Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/October

Images i added are removed without telling me the problem

I uploaded those photos but afterwhile they were deleted for copyrights reasons, but i posted the sources of those photos and those photos dont violate copyrights polices because they are public and free to use by everyone, so please help me and tell me what i must do to prevent those pictures from being deleted one more time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownsbc (talk • contribs) 12:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We require images of living persons to use a free content license that lets anyone freely use and modify. Images from Getty do not qualify...they may be free as in no cost but they do not have free license terms. --MASEM (t) 12:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Question about CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

I recently had a student repost content from a website that uses a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Am I correct in thinking that this isn't something that can be posted to Wikipedia, as this means that no one can edit and change the content? I wanted to double check before I went ahead and did a rev-delete with my main admin account. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): Correct. CC BY-NC-ND is not a compatible license since it does not allow derivatives or commercial use. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleting an uploaded image

Hi. I uploaded an image by mistake. I created a 3D structure using a data file but by mistake I upload a file that is not my own work. How can I delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.141.243 (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you haven't signed in for this question so it's impossible to tell which specific file you want to delete. In general, you could tag the file for deletion as author request (see WP:F9) or as unambiguous copyvio (see WP:G7). The linked sections include more info for both cases. Note: if you uploaded the file to Commons (our sister project for media hosting), you should ask for further advice at Commons:Commons:help desk (they have similar but separate deletion rules). Hope that helps. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Peachtree tshirt 2009.jpg

I believe the photo of this T-shjirt was taken by the uploader, but I am wondering if Wikipedia can accept the file as licensed because the logo on the T-shirt is most likely copyrighted. Seems as if this is a derivative work at best and that the logo needs to be treated as non-free content. If that's the case, then I can't see how the file would satisfy WP:NFCCP. FWIW< the file is tagged with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, but I don't feel it would survive a deletion review there if it were moved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The above might also apply to File:AJC Peachtree Road Race 2013 Winners Medal.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

DRL Drone Racing League

Can I add their logo photo so that I can put it on there page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesty (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, it looks like you figured it out yourself :). File:Drone Racing League (DRL) logo.png has been uploaded in the meantime. GermanJoe (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just got a little impatient is all. :) ;) Ramesty (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Real Madrid logo for youth team and U-19 team.

Why Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Bayern, Paris Saint-Germain, Milan, Borussia Dortmund, etc. has permission to use their non-free logos for the youth teams and female teams articles and Real Madrid not?--95.22.177.60 (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably because nobody has gone and and removed these other logos yet (assuming that I understand the situation correctly that the non-free logos for the main teams are being used on the pages for the youth teams, something not in line with WP:UUI). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Question on the copyright of two images of Stanley Bruce

On Talk:Australian federal election, 1993, there has been an edit war over this. I've commented, other editors who frequent this forum may also want to add their 2 cents. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

US Army publications with images without prior information

I'd like to use some of the images found in this US Army PDF (CRREL is a division of the US Army Corps of Engineers). There is no copyright information in the document. I understand that anything produced by someone in their capacity as an employee of the US federal government is in the public domain, but does that apply to the photographs included in this document? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The impression I have is that images that were made by others and thus don't fall under PD-USGov but are published in a US government document tend to be either a) called out in the text as being by someone else (e.g "this photography shot by a bystander) or b) are credited to someone else in the caption. In this case, I see no indication that the images weren't made by US government employees. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Do you think these are OK to upload to Commons? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Maps in US federal government documents

I was asked a question about the maps in the appendices of this document. While the EIS itself appears to have been produced by FERC staff (and thus fall under "federal employee in the normal course of their duties"), the maps appear to me to be the work of Mott MacDonald staff. So my guess would be that they aren't PD. But I'd be interested in what other people think. Guettarda (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

No, they would not be if there's a clear ownership to a non-US Gov entity. You can use the information on that map to make your own in your own style (can't copyright data, just look and feel). --MASEM (t) 20:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Pan Entertainment poster.png

File is licensed as {{PD-logo}}, but it also has been provided with a non-free use rationle, which is causing it to be flagged as a WP:NFCC#9 violation. The file seems simple enough for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, but not sure if it would be considered PD in South Korea since there's nothing about the country in c:COM:TOO#South Korea. Any suggestions on how to best resolve this template conflict? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding image

Hi. I will like to use one image published in a website but I am unsure to whether is it safe to use, and not get me into any trouble.

