Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/November

Cardinal Jean Pierre Kutwa Image

What should I do to avoid this notice? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baracudas44 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about File:Cardinal kutwa.jpg. Even though it's a press photo it is a copyright image, so unless you can persuade the Vatican to releases it under a free licence there is nothing you can do. We can't keep or use that image and it does not qualify under our strict non-free policy because he is alive a new image could be taken. ww2censor (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Linking to an image file on German WP

Hi all, I'm hoping to use an image on WP:en from de:Holstentor-Lichtspiele, de:Datei:WP Cines Hansa-Theater.jpg which has not been moved to Commons. Its a scan of a page of advertising from the Lübecker General-Anzeiger newspaper, 8 October 1913.

Is it possible for me to either upload the file to WP:en with a US-PD template, or somehow get the file reviewed for the Commons?

I asked at WP:Help Desk#Linking to an image on German WP, and it seems that German copyright law may be different from the commons:Template:PD-US. It's in the category de:Kategorie:Datei:Gemeinfrei (Schöpfungshöhe) with de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-Schöpfungshöhe, which I think is for plain text. Sorry, I haven't quite worked out how to make proper links to these pages. Thanks, >MinorProphet (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The text is probably copyrightable ... but being published in 1913 means that it is {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Splunk subsidiary logo

I'm a bit unclear on the nuances of uses of logos on Wikipedia. Is the Splunkbase logo [1] used at Splunk permitted? According to the article, it is a property of the subject of the article (an online community of some kind). - Brianhe (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not copyrightable as it's too simple being only short text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Images: (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) OK?

• Images: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) OK? tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  No. NC and ND (noncommercial and no derivatives, respectively) are not OK under policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to see the issues uploaders can have with images. ww2censor (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Jim Morrison

i have quoted an article and added it to the section on his death

I want to use the pictures in the article that are supposedly of Morrison now in a care facility in france... doesnt the fact that they are published on the web make them fair game for people and other web sites??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorheadrush (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking no. Images on the web are usually copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding description to image

I have found my image added to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_abacus has been repeatedly removed for various reasons. First it was for a copyright tag which was added later. Now it is because of no description of the image. I also notice it has been removed for the reason of VANDALISM!!!!. I don't understand why. I am now attempting to add a descrition to the image but cannot fathom how to do so as the entire section was removed from the main page and is now languishing in the talk page. When I go to the talk page, I don't see an opportunity to add the description. Please can you you tell me how to add a description and have the section reinstated in the main page.Ruthe (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

P.S. Note that I added a copyright tag which seems to have been ignored or disbelieved. I have the original image on my PC created with Paint Shop Pro 8 originally named grid.jpg created 22/12/2007 In addition I also have word files of text that was added to the predecessor image that had only the slot images without the three rows of alternative possible usages of the fractional slots.

Hi Ruthe. I have had a quick look; I think there are two separate things going on, one to do with your image, and the other to do with the combined text-plus-image on Roman_abacus. Let's take them in turn.

• The Image: It's fine; it's sitting on wikipedia commons as File:Abacus Usages.jpg - and specifically it lives at the URL https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abacus_Usages.jpg ... I say that because it can also be seen at the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abacus_Usages.jpg ... this latter is a sort of ghost of the commons URL. It has an appropriate licence on it, and I see no sign that anyone has a problem with the copyright/licence aspects. It is the case that the image on the commons lacks a description. You could add one by going to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abacus_Usages.jpg and hitting the edit button. You'll see the third line is Description= and this would be a good place to put a textual description of the image. Let me pause there for ten minutes: I really need to make a cup of tea, then I'll be back to discuss what is going on on the talk page of the article. But be clear: you can add anything you want to the image description at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abacus_Usages.jpg including any and all of the text which has been removed to the article talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• The article: What's going on with Roman abacus is that an editor has rejected the text (and associated image) which we now see sitting at Talk:Roman abacus#Removed original research. The problem with this text, as far as the article is concerned, is that it is your own original research. We have a policy, Wikipedia:No original research, which says, in essence, that we do not allow original research to be added to articles. It matters not if the information/conclusions arrived at or the assertions made are true/false/good/bad ... they're just not allowed, fullstop. Were you able to point to a Reliable Source which asserts the information in the disputed text, all would be well. But as far as I can see, the four references supplied pertain only to the final paragraph and not to the much larger body of text. I think it would be useful for you to review WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V which from memory are the core policies leading to the removal of your text. I'm very happy to discuss the issue with you some more, if you would like, here or on my talk page, or on your talk page. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Assigned copyright

Hello, I am creating a page for Todd Anthony Tyler and I asked him to assign copyright and ownership of his head shot to allow me to legally upload this image.

