Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/September

Copyright and historical markers

How does copyright work with historical markers? I posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maryland, requesting a picture of the marker for Baltimore railroad strike of 1877, as we had done before with Scranton general strike. In response, Mangoe commented that the text was likely to be copyrighted by the organization that placed the marker. I assumed that such a small amount of text would be acceptable under fair use, and a picture of a marker in a public space would be similar to a picture of a building, which would not be covered by copyright. Thoughts? TimothyJosephWood 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, freedom of panorama in the USA only applies to buildings, not artworks. And a photo of text is a derivative work of the text too - but that text is very frequently public domain due to age or noncompliance with copyright formalities. Generally, we'd need to know when the marker was put up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

In the case of the picture currently on the Scranton article, the events happened 140 years ago, but the marker was set in 2008. TimothyJosephWood 19:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Old coins

I recently uploaded an image of an old 50 sen coin that I had found online (File:50 sen coin obverse.jpg), would this fall under the public domain seeing how old the coin is? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The design of the coin is certainly out of copyright due to old age, but because it is a 3-dimensional object, even if photographed directly from above, the photograph would be copyrighted and non-free. So you cannot simply upload this image that was taken from an external website. I have therefore deleted the file. De728631 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of car parts on Wikipedia

Hello Wikipedia, I was wondering if I could use a picture of an SOS button inside a Mercedes-Benz GL I took. Is it legal? Please respond soon. UpsandDowns1234 (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not a problem. At Wikimedia Commons there a few hundred images of recent MB models in Category:Mercedes-Benz automobile interiors. See also the images of Toyota vehicles in the Safety Connect article. De728631 (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

To be more specific, under US copyright law, you cannot copyright the design of objects with utility (eg, cars, furniture) so photos of parts of the car lacking any other creative expression should be okay. --MASEM (t) 01:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Using a Wikipedia image

I would like to use this image https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terracotta_Aeneas_MAN_Naples_110338.jpg as the cover photo for my book (self-published), but I'm not clear whether the Creative Commons license allows me to do that. Any help would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.180.200 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It does allow you to do that. You need to append a CC licence in your book relating to the image such that others are assured they can benefit from the image they find on your cover. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This may help: w:c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Old photo in Library of Congress - is it free?

Can I upload this image to Wikimedia Commons? [1]

If not, can I cite "fair use" and use it in an article about the Bryn Mawr Summer School for Women Workers in Industry? (That link currently redirects to a section of a biographical article; I'm drafting an article about the school and will replace the redirect when it's ready.)

I'd really like to find a good, free image, since I'm planning to do a "Did You Know" nomination. This is for the women labor activists editathon. (I do have one free image, but it's very small and grainy.)

If it helps at all, the photo is used on several websites, one with a caption saying "ca. 1921": [2] Rosekelleher (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

This LOC link https://www.loc.gov/item/npc2008013194/ gives more details and dates the image as 1916 or 17 but we have no record of when or even if it was published. This fact greatly affects the copyright duration, see c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#United_States which could mean it may be copyright for 95 or even 120 years after creation. ww2censor (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ww2censor is right, if we can't be sure about the date of first publication then we have to assume that it is still copyrighted. A fair use rationale, however, would require that there are no equivalent free images to replace this particular photo but we do have Commons:Category:Bryn Mawr College with contemporary images. Maybe you can pick one of those? De728631 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, on Commons you can use PD-National Photo Company. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, great. I didn't know we had this licence tag. De728631 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll upload it with that tag...thanks so much for your help! Rosekelleher (talk)

Copyright issues with recent images

Mouauia_rafii, a new editor, has been uploading images to Commons with incomplete permissions, missing copyright information etc. Would appreciate a more-experienced image contributor looking in on the situation. My sense is that this editor is possibly doing some kind of class assignment due to their interest in editing US historical biographical articles. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Locally uploaded them, but yeah. Needs an explanation of what a "copyright tag" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Questions on Already Uploaded Images

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am drafting an article for a Professor, Dr. Michael B. Bracken (notability, academics). I uploaded 4 images to include with the article - his photo, and 3 images of 3 book covers (which he has written).