• Author: September0923
• Source: http://september0923.tistory.com/m/5

The page is written entirely in Korean, hence, I am unsure with the licensing of the image. Can someone please tell me whether is the image copyright free, and, is it possible that I can remove the watermark and do resizing (am I free to adapt the work). Help will be greatly appreciated, thank you! Requiem II (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

In short, you can't. Images found on the Internet somewhere are presumed copyrighted and not available under a free license unless we can obtain proof to the contrary. Since there is no stated license, we presume the work is copyrighted. Since the advent of the Berne Convention, almost all creative work becomes copyrighted at the moment of creation. Therefore, copyright sustains on these images. I'm sorry, but you can't use them. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a little misleading to say there is no stated license — there is no named license, but this page: http://september0923.tistory.com/notice/1 has a statement saying something like "All photos and videos are forbidden for secondary processing and watermarked logo cropping." This is unequivocally a no-derivatives clause, which conflicts with both the GFDL and the BY-SA licenses under which Wikipedia is dual-licensed. So yes, it cannot be included in this project. 65.19.8.129 (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Are these links to films or trailers out of copyright?

[1][2][3] They've been added by User:Tertulius. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The first link points to a video uploaded by a "TheLipTV" which is apparently an account confirmed to belong to the organization of that name. I am not certain they are linked to that film however. The second video points to an uploader "Les Blank Films Inc". There is an organization of the same name who does not necessarily own the account which is apparently associated by the video. Either video might be a copyvio or a permitted upload. Either way not likely out of copyright, but not necessarily a copyright violation on YouTube. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything suggesting PD-ness on any of these videos, nor anything suggesting officiality on the Vimeo one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

File:PNGFA_Logo.svg fair use

Notifications where put on both the mens and womens football pages. I haven't had to add fair use in before on an image, so can you please confirm I have done this correctly. Feel it would be a shame for these pages not to have their logo on it. NZFC^(talk) 02:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

File:PM Trygve Bratteli.jpeg

This obviously wasn't published prior to 1923 so {{PD-anon-1923}} cannot be correct. The source of the file is given as www.regjeringen.no/en/the-government/previous-governments/ministries-and-offices/offices/prime-minister-since-1814/trygve-bratteli/id463400/, so maybe the photo is public domain for another reason. If not, then this might be OK to convert to non-free use since the subject Trygve Bratteli died in 1984. If that's the case, however, non-free use would only really be justified for the stand-alone article about Bratteli and the file would need to be removed from the other two articles where it is being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

According to commons:Template:PD-NorwayGov PD-Gov exists in Norway but it does not likely apply to this photo. There is not enough information to check if any other Norway PD criteria would apply so I'd say non-free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The way c:Template:PD-NorwayGov is formulated suggests that the template only covers text, not images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Telford College (Shropshire) logo

I already started a discussion about this image File:Telford College (Shropshire) 2017 logo (both variations).jpg at the Village Pump on Wikimedia Commons (see: c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright status of Telford College .28Shropshire.29 logo}. Two contributors reckon that the circular graphic is too complex for Template:PD-ineligible-USonly and another suggested I should start a discussion here to see what others think. Before anyone asks: the combination of the two variations of the logo is as it is treated by the source and not my own creation. Tk420 (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I've got to agree this logo is not simple enough to be Template:PD-ineligible-USonly, so non-free as it is seems correct. Is there a good reason to try to get it confirmed as PD? ww2censor (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The circular looks way too complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

File:New College, Telford logo (2017).jpg

I would like to check on whether this image meets the threshold of originality in the United States so I can use Template:PD-ineligible-USonly if it does not. Tk420 (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing above the text looks way too complex for that. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

File:North Korea FA.png

Was wondering if this file really needs to be treated as non-free content. The only element which might be copyrightable is the soccer ball, but this seems quite similar to files in c:Category:Association football balls and c:Category:Association football ball icons. I can't find any info on North Korea's TOO, but this look to be below the c:COM:TOO#United States, so maybe {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is appropriate if {{PD-logo}} is not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that you are making the mistake of assuming that North Korean courts make fair rulings. If asked if the logo meets the threshold of originality or not, the court would probably choose whichever option happens to be more favourable for Kim Jong-un. Unfortunately for us, we don't know what Kim Jong-un would find the most favourable (and it could change in the future too).