The assignment document can be found here: http://toddanthonytyler.com/copyright.jpg The image in question can be found here: http://toddanthonytyler.com/_MG_0305.jpg

The delete request for his image on wikimedia is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Todd_anthony_tyler_2017.jpg

Can you advise me of the best way forwards to comply with everything please?

Many thanks for your time

Kind regards NeilNeil Kindness (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neil Kindness: The simplest way forward would just be to put a note on the website the image is currently located on, noting that it's released under a free license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0. Once that's done, you can upload the image according to the license specified on the remote site. The alternative would be to send that notice of permission in via the process at donating copyrighted materials, but that's more involved and takes longer. It's probably best not to rely on the scanned image of the document on the remote site, since if that ever were to change or the link goes dead, someone might question the validity of the copyright status at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal Website with no Copyright Disclaimer

The Personal website of Judge Robert P. Young, Jr. has an image of the subject I wanted to use in his article. There's no copyright disclaimer on the website. There's also another picture of him on the Supreme Court of Michigan website; which seems inaccessible outside of the US. --In Allah We Trust (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The lack of a copyright notice does not mean that the image is copyright free. In order to use that image of him, you would have to determine who holds the copyright to it (the photographer in most cases, but rights can be transferred or assigned to others sometimes), and they would have to agree to release it under a free license. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Saudia A330 HZ-AQE.jpg

I do not think the image can be hosted here. The image is clearly copyrighted and the copyright tag is not an appropriate one.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged the image for speedy deletion at Commons.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Image deleted from Commons.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Question related to File:Damiffl.jpg

Hi there, I uploaded this image to use it in the article Dami Im. took this photo from the singer's facebook page, which is found here: https://www.facebook.com/damiandmusic. How should I go about ensuring that the image is fair use? Alternatively, I can contact the manager of this artist and request permission to use here. Does that work? Or, I have also access to many photographers, professional as well as amateurs, who have taken snaps with this artist as subject. If I were to use those images from these photographers, how should I ensure that I have the proper copyright to use it in a Wikipaedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwphan (talk • contribs) 05:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rwphan. Generally, non-free images of living persons are not considered to satisfy WP:NFCC#1 because it is not deemed impossible for a freeely licensed equivalent to be created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. There may be no such image of Im currently to be found anywhere online today, but it is considered possible that someone might take a photo of her some time in the future and release the photo under a free license. There may be certain cases where the individual is considered to an extremely well-known recluse that simply nobody ever sees and who doesn't want to be seen by anyone, incarcerated in prison or on the run from the police which make obtaining a freely licensed photo pretty much near impossible. Those would be very rare exceptions and I'm pretty sure they don't apply in this case. Basically, if the person is alive and out and about in public, especially if they or their representaitves are posting on social media, Wikipedia's non-free content policy requires that a freely licensed or public domain image be used. If you are in contact with Im or any photographers who might be interested in providing you with such an image, then that would resolve the problem. I suggest, however, that you (and they) carefully read WP:DONATEIMAGE, WP:REVOKE and c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder and make sure you (and they) are aware that a freely an image means that the photographer is essentially giving the entire world (not just Wikipedia) permission to use the image in any way, including commercially. That's quite a lot to give up and is something that not many professional photographers seem willing to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Henry Cavill SDCC 2016

Hi, I was wondering if I could post a new photo for Henry Cavill's pic from Gage Skidmore?

