Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/March

New image of an old press release

What is the copyright status of a new photograph of an old (1977) press release? A new editor wants to upload his 2013 photograph of a paper press release from The Kitchen, dated October 6th and 8th 1977. The editor has not uploaded the image yet because I told him I want to check to see if there would be a copyright problem or not. I don't even know if a paper press release (which was sent out to journalists) is a "publication" or not. Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's a publication, and fully subject to copyright; taking a photo of it would not enable us to circumvent the copyright involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless the press release had a copyright notice, which is highly unlikely since that would defeat its purpose, it should be PD, template "pd-pre1978." Press releases were intended to be published freely.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, watcher! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much Wikiwatcher1 and Orange Mike! So it is indeed in the Public Domain, and should be templated as "pd-pre1978" when it is uploaded. Great! Thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor had trouble getting the Upload Wizard to accept that template. Any idea why? Invertzoo (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The template is case sensitive. Try "PD-Pre1978" with the double brackets on each side.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

He did put it in like that, but I think he selected the wrong one of the 6 alternatives as to "why you have the right to publish this work". Invertzoo (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation.

This file is shown as being the creator's own work with a copyright notice allowing free use. The picture is in fact a frame grab from somebody else's work. The original video can be found on You Tube, here. I B Wright (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This image is on Commons, so questions are better asked at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. That being said, it's definitely a copyvio, so I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: I take part of it back, the You Tube video referenced above is not the original video. There are several videos on You Tube uploaded by different people showing the same sequence. I have tracked the sequence back to an instructional video on cathode rays produced by (and showing a copyright notice dated 2008 from) Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (En: Federal University of Rio de Janeiro). The original video does not seem to be available on the Internet. I B Wright (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

what tag should be used

Hie,

I am not sure of which tag should be used to describe my picture. I am writing an article on behalf of a solicitor whose picture needs to be uploaded on wikipedia. I got an error message stating that proper license tag has not been described. I am not sure which tag is appropriate for this type of image.

Image description: Portrait of a person showing his full face. Source is his website and author is himself.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkhead (talk • contribs) 15:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to get the copyright holder, who probably is not the subject but the photographer who took the photo, verify their freely licenced permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I will also add that the subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines so don't be surprised if the draft is rejected.--ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture source

Hello,

I am more or less new here, and I have never changed a picture. I am updating a page of a chess Grandmaster and i want to change his picture, but i am not sure about those rights, which picture i can post and what source i should put. So here is the link of the picture, and I am waiting for further instructions. http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1440&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbnid=8h4mkVGHnUYZTM:&imgrefurl=http://www.chess.com/news/magnus-carlsen-wins-tata-steel-2013-1412%3Fpage%3D3&docid=LImYkeSqFYtEOM&imgurl=http://files.chesscomfiles.com/images_users/tiny_mce/SonofPearl/Tata%2525202013%252520Round%25252013%252520Pentala%252520Harikrishna.jpg&w=635&h=720&ei=r_YwUa2zLszLsga-hoE4&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:46,s:0,i:231&iact=rc&dur=766&sig=114586334571911802549&page=2&tbnh=182&tbnw=152&start=22&ndsp=31&tx=70&ty=67

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshe4 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If you didnt take the picture, you probably cannot post it. The two major exceptions would be if the picture is very old (~70 years since its original publication) and so it has become part of the public domain, or if the creator of the photo has specifically published it under one of the free-use licences (such a Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The image you found is linked from this webpage but I wonder if you noticed there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. The image is unlikely to be freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment - press photos

I've posted an RFC regarding the public domain status of press/publicity photos produced between 1923 and 1977. Comments are welcome. – JBarta (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File

File:DSCF4097

Ipomoea aquatica in a IMTA research pond

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saifullahrony (talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Chemistry Structures