I don't know if it's safe to use {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. It may be safer to keep it as non-free. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Library Public Domain?

According to Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated! and Creating a Last Twenty (L20) Collection: Implementing Section 108(H) in Libraries, Archives and Museums certain books from 1923 to 1941 are now "Library Public Domain" and the Internet Archive has declared itself to be a library under the definition of the law. Is Wikisource a library under this law? Wikibooks? Wikipedia? Wikimedia Commons? Related: Wikipedia:Help desk#Library Public Domain --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Unless you can find a specific court case that spells out something called "Library Public Domain" I don't think that is a legally sound argument to be making. A paper "exploring" the possibility of using such an exemption is not the same as actual guidance on the matter. And we need something far more concrete in my opinion.

Now. There are numerous instances where books published between 1923 and 1941 would be in the public domain regardless. If it was without a clear copyright notice or if there was a notice but the copyright was not renewed, for example. That only applies for U.S. copyright however. You have to be really careful dealing with international copyrights and books published elsewhere.

All the projects that you listed (minus Wikipedia itself), requires that all material on it be under a free license. So in that regards whether or not we are considered a "library" (I doubt it) is a little moot as all material on here would have to be licensed freely anyways. --Majora (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems possible that the Wikimedia Foundation might qualify as "a library or archives, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such" under 17 U.S. Code § 108(h). However, that provision of U.S. copyright law doesn't make works public domain, it just says that during the last 20 years of the term of copyright protection of a published work that a subset of these works meeting certain conditions can, nonetheless, be copied/distributed/displayed by said library/archive for the purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research. That special dispensation would not extend to any reuser of the work. For example, the Internet Archive may be permitted to distribute copies of these works without violating U.S. copyright law, but if I downloaded one of these files from the Internet Archive and tried to sell copies to other interested parties, I'd probably be infringing on the copyright until it expires or it had fallen into the public domain for another reason (perhaps by failing to comply with U.S. copyright formalities). So, at least by WMF policy, these are not regarded as freely licensed works. —RP88 ^(talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Bobbi Campbell, by Roger Ressmeyer.jpg

In the current GA review of Bobbi Campbell, concern was raised at the presence of 3 non-Free images. As far as I am aware there are no Free images of Campbell available (he died in 1984) and the reviewers (Vanamonde93 and Nikkimaria) were comfortable with the FURs I provided against File:Newsweek cover, August 8, 1983, showing Bobbi Campbell and Bobby Hilliard.jpg and File:Bobbi Campbell at the Clinical Nursing Conference on AIDS at NIH, October 7, 1983.jpg but were less comfortable with File:Bobbi Campbell, by Roger Ressmeyer.jpg (source).

I would argue this last image is acceptable per WP:NFCI 8 and 10, with a purpose of:

Shows Bobbi Campbell wearing his "AIDS poster boy" T-shirt, as discussed in the article. As such, this image is of historical importance and contextually significant. The low resolution here respects the commercial opportunity of Roger Ressmeyer as photographer; no free alternatives are plausible.

and, as I mentioned in the GAR:

The article is over 2000 words long and all 3 images have FURs. WP:GACR №6 refers to "images", plural, and WP:NFCCP №3a refers to "minimal number of items"; I think a single image for each of 2 of the 4 main article sections is pretty minimal. They illustrate key concepts in the article and I think the article would be diminished by their removal, particularly given there are no relevant Free images available.

