work picture and it keeps on getting deleted And been giving warnings i Didn't mean to delete anyone message but I was trying to figure this wiki thing out

This was the picture I uploaded here is the link saying its for public use https://pixabay.com/photo-1411705/

I don't have my own website but everyone uses my pictures the models and one of the model is verified by Facebook And she even give the rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonazizi (talk • contribs) 02:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that you ever uploaded any images here. Can you be more specific? Perhaps the image was not licensed freely on the pixabay site. "Public use" does not mean freely licensed that we would accept. Can you provide a link that does not force us to register to see the image you are talking about? If you have an issue with other people using your images you will have to consult an intellectual property lawyer as we cannot give you any legal advise. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Is oil painting open to public viewing free content?

Hello Wikiphiles. I have a questions about free content: I want to add a photo to a prominent legal professor Herbert Hovenkamp from the law school I attended. There is an oil painting of him hanging in our law building (we're a public land-grant institution) and anyone may freely enter the building and view this painting -- it's on public display. Can I use a photo of this oil painting for his Wikipedia page? I would ask to take his photo for Wikipedia but I don't want to be a weirdo. Thanks!RedDarling (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi RedDarling. "Free" in this context means "free from copyright protection"; it doesn't mean downloaded for free or photographed for free. I think the only way to answer your question would be to verify the copyright status of the oil painting as explained in c:Commons:Derivative works. If the painting is old enough to be no longer protected by copyright, etc., then any photo you take of it can be freely licensed. If the painting is still considered to be under copyright protection, then it depends on what the focus of the photo happens to be. If the painting just happens to be in the background of some photo you take, then perhaps the principle of de minimis would apply with respect to the painting. If, however, the painting is the focus of the photo (which seems to be what you're intending to do), then the photo itself can be freely licensed by you as "own work", but the copyrighted image itself would likely be treated as non-free content. Since it seems that Hovenkamp is still living, such non-free usage is unlikely to be allowed per WP:NFCC#1. As awkward as is might be, you may be left with nothing better than simply asking him to allow his picture to be taken. You can also ask Herbert Hovenkamp to donate one of his photos to Wikipedia per WP:DONATEIMAGE or he can simply upload any photo he has of himself that he holds the copyright on to Wikimedia Commons directly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Can these images be uploaded to commons?

It says some rights reserved (I'm not sure what that means) but I think they're ok for commons since wikipedia isn't for profit but I want to be on the safe side.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tabercil/6367054757/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sherlock77/124664312/

Thanks.*Treker (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The first one can, but the second one can not. See c:Commons:Flickr files. Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons) isn't for profit but our re-users are and we want to allow reuse by anyone for all purposes, hence the requirement for free licensing. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Good that I checked first. Thanks.*Treker (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Copyright tagging is required

File:1922_Northern_Steamship,_Auckland.jpg has a tag saying Copyright tagging is required, but doesn't explain how to do it. How is it done and what tag is appropriate for a pre 1923 image?Johnragla (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Johnragla: you can add {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} to that page. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

{{PD-US-1923}} if it really was published in the United States before 1923, as you say (the sources you give seems to be a newspaper published in New Zealand instead). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

dcw2003: Dcw2003 (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This image is both PD in the US having been published prior to 1923 and is also PD in New Zealand under s24 of the NZ Copyright Act 1994. Now tagged as such but it could do with a description adding. Nthep (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Could someone please provide me with the tag for non-free fair use for photo uploaded to Wiki.

I have been unable to locate it!! The photo appears to be from a press kit, is signed by the subject, and was taken around 1918. The name of the press agency appears on the photo. The subject died in 1977. Please advise on which tag to use, for non-free fair use. No details exist of the nature of the copyright or the author.

The photo is of a boxer, Abe Goldstein, and appears in boxrec. The file is GoldsteinAbe.jpg. Please help. The file is up for discussion.

Thank-you,

David Wasserman

Thank you.Johnragla (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

License for pictures edited by me?

What license do I have to use for a picture that is from a source, but the picture is edited by me? Here is the picture 19Joshua (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@19Joshua: that depends on the type of modifications you have done, and on the license of the original picture. In this case, I unfortunately see no evidence of a free license on the source page at Imgur. This means that any derivative you create is also a non-free file. Such files are deleted from Wikimedia Commons per c:COM:CSD#F3. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I was given a photograph

I was given a photograph to use on a wikipedia article [swank diet], and the photo has no copyright, and I don't know which tag to use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.XXXX1 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Use the tag that corresponds to the reason why it's out of copyright. What makes you think the photo is not copyrighted, Mr.XXXX1? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

adding information on logo page

hello, I've added a logo to the page Pnina Tornai in the name: File:Pnina Tornai logo.jpg.This is the brand logo. I've asked to check about copyrights. I understand that it should be tagged as Non-free use rationale logo. But when I add this tag (edit the file summary section) I get a deletion message. What should I do ? Do I need to delete the image from coomons and upload it elsewhere ? Ronit Segal (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ronit Segal: It actually doesn't need a non-free use rationale, since lettering and calligraphy generally isn't copyrightable in the United States, and that's why User:Explicit tagged it {{PD-simple}} instead of deleting it for not having a license tag. Apparently the threshold of originality is similar in Israel (at least according to c:COM:TOO), so he also moved it to Commons and deleted it from Wikipedia proper, and that's why you're getting an error now. To edit its description or upload a new version, you have to go to the file's page on Commons at c:File:Pnina Tornai logo.jpg. (As an aside, the reason you weren't able to add tags while it was still at Wikipedia is because you were actually reuploading the file: while the upload summary is copied onto the file page for an image's initial upload, after that, you have to edit the page the same way you edited this one.) —Cryptic 12:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

So now it's ok, and I don't have to to anything ? Just out of curiosity, isn't it suppose to be {{PD-logo}}? Can add it to the hebrew version of the article ? Ronit Segal (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's ok. Yes, PD-logo (or PD-textlogo) is slightly better, but the most important part is that it's public domain. I'm completely unfamiliar with policy at hewiki, but can't imagine any reason why it would be unusable there. —Cryptic 20:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)