I've been helping move images to the Commons and concerning these images (File:Rebaudioside A.gif, File:Mogroside II E.gif, and File:Mogroside VI.gif), are they complex enough to qualify for copyright or do they still fall under PD-chem? And if they do fall under PD-chem, should I change it from the current copyright when I transfer them to the commons? ALH (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The structure can't be copyrighted, and the representation of that structure is using standard, non-original graphics and text. They would qualify as PD-chem. (As a counter example, protein structures like File:Protein folding.png may be non-copyrightable but the specific graphics approach is far from simple and has originality to it, and thus this specific representation could be copyrighted (in the example, the user put it into the PD). --MASEM (t) 00:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps a lot. ALH (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Images like those three are not protected by copyright in the United States. However, they might be protected by copyright in some other countries, so any free licences should be preserved so that the images also can be used in those countries. You should not have removed the free licences when moving the files to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the case of File:Rebaudioside A.gif, the user uploaded it under a GNU free license so that shouldn't matter. Again, we are talking about data here with a standard format and representation, so copyrightability anywhere is likely not an issue. But there could be prior case law that I'm not aware of. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but ALH (talk · contribs) removed the GNU and Creative Commons licences when copying the images to Commons. Commons users also need to see those licences in case some country grants copyright protection to images like these. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone making an accurate standard diagram of those three molecules will produce something exactly like these these images; barring rotation, font changes, and zoom (which aren't by themselves copyrightable), any changes will make the diagram non-standard and/or inaccurate. They're no more original than the formulas themselves; writing "C12H22O11" by itself can't make you a copyright infringer, and neither can drawing a figure like File:Saccharose2.svg. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It all depends on the threshold of originality in the country where you wish to use the images. For example, the images might be protected by a typographical copyright in the United Kingdom, and without a free licence, people in the United Kingdom won't know that they can use the images. Lots of British people use this website, and there is no point in hiding licensing information which those people need in order to use the contents on Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Typographical copyright does not apply, it refers to something different. I have no doubt that the above reasoning applies just as well in the UK as it does in the United States. Other countries though I can't speak for and there may therefore be good reasoning keeping the tags. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I could have worded it better, but my question had more to do with if these particular images could be copyrighted than the tags. I have no objection to changing the tags back, however I do have these three points to make on the matter.
1. In the Wikipedia Manual of Style that I found after I asked the question (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry/Structure drawing), it states that A) these diagrams should be uploaded to Wikimedia (which isn't the concern here) and B) these diagrams "must have a correct copyright tag: please add {{PD-chem}}" This isn't binding, but it's what Wikipedia prefers with these images.
2. In this case, the images are very clearly in the public domain, which means that adding any tag other than a public domain could be confusing (and downright misleading) to someone who isn't familiar with public domain laws. In addition, any accurate model of these molecules will be highly similar to these images, however there wouldn't be any copyright infringement, simply because the creator of these images can't copyright them.
3. Finally, under 17 USC §506 (c), it is illegal to place "on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false." Now, I do admit it was a little brash on my part to change the copyright tags (and I will go explain to the uploader why I did so and that they can change the tags back if they so choose), however I believe all of my points remain valid. A. L. H. 04:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

17 USC §506 (c) looks problematic since a work may be protected by copyright in one country but not in some other country. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Images of newspaper "letters to editor", where text has been released by original author

In September 1994, a person wrote to the letters page of the Daily Telegraph, and his letter was published. It's possible that the newspaper edited his letter for brevity or clarity, as most newspapers reserve the right to do. In any case, I now have in front of me a hard copy of what the newspaper published (his letter).

It is likely that the person may wish to freely license the text of his letter to the newspaper. If he does so, would it be acceptable for me to upload an image of how the newspaper printed his letter? (The purpose is to represent the sort of correspondence that occurred, in an article section that largely focuses on such correspondence and reactions to it.)

For clarity, as far as I can see, the only creative input the newspaper had into the depiction of the letter was their choice of font (which had been standard for a long time and was probably the same in the rest of the newspaper, so not exactly a creative choice), their convention of printing the name of the writer in all upper case, their listing of his address as "London W14" (both of these standards used by their newspaper for decades) and their three-word title to his letter. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues as far as I see. One is whether you sign away more than a right of republishing to The Daily Telegraph, one of exclusivity or even copyright incompatible with a free licence. Secondly, in Britain there is a typographical copyright that might extend to the work in question. I don't think the US recognises such a thing, however, so on en.wiki that would probably not be a problem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

it is not just a choice of font. it is choosing where to break words or where to kern, where to place it on the page, where to break the columns. I am not really sure what a picture of words provides that words alone cannot do.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

All that falls under typographic copyright, and none of it is protected by copyright in the US. As per ownership of copyright above, no modern copyright system has implicit transfers of copyright from a non-employee, especially as there was no form of payment to the author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair use of career images vs. post-retirement images

In adding a fair use image, where the only free image of a person available shows them in their later years after retiring, is it acceptable to include one showing the person working during their career as fair use?

Some examples might be sports figures, actors, or military notables. I assume that NFCC #1 is the most relevant criteria: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

Since in order to be included in WP, someone must be notable, it follows that the person's notability relies on what they did during their career. Hence, a photo of them during their career actively engaged in some profession, has value independent of and probably more important than a free, but recent image when they're retired. I'd like to know if those factors have been covered before? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A while back, I floated the idea of making a specific policy allowing this. The basic response I got was that our policy already does for the reason you stated. Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 9#Allowing non-free images of people in their prime. Ryan Vesey 05:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The argument for their use has to start with how much the visual aspect of the person was during the time of their career. This would be arguable for people like actors and possibly sport figures, but not for people like authors, scientists, etc. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I just read through the Village pump discussion, but I didn't see that they came to any clear decision. I guess a theoretical example, but relevant to countless notables, might help, so here goes:

Joe DiMaggio played baseball for about 15 years of his 84 years of life. Let's assume this is 1999 and he is still alive, and someone added a free image of him at some event when he was 84. Like many notables now, assuming it was the only free image, it would probably be his lead image. But what if someone found another published photo of him taken 50 years earlier while he was actually playing. My understanding, and experience, found that if the non-free photo was uploaded, it gets deleted due to NFCC#1 (being that he was still alive.)