but I agreed to remove it from the article, to seek consensus on its acceptability. I've not been around MCQ before, so I'm not too sure of the process and etiquette here, but I'd appreciate being {{ping}}ed before anything final is decided. Thanks! — OwenBlacker (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• @OwenBlacker: (pinged per your request) I've looked at these images and the article. We do have some liberty with non-free images with respect to people who have died, as obviously new images can not be created. I know you are not asserting a free pass, but I do want to say that this liberty does not mean we have a carte blanche. We need to strike a balance. I know you are arguing that one image per section is minimal, but I do not see it that way. I look at it from the view of what does each image bring to the article that is not already being brought to the article by other images? From that view, I'm forced to compare File:Bobbi Campbell, by Roger Ressmeyer.jpg with File:Newsweek cover, August 8, 1983, showing Bobbi Campbell and Bobby Hilliard.jpg and find the former brings nothing to the article that isn't already done so by the former. I think the former is far more compelling to show that Campbell had become the recognizable face of the AIDS epidemic at the time. The latter image shows him wearing a t-shirt proclaiming he is the poster boy for AIDS. Ok, but that's a self-assertion, rather than a major news magazine demonstrating such. So, from that perspective I see the Newsweek image as being far more compelling, and the parade image bringing nothing that the Newsweek image does not already do. WP:NFC#UUI #9 normally precludes the use of magazine covers in infoboxes, and would allow them within the article if they were the subject of sourced commentary. I think the Newsweek image needs to be moved out of the infobox to Bobbi_Campbell#Wider_activism where we do have sourced commentary, and the rationale updated to reflect same. I realize this leaves the infobox without an image, and might even seem a reason to include File:Bobbi Campbell, by Roger Ressmeyer.jpg, but an infobox without an image is not a reason to have a non-free image. That said, it's a bit of a grey area. With regards to File:Bobbi Campbell at the Clinical Nursing Conference on AIDS at NIH, October 7, 1983.jpg, I understand the motivation of having the image. But, the image itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, and what it depicts is adequately described in the prose, replacing its functionality, thus making it a failure of WP:NFCC #8. So, from a strict perspective I would go with the Newsweek image as the only non-free image on the article. But, I readily grant there is grey area here. I hope that helps? --Hammersoft (talk)
  • Thanks for the ping. I think that's an exceptionally strict interpretation of WP:NFCC, and there is no mention of "infobox" in WP:NFCC or MOS:LEADIMAGE nor of NFC at WP:IBI. There are plenty of infoboxes of dead-people biographies with non-Free images and illustrating articles with images to aid comprehension is one of the criteria for good articles (and not just Good Articles). Clearly there's no consensus for restoring File:Bobbi Campbell, by Roger Ressmeyer.jpg to the article, which I think is a great shame — images improve articles and make us a better encyclopædia: Images make Wikipedia more informative, accessible, and professional. (WP:IDD) — but I respectfully disagree on the need to move or remove the other images from the article. Thanks for the detailed explanation. — OwenBlacker (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Ticketmaster-logo.png

Is this file eligible for {{PD-textlogo}} because it just a simple logo, it currently licensed as fair-use. Hddty. (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hddty.: Definitely. Feel free to go ahead and change it over. Make sure to include a {{trademarked}} template as well. --Majora (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually the image is redundant to the svg version c:File:TicketMaster wordmark.svg, and as it is now a orphan should be deleted. I would not even bother. ww2censor (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

File:ZM2014Logo.png

I'm not sure if this needs to be licensed as non-free content. c:COM:TOO#New Zealand says that the threshold of originality for New Zealand "is not high" which appears to be defined here. So, I guess the question is "whether sufficient time, skill, labour, or judgment has been expended in producing the work". A two-letter text logo with a somewhat fancy font do not seem to be copyrightable elements according to New Zealand law, but I'm pretty sure they would not be considered copyrightable under US law. So, if {{PD-logo}} is not an option, then maybe {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is. Any reason why this file needs to remain as non-free? If it does then its non-free use probably needs to be reassessed because it only seems acceptable in ZM (radio station) per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Ayu symbol.svg

This file is licensed as {{Non-free logo}}, but I am wondering if it needs to be non-free per c:COM:TOO#Japan. It seems to be nothing more of a simple combimation of shapes. It appears from the way the file is being used that it is supposed to represent the letter "A" in album titles such as Rainbow (Ayumi Hamasaki album), etc.. If that's the case, then it might be able to be treated just like any other fancy font; otherwise, I cannot see how it's non-free use can be justified in any article except perhaps Ayumi Hamasaki (which doesn't mention it at all). -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Help for copyright lisence