Gage is a very prolific contributor on Flickr and most of this images are freely licenced. Perhaps the image you want is already on the commons, so start a search of his 11,000+ images at c:Category:Photographs by Gage Skidmore or better still c:Category:Henry Cavill by year. If it is not there you can upload it using the Flickr2Commons tool found at http://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/index.html which fills in the required details. ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Snap language logo

I have created a page on the Hebrew Wikipedia for Snap!(programming language). I have asked one of the owners Brian Harvey, by Email, for a permission to use the Snap! logo File:Snap Language Logo.svg on the Hebrew page of Snap!. He agreed. Am I allowed, now to use the logo? YoavDvir (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Only under the terms of WP:NFC, as that permission statement on the Hebrew page of Snap! does not appear to extend to third parties. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

I would like to know how can I upload photo , if that picture I finde from internet, and I need that is fair use. I did some work and now that pictures was deleted by Filedelinkerbot user. (Lusfuz (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

@Lusfuz: If a photo was removed from an article by Filedelinkerbot, then that is probably because the photo was deleted from Commons, which does not accept photos for fair use. Non-free content can be uploaded only to Wikipedia--not Commons; and then only when the use complies with all of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. —teb728 t c 10:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lusfuz: I presume you are referring to c:File:John Andrew Davidson, 2nd Viscount Davidson.jpg that was deleted on the commons and removed from Andrew Davidson, 2nd Viscount Davidson where you had placed it. I cannot see that image so cannot review any details such as when the photo was taken, who the photographer was and when they died (if they did), and when and if it was ever published. Such details are necessary to determine if the image might be freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

policy on use of SDSS images?

A year or so back I had uploaded an image of a galaxy taken with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which was removed as being a copyrighted image. However, as SDSS's image use policy is rather interesting, I bring up the question on its exact allowance on Wikipedia:

Although copyrighted, it is made clear here (https://www.sdss3.org/collaboration/imageuse.php) that images can be used non-commercially, as long as they maintain credit, are non-endorsing, and it is requested to provide a link back to the SDSS page- a policy which seems oddly similar, if not identical to CC-BY-NC. Does the fact that it is apparently copyrighted regardless negate all of this? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We wouldn't be able to use such content on Wikipedia as free content, as WP:Non-free content requires that free media ...not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. This includes licenses such as CC BY-NC and the policy from SDSS. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 02:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(EC) w:c:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses specifies "Commercial use of the work must be allowed". And that's where your SDSS image fails. NC is not good enough. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CC-BY-NC does not appear to be one of the licenses acceptable by Commons per c:Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags which means it is mostly not acceptable on English Wikipedia as well. This does not preclude uploading the file locally as non-free content, but each use of it must satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy which is something that can be hard to do for certain types of usage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I upload my image correctly

Hi, I'm trying to upload File:Paul Godfrey Studio Shot 2016.jpeg to my wikipedia page. However I am confused as how to go about uploading it. The person pictured in the image has sent it to me and asked that I use it on their wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfov (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Samfov: First, a couple points about "my", and "their". All pages within Wikipedia are Wikipedia pages. The pages do not belong to any individual person. I suspect it is common to accept that someone might refer to their own user page as "my" page; that's technically incorrect but not a major issue. However, the article Paul Godfrey is the Wikipedia article about that person, it is not their page. That might sound like a picky point, but it is an important mindset.

The photo has been uploaded. I'm not quite sure what you mean by uploading to "my Wikipedia page". Are you simply asking how to include it in the article?

Before doing so, copyright has to be addressed. You mentioned that it was provided to you by Paul Godfrey but as he is the subject of the photo, he is not the copyright holder unless either he used a self timer or he arranged for the photographer to transfer the copyright to him.

We need a permission statement from the copyright holder. A permission statement from the photographer will be sufficient If the photographer is still the copyright holder; if the copyright has been transferred to Paul Godfrey then a copyright statement from Paul Godfrey, along with an explanation of how the copyright was transferred will be sufficient.