It's not simply a matter of them being in their "prime" or how important their "looks" were to their career. One image shows them in retirement at a podium, while the other shows them doing what they are notable for, and what got them an article in WP. To me it seems logical, if not almost mandatory, to allow fair use images in those cases. And there are photos of writers, like Hemingway and Shaw, at work writing. There are photos of actors acting and scientists at work. So it's not just a matter of showing their face, or how they appeared, but of showing them in action, doing what they are notable for. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#UUI §1. Non-free images may be acceptable if the person currently looks very different to what he looked like when he did what he is famous for. For example, if you participated in some kind of sports 50 years ago and then retired, then you would usually look very different to how you look today. Also, some health problems (like Viktor Yushchenko#Dioxin poisoning allegations) may change your visual appearance significantly. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Can a submittor require attribution on the article page?

re : File:Bat Creek Exam 5-28-10.JPG - can the submittor require under image attribution? or is attribution via page history appropriate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

No, see WP:CREDITS, attribution on the image information page is deemed sufficient.--ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

In this case, there is no need for additional attribution in the article. But in general the author may always specify how to attribute their work, and I remember a case on Commons where someone asked for attribution with a weblink "next to the image". So it could happen. I have now updated the license tag at Commons to reflect Scott Wolter's wish. De728631 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the uploader does request attribution next to the image, I would assume that the image can't be used on English Wikipedia at all, since WP:CREDITS says that you shouldn't put the uploader's name there. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How do I know if an audio recording is available to use for business purposes?

I found a recording I would like to use in my business (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gesualdo-moro_lasso_al_mio_duolo.ogg). I know I can use music in the public domain, but many of your recordings do not appear to indicate what usage is appropriate. Can you tell me if the recording I am describing can be used for business purposes? 204.17.17.249 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

All media at Wikimedia Commons can be used for commercial purposes. This specific file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, so depending on your intended business, I can say the following:

• You can use it for commercial purposes like remixing, or all kinds of alterations, but in that case you must distribute it under that same Creative Commons license or a similar one.
• You can play it to the public.
• In any case you'll have to credit the MIT Choir and William Cutter (director).

De728631 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

SVG files

Check File:Frog design logo.svg. This is a logo which is clearly below the threshold of originality and thus in the public domain, but it is listed as a copyrighted file. However, the problem is that it is an SVG file. Does the person who made the SVG file hold the copyright to the SVG source code as a computer program? If so, then the file should be tagged as replaceable fair use as the copyrighted SVG source code can be replaced by freely licensed SVG code. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of sports

Check File:WalsallWood.ogv. This film shows part of a match. Is the match itself protected by copyright? That is, does this film violate the copyright of the sports clubs and/or the individual players? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It isnt a matter of copyright, it is a matter of other issues, see commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people Werieth (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

File:International Scout and Guide Fellowship.svg

I created this SVG of a previously existing file, File:International Scout and Guide Fellowship.png, and simply copied the licensing information. I was notified that I had not provided ownership of copyright information and was required to answer the following three questions:

• Who created this image?
• Who holds the copyright to this image?
• Where did this image come from?

I have since updated the information, but am unsure if what I added is sufficient. Could someone please read through it and inform me if I need to add more? Thanks, FrigidNinja 01:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

These messages came from a bot that might have been triggered by the combination of fair use and svg. I have now added two disclaimers about rendering of the image, {{SVG-Logo}} and {{SVG-res}}, and also your name as the creator of the SVG version. So that should do it. De728631 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

richardcorfieldscientist.jpg

Hi, I would like to add this image to my page. File:Small RMC pub shot 2.jpg It was taken in 2002 by a photographer working for DOX Productions (a TV production compnay). The photographer gave me his permission to use the photo freely as he was instructed to by David Sington of Dox Productions who he was working for at the time. I have used it many times over the years including on the web and would like to use it on my wikipedia page. There seems to a problem uploading it. Any assistance you can give me would be very welcome. Thanks, Richard CorfieldClemrit (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please send evidence of the copyright holder's permission using the process set out at WP:IOWN. Also, it is not "your" article, it is an article about you.--ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Clamato can.jpg

Hi. Per request on my talk page I added a non-free-use rationale to the image page. The rationale is being disputed, but I don’t understand why. My rationale seems quite clear.