What is the copyright license for the image manoj jain papriwal.jpg. I do not know what a "copyright license" is, or how to find out, please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manojjainpapriwal (talk • contribs)

@Manojjainpapriwal: Um, link to the image please? I don't see any edit from you on such a page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It might be this one: File:Manoj jain papriwal.jpg Aspro (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Manojjainpapriwal:. This may seem very complicated but it is not. Are you Manoj jain papriwal ? If so, you need to identify yourself in order to comply with Wikipedia:Username policy. If you are not but are editing on his behalf, then you need to also declare a COI. Take it one step at a time. One step at a time. Aspro (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Uploading logos for a Brand Official Page

Good afternoon, we apologize for violating the Wikipedia policy. We are a web agency which handles the maintenance of the CNH Industrial Official Website. In order to reskin the CNH Industrial's Wikipedia page, we need to add the brands logos which are part of the Corporate. We found them online, but 2 of them have been banned for copyright violation. How can we proceed? How can we recognize the free-use logos? Otherwise, is it possible to upload new logos, provided the CNH Industrial's authorization? To whom should we send it? Thanks. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplesense Reply (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Triplesense Reply: As I posted at User talk:Marchjuly#Copyright logo, you seem to be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia does not have any official brand pages, profile pages, company pages, etc. In addition, your apparent connection to CNH Industrial means there are more serious issues which need to be addressed than simply adding some non-free files to your user sandbox. I've added some templates to your user talk page which contain relevant links and other information. Please carefully read these and the relevant policy/guideline pages they link to and make sure you understand Wikipedia's policy on paid editing. My suggestion to you would be to focus on this first, and worry about the images later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Marchjuly: Good morning,

we apologize for violating Wikipedia policy. We inform that we have deleted the test page (sand box), and we will not continue this kind of activity.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplesense Reply (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)‎

Copyright of classic photos

For example photos from around 1903 http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/VExhibition/the_site/excavations1903.html yet the owner alleges they are copyright protected http://www.papyrology.ox.ac.uk/POxy/VExhibition/copyright.html Is this a valid copyright claim? Can I upload photos under a specific license? Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

UK copyright law says that "copyright ends 70 years after the last surviving author dies". Arthur Surridge Hunt, who is credited as the photographer, died in 1934, which, by my reading of it, means copyright on the photos expired in 2005. I stand to be corrected though. - X201 (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

As X201 mentioned, these are quite likely in the public domain in the UK. Determining whether they are public domain in the US is more complex, as determining the U.S. copyright status for older works usually requires tracking down where and when a work was first published (not just created). Do you know anything about the publication history of these photos? As an example, if it can be established that they were published before 1923 they would be PD in both the UK and the US, and thus eligible for upload to Commons. There might, however, be other cases where these works are PD in the US (see Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United State). —RP88 ^(talk) 10:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that Arthur Surridge Hunt published the photos at all. prokaryotes (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not a problem from a UK point of view. For photos taken prior to 1957 the same rule applies to unpublished photos. - X201 (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Do we know if these photos were included in the 1998 Oxyrhynchus: A City and its Texts exhibition? I don't know if they were published as part of that exhibition, but we do know they were published to the online site, which appears to have occurred in 2006. If the online publication was the first publication of these photos, then they are in the public domain in the US (as a UK work created before 1978 and first published after 2002 its US copyright would have expired at life+70, i.e. in 2005). If they were first published in the UK between 1923 and 2002, they are likely still protected by US copyright. For example, if they were published during the 1998 exhibition the US copyright will expire in 2048.

However, UK copyright has a 25 year publication right which is granted to anyone who makes available to the public for the first time a previously-unpublished out-of-copyright work with the permission of the owner of the corresponding physical medium. If these photos were first made available to the public in 2006, then they will be protected in the UK until 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published, i.e. until 2032.