The desired wording can be found here:

Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

PD logos question

I came across this logo (File:Champion Energy logo.png) and was wondering if it qualifies as PD. I remembered about this similar one (File:Maersk Logo.svg), but this one too is on a non-free license. It seems to me that both are PD, but i would like to get some opinions. Thank you --Ben Stone 23:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think no. iirc, if the logo is just text, then it may qualify for PD. If there's a graphical element, which there is in both of these cases, then it is not PD unless there's evidence that the owner has put it into the PD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The formal advice is at Wikipedia:Logos#Copyright-free logos and talks of "simple geometric shapes" ... quite what is & is not a "simple geometric shapes" may not be a straightforward matter to resolve. But for Champion, we have a ten-point star in a square, with a background of blue fading into green ... I could not draw this in GIMP, so would opine that it is complex. The Maersk logo is less complex, but I'd still tend to think not PD as it is a combination of a couple of shapes - the star, and the box with rounded corners. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure a simple gradient qualifies as copyright. As far as shapes go, based on the notorious File:Best Western logo.svg as a guideline (it was denied 3 times copyright by the US gov), it seems to me that both are not copyright.--Ben Stone 01:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty harsh of them. I've added that image as an example to the advice at Wikipedia:Logos#Copyright-free logos. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the following logos may be instructive here: File:Charity Navigator 4 Star Logo.jpg, File:Cjblogo 2010 wiki nl-01.png, File:CNMJ.jpg, all PD images taken from Commons. From these, I think a star, even if stylized or with complex coloring, is not sufficient for the threshold of originality. I believe that both of these would qualify as PD and could be put on Commons. (Also see commons:Category:Starry logos) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

File:OurMine Logo.svg

Why is this file copyrighted? Does it meet threshold of originality?--2001:DA8:201:3504:6893:7032:8AC3:D4A (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

After asking a few others in #wikipedia-en, we decided that it may or may not meet the threshold of originality. I decided to upload the vector version as non-free, just to be on the safe side in regards to copyright. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 14:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: That's just a circle (simple geometric shape) and a stylized "M". That's definitely PD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Seraphimblade. This is quite simple. Superimposing a circle onto an M does not a creative work make. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploading non-free material for commentary purposes

Hello,

I am currently editing a page about representation of librarians in popular culture. It is my understanding that I am allowed to use screenshots of television shows as long as there is commentary about it (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images). If that is the case, what is the step-by-step process to upload these screenshots?

I believe Wikimedia won't take them (I don't know what copyright tag I'm supposed to use if Wikimedia does take them - Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free). I don't think I'm supposed to be uploading it to Wikimedia... where should I be turning to?

The page I am editing is: Librarians in popular culture. I wanted to include a screenshot of Rupert Giles (librarian on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and a screenshot of the Parks and Recreation librarians.

Thanks for your help.VM510 (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

You cannot upload them on Wikimedia Commons, you must upload them locally here on Wikipedia instead. Use the following link which will walk you through the process: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard.

There are some considerations, however. You must make sure that the image is actually needed. For this to be met, there must be something in the appearance of the image that cannot be described by words alone. There needs to be commentary on the appearance of the image that needs to be accompanied by an image for the reader to work out what is said. I think something like "Giles is often portrayed stereotypically, for example he wears old-fashioned clothes and spectacles" may not necessarily meet this. One gets the picture without seeing a picture of a man with glasses and old-fashioned clothes. Importantly, that commentary should be sourced (WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion) and the entire section on Buffy the Vampire Slayer in this article is unsourced. You'd need to add sources to that, or add other points on his appearance that cites reliable sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Not just that but non-free image use must meet ALL 10 non-free media policy criteria. ww2censor (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Profile photo

I own the image photo for Tarick Salmaci. I don't have anything to tag showings I own it. This photo was taken with my camera. I authorize the usage of this image photo for the Tarick Salmaci Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taricksalmaci (talk • contribs) 07:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Taricksalmaci. Typically, the copyright of a photo is held by the photographer, even if they are using another person's camera, and not the subject of the photo or the owner of the camera. Copyright is intended to protect the rights of the creator of the image, etc. and the person taking the photo is essentially the one providing all the creativity. If this was a commissioned work and the photographer agreed to transfer their copyright to you as part your agreement, then you as the copyright holder can freely license the file. However, Wikipedia requires an formal declaration of consent from the copyright holder which explicitly states that the copyright holder agrees to freely license the image. This is because a free license compatible with Wikipedia's copyright policy means that copyright holder is agreeing to give anyone anywhere in the world (not just Wikipedia) permission to download the photo and use it any way they like, even to make money off of, without directly asking the copyright holder for permission to do so. Moreover, once a file has been freely licensed as such, the licensing cannot be taken back. For these reason, Wikipedia is very careful when it comes to such things and any file whose licensing cannot be verified is eventually deleted. You can find out a little more about this at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

copyright question

ok so I used a photo I found on the encyclopedia of life website for crptocellus becki however I didn't do any copyright tags and I don't know what to put so what do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazeclaw12 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