His photo was immediately nominated for 'Speedy Deletion' and was removed/deleted. The photo originates from my camera (a Nikon Coolpix L26) and was used for his book's insert (in Risk, Chance, and Causation, Yale University Press, 2013). Which type of copyright option should I have used for this photo (Michael B. Bracken.JPG)?

For the 2 of the 3 book covers, I used online images (PerinatalEpidemiologyBook.jpg and RiskChanceCausation.jpg). The 3rd image is another self-generated photo (EffectiveCareNewbornInfant.jpg). How should I handle these images in terms of choosing the correct copyright option, as well as providing the information for each jpg file?

Thank you!

Best, LENK2121 (Lia) LENK2121 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey User:LENK2121. What is your relationship to the subject in question? The image you are wanting restored is this one I image. [3]

If you took that picture we can restore it. Just need your COI disclosure first.

Also you will need to send a note per WP:PERMISSIONS as your image has been previously published [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Photographs of documents

HblairH has uploaded a collection of photographs of signatures of less well-known people to the Wikimedia Commons; compare [5]. I'm unhappy with the copyright information provided by HblairH, for example here. Firstly, I would interpret the Wikimedia Foundation's stance as not accepting a copyright claim by HblairH for photographing the document, as noted on commons:Template:PD-art. Secondly, while it's extremely unlikely, I don't think it's impossible under US law that the document being photographed is still copyrighted by (the heirs of) the original author. That would need to be addressed. On the other hand, the "blander" signatures like File:Peter-T.-Washburn.jpg should be in the public domain because they don't meet the threshold of originality (both the original and the photograph). I have raised the issue on HblairH's talk page, but a review by editors more experienced with copyright issues may be helpful. Thanks. Huon (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right about a photographic reproduction not attaching any separate copyright or superseding the possible copyright of the original work (It's not "Own work" by the photographer and they can't license it). The original documents may or may not be under copyright. For signatures, see c:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing a Media File

Hi!

I uploaded a file under the expectation that the copyright holder would grant explicit OTRS permission for its use. Instead of granting rights to the picture I uploaded, the holder chose to upload his own copy of the same picture (with rights). Is there a way to delete the picture that I originally uploaded? Or should I just wait for the autodelete after enough time has passed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.161.231.133 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you a registered use who did not log in to post this question because as an anonIP you cannot upload images. Please be more specific and we can review the two image. What are the image names? With that info deleting a duplicate or copyright violation image is not a problem. ww2censor (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not realized I had failed to log on. I am a registered user (Briskmad). The image file that should be deleted is "File:Andi Gutmans by Peter Adams 2015.jpg". The image file that was uploaded with permissions by the copyright holder is "File:AndiGutmans18045.commons.jpg". For future reference, is there a process for me to remove a file that I uploaded, or is going through this page the best way to do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briskmad (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The redundant file has been deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Swampland in Florida" Old Real Estate Ad

I have JPGs of old sales brochures used to sell classic Swampland in Florida scams. I don't know the age (I would guess 1950s?) or who produced them, but they'd be relevant to the this topic and the Picayune Strand State Forest articles. Not sure if I should/can include them though. Thoughts? Jacobssteph (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Depends on whether they carry a copyright notice and were published back then. If the answers are no and yes, they'd fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

New uploads

The status of all of the images I will put on Wikipedia is that I am the owner of the copyrights and they're my images. The tag I am using right now is Non-free biog-pic, but if there is a better one if you could tell me on my talk page that would be great. George M Smart (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder, please upload these images with a free license such as {{Cc-by-4.0}}. Non-free images are only allowed on Wikipedia if there is no free alternative to replace them, and we do not accept licenses like "for Wikipedia use only". Just in case: please note also that owning a physical copy of a photograph that was taken by someone else does not make you the copyright holder. De728631 (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