If it were me, I'd probably contact papyrology.ox.ac.uk and inquire about the publication history of the photo. —RP88 ^(talk) 15:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless they have a more reliable Ouija board than mine, they won't have the copyright owners permission – will they? So they will not have 25 years grace but seven under UK law. The expo was was held in July and August 1998 in the Eric North Room, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. 1998 + 7 = 2005 and today is the 18th Oct 2017. Copyright: orphan works Had the photographers published their works whilst alive they would have had life plus 70 years. Such is the non-nonsensical rules of the Berne Convention. Aspro (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

For the purposes of US copyright a publication is required to be with the permission of the copyright holder, which is not necessarily the author, so for posthumous publication the copyright holder would likely be the author's heir or anyone to whom the copyright was assigned (either by the author or their estate), so no Ouija board is necessary. However, in the UK a publisher is awarded the 25-year publication right for a previously-unpublished out-of-copyright work if it is with the permission of the owner of the corresponding physical medium, not the permission of copyright holder of the expired copyright. Your "orphan works" link doesn't work for me, but probably not relevant, as I see no evidence that this photo is an orphan work (not to mention the at most 7 year "EU Directive" orphan work licenses don't change the duration of copyright to the work itself). —RP88 ^(talk) 21:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

These works were 'donate' to the Ashmolean, therefore they will not have kept a record of neither all the photographers collateral descendants nor all their lineal descendants. That is what donation means. Upon donation they immediately become orphaned works because the creators lose the right of paternity. Without paternity they become orphaned. Can you think of any org that would accept a donation with strings attached, making them not really donations? Think about it... It would expose the org. to uncertain future legal liabilities – which is why they accept donations and separate them from loaned. These images where not loaned as the website admits by omission. They can't have their cake and eat it. Despite their Boilerplate (text). Aspro (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

We're getting pretty far afield from the original question, but it is absolutely not the case that copyrighted UK works become orphaned works as soon soon as they are donated. For that matter, if Hunt's donation of his collection of documents included the assignment of copyrights along with the collection then this photo is certainly not a orphan, as the organization receiving the donation would be the copyright owner, not an unknown heir. But even if the photo is an orphan that is irrelevant for the purposes of determining the duration of copyright under UK law since we know the author and their date of death. With regards to moral rights, which are distinct from economic rights of copyright, I am not sure why you believe these would be extinguished by donation. Unlike copyright, moral rights cannot be transferred or assigned, but they can be waived. However, waiving moral rights does not make a work an orphan or otherwise alter the duration of copyright. With regards to the moral right known as the right to be identified, also called the right of paternity, in the UK once this right is asserted it applies for the duration of copyright, but only for works created after 1 August 1989, so it is not relevant to the photo in question. —RP88 ^(talk) 23:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

PD-logo

Would File:Invoxia logo.png count as a trademarked public domain logo? Thanks! Daylen (talk) 03:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Aye, public domain in the US only though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Muhammad Ashiq Ali.jpg

File is licensed as {{Non-free computer icon}} which is obviously wrong. The file's decsription states that the "subject of the photograph has been deceased since October 18, 2017" and its purpose is to "present the look of the deceased Article Editor"; furthermore, the file was being used at User:Famousvideomovies. Non-free photos of deceased individuals are generally allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but I'm almost certain this applies to the subjects of Wikipedia articles and not Wikipedia editors unless they are one of the people listed in WP:WWA. Assuming that this is a photo of a deceased Wikipedian editor, I don't think it can be accepted as non-free content per WP:NFCC#1 and perhaps even WP:NOTMEMORIAL; it also cannot be used in the user namesapace per WP:NFCC#9.

It might be possible for this to be converted to the copyright holder if the EXIF data is accurate and the copyright ownership can be verified. The uploader's account is only a day old, and it really seems as if they just made multiple mistakes when uploading the file. So, I'm wondering if tagging it with {{npd}} would be the best option in this case. Any other suggestions on how to resolve this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Might want to ask the uploader how they got to the image and if it's already published somewhere else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