In the description of the photo you uploaded, File:Cryptocellus becki.jpg, you mentioned that you obtained it from [2]. That location indicates the owner of the photo is the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University and that the photo is licensed under the CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 license. Unfortunately that license prohibits use for commercial purposes, which means the photo is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing policy. It will probably be deleted soon. —RP88 ^(talk) 05:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged File:Cryptocellus becki.jpg for deletion because the licence is unacceptable to us. If you want an image like this you will have to find a freely licenced image from a different source. ww2censor (talk) 10:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

or you need to persuade the museum to use compatible licenses--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove

If is not having proper license please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Bhargava Teja (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC} (UTC)

Are you asking about some specific item?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I presume File:Nirmala Convent.jpg is what is being asked about - it has already been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Earth and Google Maps screen shots

I would like to know whether a screen shot of google maps can be used in an article? If yes, which tag should it be given? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome KL (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really. These are non-free maps and free alternatives exist for both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

You can use OpenStreetMap map extracts, which are CC-BY-SA 2.0, and hence compatible with our copyrights here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Uploading of a photo in a new Article about Avi Kaplan (Pentatonix)

Hello ! I m new around here and I have just finished an article About Avi Kaplan but for the photo. The only two pics I have found in the Wikimedia commons have neither good quality nor a great gesture of the artist. The pic I want to use is http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/2/7/4/3/7/7/i/2/0/8/o/Avi_Kaplan_by_Jiro_Schneider_2014__P1-Standing_Avi_05758x10_300dpiRGB.jpg My intention is to post it with the legend "Jiro Schneider, All rights reserved, 11/8/2014 " Avi Kaplan himself have post it it on his Facebook wall, without stating the author. Question is, if I can post it as it is or I have to go for another. THANKS FOR ANSWERING ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florencia Pellejero (talk • contribs) 09:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, a picture of a living person with "all rights reserved" may not be used on Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 09:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

As he is living someone could take a photo and release it under a free licence. As a new editor, @Florencia Pellejero: you may find it useful to read my image copyright information page to better understand some of the image problems that arise. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Employee time table used on web site

Hi I wish to publish an image of a page from a Canadian railroad employee time table that I was given many years ago. Above are examples to show what a time table would look like and the information contained. The only thing that I find on this document is the statement "For the information and Guidance of Employees only". I find nothing regarding a copyright. My document is from 1979 and is very outdated. These time tables used to be issued to employees every six months and then every year. Am I okay to upload my photo and how best do I classify it? Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetson9207 (talk • contribs)

Greetings, Jetson9207. What you mention there does not look like a free license; do you know who designs these timetables? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Is File:Moveon logo.png a case of {{PD-logo}}?

File:Moveon logo.png is currently treated as non-free content, though the logo seems to consist entirely of text. Given that MoveOn.org appears to be of US origin, is it possible that the logo would fall under {{PD-logo}}? --Elegie (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

my own account

this work is completely my own account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarappanghelliah (talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kumarappanghelliah: What is your media copyright question. —teb728 t c 08:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

They are commenting on the bottom four files here I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

please help me with the image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarappanghelliah (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kumarappanghelliah: You need to edit the file pages and add copyright tags; see Wikipedia:File copyright tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Restoring picture file

Hi, following this Deletion request on Commons, the file File:Isaac Asimov on Throne.png was deleted, as Commons does not accept (anymore) the GDFL-IS licence tag. Could the original file (File:AsimovOnThrone.png) be restored here? Please, where have I to ask for?