And if you do release them under a free license, please upload them to the Commons so a wider audience and other language wikis can find and use them. ww2censor (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have released the photos under the license {{Cc-by-4.0}} I am not sure how to upload them to the Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George M Smart (talk • contribs) 01:56, 12 September 2016‎

Just click on the Commons link I provided above, choose the Upload Wizard and follow the sequence. ww2censor (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Roger Shimomura artwork

The article Roger Shimomura displays several two artworks by the subject. I'm not sure if these are valid per fair-use. But if they are, should the captions themselves contain the copyright notice including the © symbol? - Brianhe (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No we don't do that, the file page clearly claims these are copyright images. The use of the term "fair-use" is really a US legal doctrine but we use a stricter criteria and policy for "non-free" content. ww2censor (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Theresia Gouw

I want to use the image File:Theresia Gouw.jpg in the article about the image subject, Theresia Gouw. This image is used on the web for promotional and media purposes on websites and in articles that profile Theresia Gouw. What is the best license for me to choose to use this image in a manner consistent with how it has been used on other websites that refer to Ms. Gouw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrosato (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hrosato: Promotional images and website use does not mean an image is freely licensed, so you need to get the copyright holder, who may not be Aspect Ventures, but the photographer, to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Their permission must be under a free licence that allows others to use it commercially or make derivative works from it. BTW this subject does not appear to have an article so, for now, the image will be of little use even if you get permission. I found a slightly different version of the image here but the page has a copyright notice at the bottom so you will definitely have to get verification of permission to use it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What do I put in?

I posted the cover of my new book on my book's Wikipedia page and I got a message saying it violates copyright stuff and it will be taken down if this information is not provided.

I don't know what to put in and I've just wasted a half hour trying to figure out what to do. The file is File:Phoenix IV cover.jpg.

When I press the link to edit I get this:

{{no copyright holder}} {{no copyright information}}

I have no idea what information is needed and every link I hit just brings me to more pages that don't make any sense. Just tell me what goes in there!

If you need to remove it, fine. I don't care anymore. Wikipedia is becoming very difficult to work with and I will not support it in the future if this can't be resolved.

@Rolenta: From your username I guess you are the publisher of the book not the author? So do you own the copyright of the cover illustration? If so that's fine it just needed confirming and adding to the file information but in any event we should credit the person who actually created it, so who is that person? The "where" question is easy to sort out afterwards. Nthep (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Error in fair use rationale

I have put my remark on File_talk:Hedgehogprint2.jpg#Is_it_really_not_replacable.3F. I mention here because I am not sure whether anyone will ever notice otherwise, and I guess here should be someone who knows how to proceed. --78.53.225.191 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Could someone please be a dear and take a quick look at Talk:The Residual Power Series Method? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like Finnusertop has given the correct answer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright of logical rules images

Moved from WP:HD § Copyright of logical rules images

 – Murph9000 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been planing to add more information and images to the article of rule 110. I do not know how to code, so I was planning on scanning the images from the book a new kind of science by Stephan Wolfram. The images will be similar to File:CA_rule110s.png, in that they are generated purely by a mathematical algorithm.

My question is this: are images of cellular automata found in a book (though able to be generated by anyone who knows the rules and how to code) protected by copyright? Can I take these images directly from the book and upload them to wikipedia?

Thanks, Margalob (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright page seems like you can't use them here. I am concerned that such an image may still qualify as copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@Margalob: perhaps you should try posting on the article's talk page and a knowledgeable user possibly could code the rule you want and release it under Creative Commons, as was done with the one you mentioned. On the other hand there is the concept of Threshold of originality and the idea of a mathematical concept being copyright. Case in point, File:Mandel.png that Elphaba created. It's based on a previously published work, but it is still a unique work of a mathematical concept. So yes, I would see if you can find some way to create your own version of it. That or perhaps the publisher could contact OTRS to provide more specifics as to use, workable code we can use to create more rule results, etc. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 02:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is a particular representation of what is otherwise something generated by a computer that can be copyrighted, just not the data or formula behind it. For example, you can't copyright the Mandelbrot set but you can copyright specific images based on which area, color choices, etc. you use to render it. That said, with the 101 automata (which only has 2 states), there's not much originality that really can be added. It is likely better to generate the image yourself, rather than take the scan, which you can clearly mark as a free image, than to avoid the potential that a scan of something we think is under the TOO actually turns out differently. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned image now in article, keeps getting remove though I proved fair use when I added and later. I cannot find a free use with all the requirements requested by the file uploaded.