File:SkylineLaPazbynight.PNG and File:Skyline La Paz at night.png

Possible images taken from the Internet, with suspicious "own work" tags. The former is more suspicious as it appears to be a screenshot, with gyroscopic/directional icons and "Google" word suggesting that it is of Google Maps. The latter, although can be considered as Ruditaly's own work, is collaterally suspicious as a result of the former. Pls check thoroughly the second file. Pls also check: File:Santa Cruz satellite.PNG and File:Santa Cruz skyline.PNG. (additionally, when I looked at his upload list, I saw that the vast majority of his images are in PNG type and in lower resolutions).JWilz12345 (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted one of them and tagged the other for deletion. Google Image Search of the other images you posted also indicates they come from other websites; I'd recommend filing a WP:CCI case perhaps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Kumar Vishwas page

Please check that the file violates the copyright or not? File:Kumar vishwas.png - Dipupandey80 (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't (and since it looks like a blurry screenshot it probably does) it needed to explain what its copyright status is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Note - OP blocked as sock. Nthep (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

de:File:Deutscher Handballverband.gif

Does this logo on the German Wikipedia meet the threshold of originality? The ball and the lettering should not, but the abstract figure throwing the ball might. Glrx (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Be aware that the german wikipedia has slightly different rules for threshold than the en.wikipedia please ask at the German wikipedia: de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen. There you can also ask in English.  — Johannes Kalliauer - contrib. 22:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking for the US version, not Germany's version. You should not have stepped into the discussion here because it is about disagreements we have elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

In the United States that would meet TOO. Which would make it ineligible for Commons and would require it to be here under fair use only. As a side note, in the future better to just ignore if you don't like an answer. Someone else will come along eventually. --Majora (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Yes, I should ignore but a lot is happening. Maybe you can be my priest and take my confession. Glrx (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Official United Kingdom Parliamentary photographs 2017

Hi there - I noticed that somebody has added a "Personality Rights Warning" to a number of photographs of UK politicians. What does this mean? Does this mean we are not allowed to use them in infoboxes for election articles? e.g. This image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_portrait_of_Jeremy_Corbyn_crop_2.jpg I'm very confused. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It means that the images are of living people and that you should use them with some respect, such as not using them for photoshopped rape porn etc. It is not a problem for our election articles, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see! Thank you for the explanation. Regards, FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Help requested re images of non-creative text and UK copyright

Hi, I'm in the middle of of FAN for Lilias Armstrong, and I've included photos that consist of words or intonation markings that, due to technical reasons, can't be typeset on Wikipedia. I've understood images like File:Armstrong_et_al._1925_Burmese_transcription_North_Wind_and_the_Sun_Title.png not to be copyrightable as they aren't literary work, even if published in the UK, but some clarification would be welcome in the image review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lilias Armstrong/archive1. Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Typographical logos w/o copyright

At Wikipedia:Non-free content#Legal position, In general, it implies that typographical logos w/o a copyright may be freely used. How do I upload a picture of such typographical logos (what license do I use)? Jzsj (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You are looking for Template:PD-logo for simple typographical logo's AlasdairEdits (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

For example, Jzsj, see File:NewYorkTimes.svg; the logo is just the words The New York Times, so there's no copyright-related restriction on using this file, just as there's no copyright-related restriction on writing the name of the newspaper. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Unpublished US works

Is there a standard for determining (and if so, do we have a page specifying) the PD-US versus copyrighted-in-US status of a work whose publication date is unknown? {{PD-US-unpublished}} reproduces the US Code talking about this kind of thing, but the Code specifically excludes items that were in the public domain in 1978. For example, I suppose that something created pre-1800 and published after 1923 would be in the public domain regardless of when it was published, the copyright having expired before it was published, but I'm not sure of that, and I have no idea what the standards would be. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, if the author died over 70 years ago, then PD-old-70 would apply in many instances. Generally determining the copyright of stuff where we don't know the publication date is hard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

In the US a work created pre-1800 and published after 1923 is not necessarily in the public domain. In the US it is possible for very old works to theoretically be still protected by copyright. Probably the most notorious example is a letter from John Adams to Nathan Webb written in 1755. It remained, unpublished, in the private archives of the Adams family until it was transferred to the Massachusetts Historical Society in 1956, who published it on microfilm and registered the copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. The copyright was renewed in 1984, which means that the copyright to this Adams letter will not expire until 1 January 2052, almost 300 years after it was written. Hirtle's "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States" chart is probably the best tool for determining the US copyright status of a work. However, as Eumerus mentioned, sometimes it is the case that information that is important to determining a work's copyright status is unknown, unfortunately resulting in a work whose US copyright status can not be determined without additional research. —RP88 ^(talk) 19:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Scans of front pages of newspapers