I've asked before the same questions, but probably in the wrong place. Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. There is a claim that there is no evidence of the file being under that license - do you have proof to the contrary? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

On 21 november 2016, the file was deleted because GFDL-IS is a license no more accepted for Commons. Evidence about the license should be in the description page of the original file here on en.wiki. On Commons, it was accepted the declaration of user Xiong about the email that he exchanged with Rowena Morrill and that was reported on the first of the two Deletion requests on 22 January 2010. Jameslwoodward recognised later he was wrong about the "absence of evidence of permission from the painter" here. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

For some reason the local file appears to be gone, and the license template apparently indicated a non-free license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Did you look at the filename it had on en.wikipedia? 2. The author required attribution to her name, which does not make the work non-free. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Technically, they demand an Invariant Section consisting of the words 'Rowena Morrill' which apparently renders the license non-free but I am not convinced we need to treat such a minor restriction on modifications as full on ND. However, viewed through Special:Undelete File:Isaac Asimov on Throne.png is empty and File:AsimovOnThrone.png has only the file text, not the file proper. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I downloaded the picture some days ago, just in case it would have been deleted on Commons. If the description page may be restored, subsequently I could upload the file again, or vice versa according to your instructions. Anyway, we should first understand if that license is compatible with Wikipedia.

Please, which tag was adopted in the description page? I'm asking it because some derived files have been uploaded on Commons and on it.wiki (as far as I know) and they should be deleted if not compatible with our copyright policy. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You can find the information about the tag on the file's talk page, which is preserved. It was a tag created especially for this file, given its unusual situation. If you check the logs, you can see that the tag was renamed and, after the file was transferred to Commons, this tag had no other use, so it was deleted for this reason a few years later. I suppose it can be re-created. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Good move to have kept a copy. The file can certainly be on Wikipedia. Preferably as a free file, as it seems it had been considered by Wikipedia, but even if not, it can be on Wikipedia anyway as non-free content, at least to illustrate the work of the author in the article Rowena Morrill. So, the file should be restored anyway. And if Jo-Jo Eumerus is right when saying that the file has mysteriously disappeared, then you might as well upload your saved copy. Preferably under the same filename (File:AsimovOnThrone.png) to avoid confusion. The only question is to decide what tag to use. It's probably better if someone restores the description page as soon as possible, but I suppose the older version of it can still be restored even if you reupload the file in the meantime. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hence, a way for restoring the picture could be:

1. Re-create Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants, with the content present here: Commons:Template:GFDL-IS.
2. Upload the file with the previous denomination: File:AsimovOnThrone.png

Can I proceed? Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That's one possibility, yes. Maybe an admin could look how the template was worded on Wikipedia. It is plausible that it was something like the Commons template. However, that would be in one of the versions of the Commons template from before it was modified by a user who commented that he did not like it. That said, it would be better if more users would comment here and we could get a good consensus about the best status to attribute to this file: free file or non-free content. It seems that it was considered free on Wikipedia, so it could be assumed to still be the case and the file could be restored on Wikipedia as it was before it was transferred, but there's also the possibility to tag it as non-free content instead, depending on which solution Wikipedia users think is best. The idea would be to choose a consensual and stable solution. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. --Harlock81 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, you can upload the file now, with the tag you think is best. We can change or adjust the details later. The wording of the declaration by the author (still available now on the description page of the cropped version) should be mentioned somewhere. A Do not move tag or an equivalent can be added. In a 2005 discussion on Commons, the uploader provided more information. It seems it was the uploader who asked for the license with invariant. The author would probably have accepted another license. An ideal solution would still be to try to contact the author (eleven years later) and ask if she would grant a more usual free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants was a non-free license, because it involves a "no derivatives" element in form of restrictions on modification that the invariant sections clause add. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Curiously, the talk page of the original upload here is still available at: File talk:AsimovOnThrone.png and refers to the email correspondence. It may assist is refining the issue, or not. However, an email to the artist may well clear this up. ww2censor (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Excuse my insistence, but we have a file that is usefull to illustrate the articles about Isaac Asimov and Rowena Morrill; a file whose use on Wikipedia was allowed by Rowena Morrill, yet imposing some conditions. What license tag should be used for it?

If Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants is the better choice, can it be restored? Since the template was created for this file and was deleted, because unused, when the file was moved to Commons. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Since you were involved earlier in the discussion, would you consider undeleting the page text of File:AsimovOnThrone.png (which still has the email correspondence on the talk page) and the non-free license that it relies upon at Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants so that Harlock81 can upload his saved version of the file? —RP88 ^(talk) 19:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, do you have a non-free use rationale available? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I have never seen the image and don't know how Harlock81 intends to use it, so I can't comment on whether it is actually possible to write an appropriate non-free use rationale. I just figured that the following strategy would work to resolve the issue:

1. Undelete the page text of File:AsimovOnThrone.png which apparently used Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants and may (or may not) include an old non-free use rationale in its history once undeleted. I suggested File:AsimovOnThrone.png because it still has the email correspondence on the talk page.
2. Undelete the non-free license that it relies upon at Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants.
3. Harlock81 uploads his image to File:AsimovOnThrone.png and adds a non-free use rationale for the page on which he wishes to use the image.
4. Since the original content of an undeleted Template:Non-free GFDL-invariants and File:AsimovOnThrone.png may be out of date with regards to current guidelines, I'll update these as necessary.
5. If it is apparent that a valid non-free use rationale can't be written, I'll throw a delete template to the image and ask for the re-deletion of the template.
6. Otherwise, if everything is good, I'll move File:AsimovOnThrone.png (and its old talk page) to what appears to be the preferred name of File:Isaac Asimov on Throne.png.

Sound good to you? —RP88 ^(talk) 19:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I realize your question is for Jo-Jo Eumerus. But I just want to mention that I think point 6 would not be a good idea. The present filename is fine. Moving files around unnecessarily makes things more difficult to check in the future. It also tends to separate the file history from the file original upload log. The matter might already be a little difficult to follow for some new users. The situation will be better without an additional complication. Please leave the file where it is, if possible. Points 1 to 5 are ok. The order of points 1 to 4 is not an obligation. It would help if points 1 and 2 were done first, but technically they're optional. The essential points 3 and 4 can be done. Unless the file can be retrieved from somewhere else, the only thing that needs to be done by Harlock81 is point 3. I think they could do it without need for further waiting. The rest can be updated by anyone. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Here I am. I didn't realize before that the picture must follow Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, since the GDFL-IS places it between non-free content files. I had mistakenly assumed that the license statement of Rowena Morrill would have allowed a freer use of the picture, as it has been till now.

I would like to use the picture in the articles about Rowena Morrill, as an example of her artworks, and Isaac Asimov, as it's a common and rappresentative portrait of him. I do not have experience to judge whether these reasons are valid in according to Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Surely, the image is neither the most representative of the Morrill's work, nor the only significant portrait of Asimov which could be find on the web. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixing Copyright and Licensing Information

I made an addition on the Ribonuclease III page and added a picture of a Ribonuclease III (the yellow one). I received a message on my talk page about some missing information in terms of the copyright and licensing of the picture. I am not sure what extra information I need as well as how I should format it in the editing process so that it fixes the problem. Could anyone lend a hand in solving this? Burgjane15 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That picture was copied from an issue of the journal Molecular Cell; that was a blatant copyright violation, and the image has been deleted. I will remove the link from the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Which issue? The article @Burgjane15: linked to in the file does not contain the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If the image did not appear in that issue (I was not going to take the time to download two fat .pdfs of supplemental content), it should not have been cited for the illustration. As it is, there was nothing else to source the image, and I took the poster's word that they ganked the image from that article, quite possibly with the best of intentions. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleting incorrect image - request from original uploader

• Back in July, I uploaded a Public Domain image of a mountain (File:Hampton Butte, Oregon (USFS).jpg) in Wikimedia Commons. I just realized that image is of a different mountain, Glass Buttes not Hampton Butte. How do I get the image deleted so I can reload it under the correct name, or can the name be changed to “File:Glass Buttes, Lake County, Oregon”?--Orygun (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Go to the Commons Page (This link) , and you'll see a "Move" button at the top. This actually doesn't immediately move it but allows you to describe the request to move the image so that admins at Commons can conduct the move. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Done...thanks!--Orygun (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)