⚠ Below is the message I received. It is no longer orphaned, well now it is because it was removed again. THank you for assistance.

Thanks for uploading File:Pedro Fernández Billboard Latin Music awards Presenter 2016.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC) SusanneSC (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)SusanneSC

It doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1. Even if you "cannot go to Mexico to take it [your]self", someone else can. A free equivalent can be created, and that is all that is needed to fail NFCC#1. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Creative commons license

I need to put File:Guntur-montage.jpg under create commons license. This image is created by set of images that were taken by me and also used an existing image of Acharya Nagarjuna University. I'm not sure how to add/change the tag for the image to put under 'creative commons license'. Please help. Gnt (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems you have already tried to do that but have done it incorrectly. You don't add all the text of a licence but just add the appropriate template (with the curly brackets) to the image like this {{cc-zero}}, but you also need to add a fully completed {{information}} template to the image, (click on the template links to see all the field you should fill in). It appears that one of the images is already on the wikimedia commons, so you must link to that file and not just say it exists and is not yours, so add the full link to File:Acharyanagarjuna3.JPG. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Could use an admin or other editor with fair use expertise/experience/et cetera

I apologize if this isn't the proper venue but hey, if it's wrong, that just goes to show that we haven't idiot-proofed Wikipedia enough to prevent me from doing stuff like this.

Our article for an upcoming film, The Hitman's Bodyguard, has seen an editor, User:Nuimagesocialmedia, removing the image for the poster by claiming that the "poster is not authorized for public release". (This person might also be claiming to work for Millennium Films but I don't know. Maybe not?) The boilerplate rationale from the uploader, User:Facu-el Millo, is that it's available under fair use because it "provide[s] critical commentary on the film". My gut tells me to restore the image but right now, I'm leaving it off because I'm getting close to 3RR. Closure is obviously needed because I genuinely have no idea what to do now. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 02:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@RunnyAmiga: I'd be awfully hesitant about putting this back. The source listed for it ([6]), seems to no longer exist. If that was taken down, it's possible this was leaked or published without the copyright holder's permission. That's a significant factor against fair use, and would also likely cause it to fail NFCC #2, since it would deprive the copyright holder of their ability to publish it when they wish to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It's very difficult to claim "fair use" on material that hasn't been published by the copyright holder, and our NFCC criteria are even stricter. A tineye search also turns up no other copies of this image, which suggests that the copyright owner has not (yet) published it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with above points. The URL on the upload of the image leads to a non-existent page, and Image search reveals no official published version. I would agree that promo material for an upcoming worked released by someone with no official capacity to the copyright owner is a problematic source and should be removed. (I would be bold and CSD the image but would like to see more imput). --MASEM (t) 03:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I left the article without the image and unless the uploader has anything to add in defense of restoring it or in opposition to deleting the file, there's not much else here. I wonder how that site got hold of that. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 03:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Since we've got a pretty clear consensus here that this is a problem, and an objection from someone who claims to represent the copyright holder, I've gone ahead and speedied it under F9. If it gets published once the film is released or nearer to that, it can always be uploaded again at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Good call. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright info for an image of deceased actor.