I certainly understand that the logo of a newspaper (just like any other entity) is permitted under fair use here. However, does this apply to a scan of the entire front page, such as File:Israel Hayom front page.png? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Flip a coin. People read newspapers and I would not be surprised if a lot more people are familiar with a newspaper's front page than its logo, so under WP:NFCC#8 the front page screenshot would be more informative. On the other hand WP:NFCC#3 and there is less non-free material when using a logo than a newspaper screenshot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well...it would also depend on the size of the image. When it comes to things like newspaper covers that matters much more than normal. The small size makes it unlikely that anyone would be able to use the text or photos for other means bolstering the fair use argument. It brings up a possible de minimis claim of the individual parts per c:COM:DM#Guidelines #5. --Majora (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

File:The Wizard of New Zealand on horseback The Bluff Station, Walkemup mountain in background Pitt Island 2016.tiff

The file is tagged "In addition to the fair-use assertion shown on this page, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia." However, the copyright holder is not the same as the uploader and I see no evidence for this claim. The uploader also appears to be a paid editor with a COI with this film. Doug Weller talk 19:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Without some sort of OTRS verification we can't really be sure. The image itself is not used in any articles which would violate fair use policy. And even if it was, we already have a free image making any fair use image of the wizard not acceptable under WP:NFCCP #1 (a WP:F7 delayed deletion rationale). --Majora (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Photos from Harris & Ewing Collection at US Library of Congress

Hey guys. I'd like to use this photo (1912) I found at the US Library of Congress. It's from the Harris & Ewing Collection. The Rights and Restrictions page for that collection explicitly says that all restrictions and copyrights have expired. But I'm not sure if I can use it. Fluous (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fluous: You would upload it to Commons and make sure you use {{PD-1923}} as the licensing tag. You can also include the credit line in the information box if you wish. If you need assistance with this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Majora: Thank you so much for your help! Fluous (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright largely unknown for image of Syd Barrett

I'm currently working to bring List of songs recorded by Syd Barrett to featured status and believe I need a picture of him in the article. However, every picture of Syd Barrett on Wikipedia is under fair use so I can't use them for the list. On Sydbarrett.com[4] I found a couple photos of him where the photographer is unknown. So I contacted them through their contact forum about uploading one of these photos onto Wikipedia and got a response through email saying that because they don't know who the photographer is, they can't claim copyright nor deny me permission to use the image as they don't own it. They told me they tend to post disclaimers so that if someone does claim copyright they can discuss it forward with them. Because of this response, I believe I'm free to upload it to Wikipedia but I don't know under what copyright claim. I decided to come here to ask what copyright claim this would be or if I can even upload it at all. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: Unfortunately, an author unknown situation does not void the copyright of that image. I'm going to make a lot of assumptions here and I would need more information to be certain so take what comes next with a small grain of salt. Assuming that the image was taken in the United Kingdom due to the person being English, Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom would apply. For unknown authorship the copyright expiration of those works in the UK is 70 years after publication. So even if the author is unknown, it is highly unlikely that the photo would be acceptable here. Sorry. --Majora (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. No problem. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible?

Is it possible to determine the copyright status of the images on this post? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Please remove the photo of ....

STEVEN PARRINO

Which appears in the German edition of Wikipedia & is now broadcast generally on ALL google searches of same person.

This is MY photo although it has been reverse posted to escape ‘drop image’ detection !!

It is used without permission & has no Photo credit.

The original photo can be found at:

Steven Parrino Artnet Magazine / images It was published in 2004.

www.artnet.com/Magazine/people/smith/smith11-17-12

Please confirm removal. Thank you NANCY SMITH / artloversnewyork.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.162.101 (talk • contribs)

Removed a duplicate query, I see that a deletion request has already been made on File:Steven parrino 2004.jpg which appears to be the image in question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)