Hello. Hope someone will help me to understand this correctly. There is a Wiki page of British actor Mark Frankel. The actor is no more now, passed away in September 1996. There is no photo of him on his Wiki page. So in order to add his photo, what should be done so that there is no copyright violations? Can we add photos shared by his family on his fan page if we get expressed permission from them and the owner of the site?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArpitaM (talk • contribs) 10:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@ArpitaM: Preferably, you should try to find an image that is sufficiently free of copyright restrictions (either its copyright has expired, or the copyright holder has released the image under a free license). Failing that, there is a special provision for photographs of deceased persons. Because they are no longer available for photography, we may use non-free photographs of them that have been published, and we do not need to ask for permission (under the fair-use doctrine of U.S. law and our non-free content guidelines).

For cases like this it's relatively straightforward: if you can't find a free image, you can use a non-free one. Just follow the steps at File Upload Wizard where the option comes up. If you really want to go the extra mile, you can ask for any existing photographs to be released under a free license, but that isn't necessary. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi AriptaM. As Finnusertop pointed out above, it may be possible for you to use a copyrighted photo of Frankel as explained in No. 10 of WP:NFCI. However, non-free image use is quite restricted by Wikipedia and even though using one photo of Frankel may be OK for the infobox at the top of the article, any more than that are going to need a strong contextual justification for use as explained in WP:FREER, WP:NFC#Meeting the minimal usage criterion and WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. In other words, any non-free images used outside of the main infobox for reasons other that the primary identification of Frankel are going be tricky to justify. It's not impossible, but it can be really hard to do and simply wanting to others to see the photos is almost never a good enough reason. The only reason I am pointing this out is because you asked about adding photos in your post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo donation

HI, I am trying to upload the photo of Diana Fosha for the article on Diana Fosha which is in draft at this time awaiting review. She sent me an email stating that the image belongs to her and that she gives me permission to use it. I copy/pasted this into the box that asks for copyright info on a photo and a warning came up that the info i provided is not adequate. Can you please advise me what to do? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrieruggieri (talk • contribs) Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Carrieruggieri. The normal recommendation is that Mrs Fosha should send the image to photosubmission@wikimedia.org although I'd like to know who the photographer was, they usually own the copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, just as a point of clarification: Permission for "use on Wikipedia" isn't sufficient, since we require free media. For a release allowing article use, we'd need the copyright holder (often, but not always, the photographer) to release under a free license like CC-BY-SA. That would mean that anyone may reuse and modify the image for any purpose, including commercial use. If someone just said "Sure, use it on Wikipedia", make sure they know that means a free license release. Many people don't know that and assume they can give permission for Wikipedia only. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Brief excerpt annotated image for use on Talk page only : issue resolved, THANKS !

I would appreciate some hand holding on what should be a simple issue but which I can't work out how to approach quickly. How do we approach use of annotated brief excerpt image files? In academia, brief snippets are usually copyright-allowed. In fact, in the real off-wikipedia world they are encouraged because they facilitate dialog on issues. The visual mark up quickly makes the points without walking through every tiny step of the thinking. However, I am quite uncertain how to tag File:Poluha that this year was an important turning point marking the end of the ZM need not be questioned.PNG based on the plethora of abbreviations on Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses that I regret are opaque to me. I haven't seen anyone even bother trying to "do business" here this way. Is there an appropriate mechanism/tag, or is it wikipedia's preference that we always retype the excerpt (which would be an illogical stance if the "same content" is getting used, and has the disadvantage of not enabling quick mark ups)? FeatherPluma (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not just copy the text itself and markup using WP's methods (usually via bold) to discuss the brief snippet? That's how I see most people when discussing language from a source to highlight what they think is important? The problem is that making it an image, the image falls under non-free (as the wording is still copyrighted) and you can't use non-free images on talk pages. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Generally, the simplest way to display text is by simply quoting it. That said, Xlibris is a self published source so using it as a reference for a DYK hook (is that how you want to use it?) seems fishy to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:@Masem:Thanks for such quick / clear answers ! Very useful. On the initial question, this is an image only, not-digital text source, so I would have the option of OCR or dictate/transcribe, both of which are additional steps vs. an image - but OK, I can comply with the direction of the sentiments. But the bigger point for DYK is: Oops, yes, the issue re Xlibris is compelling. I used the source but had failed to properly check the publisher. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about adding a U.K. source image

I have a question about adding a U.K source image, and I am trying to figure out if this image in in the public domain in the U.S. and in the U.K., and whether I can upload it here, or at Commons or at either one, or at neither one. I have read Commons:Licensing and Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and I am still not sure whether or not it is Ok to use the PD-Art tag in the specific case I am interested in. Namely, I would like to upload a small picture of Louis Barnett Abrahams taken from a June 27, 1905 edition of the British newspaper The Sphere, see here[7], on page 282 at the top, the portrait in the middle. The picture itself is a photo of a portrait drawn by Solomon J. Solomon. The name of the person who took the photo is not specified. Since the newspaper was published in the U.K., and the portrait itself was drawn there as well, and this happened before January 1, 1923, my impression is that if I cut out the photo of the portrait, e.g. like this[8], the resulting image would be considered to be in public domain in the U.S., because of the explanations given in Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. On the other hand it is unclear to me if the image is in the public domain in the U.K. I could not figure out if I am allowed to upload the image to the Commons and tag it PD-Art. But since the image appears to be in public domain in the U.S., it appears that it is OK to upload it it here, on Wikipedia. Is that correct? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A newspaper article published in 1905 is fair game for enwiki. That said, the correct copyright tag would be PD-scan but we only have that at Commons as commons:Template:PD-scan. I cannot see the photo; does it look at the portrait from any kind of angle, has lighting effects et cetera? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The photo is here: [9]. Can you see it there? Nsk92 (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

All I can see is very faint text "copyrighted image". However, I agree with JJE's analysis and so this is just Google making a false claim. Thincat (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that's weird that you can't see the image. The photo is a cut-out from the article here. Specifically, it is the middle of the three portraits at the top of page 262 of the book. I am still unclear on why the PD-scan tag at Commons would apply here. The tag only applies if the work is in the public domain in its country of origin, that is in the U.K. As I understand it, in the U.K. the work enters the public domain 70 years after the author's death. This means that the author of this work would have had to die prior to year 1946. For a portrait that was drawn in 1905 that does not seem to be a particularly safe assumption -- the author could have easily lived past 1946. So I am still unclear on why the PD-scan tag at Commons applies here. Could you please elaborate? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason why PD-scan would apply is because you aren't uploading a PD work, but a scan of a PD work. PD-scan cares about the country of origin only because it's a template on Commons, if we had the template we would not care. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, in other places at Commons they make a pretty big fuss about making sure that the images must be in public domain both in the U.S. and in the country of origin. I don't think it's just a phrase in the Commons template that can be ignored, I think they really do mean it, and that their rules are more strict than here at en-wiki. E.g. at Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag this point is repeated in the section about The U.S. case of Bridgeman v. Corel (1999): ``This is a rare exception to the usual Commons rule that all images must be free both in the US and in the source country. Note that this exception only concerns the copyright on the reproduction. The underlying work of art must still be in the public domain in both the US and the country of origin." So maybe, to be on the safe side, I should upload the image here, at en-wiki, rather than at Commons, since the image does appear to be in public domain in the U.S.... Nsk92 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I formulated this incorrectly, what I want to say is that we don't have a PD-scan tag, the reason why the Commons tag demands that the image be free in both countries is because of their policies, there is nothing that demands that we follow that aspect as well. We just don't happen to have a local tag that reflects this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, got it, thanks. I have uploaded the image here (as File:Louis-Barret-Abrahams.jpg) rather than at Commons, to avoid running afoul of their policies. Nsk92 (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, it turns out that the painter who painted the portrait was Solomon Joseph Solomon, and he died in 1927, more than 70 years ago. So his copyright to the painting in the U.K. has expired. The date of death of the photographer who took the photo of the painting for the newspaper is not known (and may be less than 70 years ago), but because the underlying portrait itself is already in public domain in the U.K., the photo appears to qualify for the exception to the Commons policy quoted above. So it might be OK to move the file to Commons after all, although I am not sure if it is worth the trouble.... Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

See also: Commons:Help desk#Question about the PD-Art tag. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Coming back to my "invisible image". Google is only allowing me to see a tiny snippet of the whole page, a part that does not include the image. Why, I don't know (I'm in the UK) but it maybe explains why I couldn't see the content at your original link. Thincat (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Photos of scientist, provided by scientist to educate general public. On an old article. Fair use?

Photos of a surgical pioneer are available to view in this article at this link.

I intend to update and expand the stub for this scientist on Wikipedia, and would like to use these images in the Wiki article. I believe because the scientist himself provided these images, to educate the public on his life/advancements, it is fair to include them on Wikipedia.

I am also the son of this deceased individual, so it may be that I personally have the copyright (?), and would like make these images available to use.

Are the images at the link fair game? If yes, perhaps someone could upload them for me? I am not yet auto-confirmed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namlek1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are the heir of the photographer, you are most likely the copyright holder of the photographs. If you are the heir of the subject of these photographs, no rights have been conferred on you.

Because it's a biography of a deceased person, the usual exception to our otherwise free-content only encyclopedia applies: if after a thorough search you have concluded that there are no public domain or freely-licensed photographs of Kelman, then you can upload (or ask others to upload) a non-free one and claim fair-use on it. (see WP:NFC)

What motivations the photographer or the subject had for releasing the images does not matter. In order for a photograph to be freely-licensed, the release needs to explicitly state the terms of a free license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Not to be too pedantic, but, even with regard to deceased persons, our nonfree use policy doesn't allow the use of photos under copyright/nonfree photos if free images may become available. Are you sure nobody in you family, yourself included, who took photos of your father is willing to release one for use in the article under an acceptable license? Also, the linked picture of what appears to be a White House ceremony may be a free image as the work of a federal government employee. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why an image I uploaded, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theresia_Gouw.jpg, was deleted. It says, "No evidence of permission" yet the image's owner, Theresia Gouw, emailed permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on September 14 and received a message that it was received with a Ticket#: 2016091410018623. Below is the text of the permission email. Will you help me understand why the image was deleted?

I hereby affirm that I, Theresia Gouw, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Theresia_Gouw.jpg.

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).

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.

Theresia Gouw Copyright Holder 9/14/16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrosato (talk • contribs) 11:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you're tangled up in the bureaucracy here; you uploaded a file to en-wiki, but sent the permission to Commons, which is governed separately. Just reupload the image to Commons, referencing the permission email, and things should be OK. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Image Copyright question

can you please let me know about posting this image, i.e. copyright type, etc.

http://www.clga.ca/npc/subject/53

I've also contacted CLGA to inquire.

Thanks so much!

Pawspause (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Maurice Vellekoop is stated to be the artist of this work and he most likely still owns the copyright, so you would need him to release the image under a free license. However, if you can get permission they need to verify it by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Need a photo

Hello! Can I use photo [10] in articles List of airlines of Russia (Sibia) and [11] (Helix)? If Yes - upload it, please! 195.209.116.4 (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• These images are already at Wikimedia Commons. See File:Helix Mil Mi-8T (Yugansky Nature Reserve -2).jpg and File:Antonov An-2 Fire Patrol (7796151052).jpg. Please feel free to use them. De728631 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Jetset

Hiya, I have uploaded a cover of a magazine of a page for the sole purpose of identifying it. This image was taken from the magazine's media kit. I followed the template regarding ensuring it is tagged appropirately but am still seeing the 'no copyright' tag warning appear. Could someone please let me know what I am doing wrong please? Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jetset_magazine_cover.png

As I am fairly new to this I looked at a few magazines here on Wikipedia to see how they did it and seem to have done the same thing but their pages are ok e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankie_(magazine)_issue_43_cover.jpg I can't see a difference between the two pages so am confused as to the issue. Many thanks Kelmoo (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kelmoo: You added a non-free use rationale but did not add a licensing template. I've added {{Non-free magazine cover}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for that, appreciated. Kelmoo (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)