Please respond on my talk page, as I am not actively checking my watch list. —Michael Z. 2013-03-06 16:38 z

You need to add a {{Non-free use rationale}} template to the image info page, see Template:Non-free use rationale for the documentation]].--ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It never occurred to me that “clarifying the reason” meant there was a mandatory template I was supposed to know about. —Michael Z. 2013-03-06 20:47 z

I don't think it's mandatory per se but it is useful as it contains all the essential elements per WP:NFCC and users are used to seeing non-free rationales in that format.--ukexpat (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added a trademark template and have removed {{photo of art}}, since the original artwork on the can was not released under a GFDL license. Please note also that we can't use high-res images for non-free use purposes so I have replaced it with a smaller version. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that images like this have two copyrights (the copyright of the photographer and the copyright of the can artist), and licences need to be indicated for both copyrights. Normally, this is done using the template {{Photo of art}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#10a and WP:LINKVIO

Once in a while, I see people linking directly to an image in a fair use rationale. For example, File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg links to an external website where the image is used without permission from the copyright holder (depending on a fair use claim). WP:LINKVIO seems to forbid links directly to fair use images as the use is unfair outside the original context. In the same manner, I would not be surprised you can't link to the page on the website where the image is used if the purpose is to link to the image, as the other information on the page would be uninteresting in this situation. This means that the link has to be removed per WP:LINKVIO.

Problem: If the link is removed, then the image suddenly fails WP:NFCC#10a. In this case, the solution is easy: the image comes from a printed publication, so all you need to do is to indicate the name and issue number. However, there are lots of images where this wouldn't be feasible. For example, we have several hundreds of links to Find a Grave, and that website usually doesn't tell where the images come from. For example, how do you fix File:Adolph Toepperwein.jpg so that it neither violates WP:NFCC#10a nor WP:LINKVIO? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is being excessively legalistic.

Somebody uploading an image here should say where they got it from, as well as the original source. That ought to be basic, and information that should not be removed.

The purpose of WP:LINKVIO is to prevent contributory copyright infringement. But that is not the purpose or the effect of the link in this case -- there is already a copy of the image here, so it is not as if we are inducing to the reader to go to the site and illicitly consume the image (unlike, say, a bootleg copy of a book or a paper) -- they don't need to do that, because they can already see it here.

So it seems to me that here we should follow WP:IAR and the fifth of WP:5, and think what the rule is for, and then ask whether that actually applies in this case.

Having done that, I think it is appropriate to keep the link. In my view, for better or for worse, it is right to have a full-disclosure audit trail of where the pixels actually came from. Jheald (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time

This page has lists of favorites, so are these lists copyrighted? --George Ho (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading the page, the lists are based on fan-voted favorites. In this case, that means its factual data, and thus not subject to copyright issues. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Ph_seal_cavite.png and others

I was trying to add File:Ph_seal_cavite.png, File:Ph_seal_batangas.png, File:Ph_seal_rizal.png and File:Ph_seal_quezon.png to the CALABARZON page but I got a message saying that these images failed the non-fair use policy. I checked the images and they all have fair-use rationales for the said page, so I'm guessing there's something I'm not getting? Thanks. NyanThousand (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The usage violates WP:NFTABLE which says that such images usually aren't permitted in tables.

Philippine government images are problematic. Wikipedia thinks that they are unfree (see Template:Non-free Philippines government) but Commons thinks that they are in the public domain (Commons:Template:PD-PhilippinesGov). --Stefan2 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yachats photos

Can someone take a look at the images used in the Yachats, Oregon article? Some are on Commons and others are still on Wikipedia and tagged for transfer. I've gone through a few of them and tagged two—File:Amanda's Trail.jpg and File:Yachats Little Log Church.jpg—for deletion with {{npd}}. I notified the uploader for the first image and then realized it would be kind of rude to keep posting notices. At least two of the images in the article are claimed to have been taken by "Elizabeth Gates," who probably isn't User:Crankelwitz (who uploaded many) and others are claimed to be by Dave Baldwin. In addition, this user on Commons, who uploaded at least one of the photos, seems to have some connection to the aforementioned Dave Baldwin. I'm unsure how to handle this. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Question about blueprints

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#Question_about_copyright_and_license would be appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cover of non-copyrighted book

I would like to use an image of the cover of a book written by the person who is the subject of a biography. The date was 1947, author is deceased, published by an academy that closed in the 1970s.

Where do I start?? Maineshepp (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The cover of a book is usually not designed by the writer themselves, so you'll have to find out about the artist. If it is just text though without any original graphic design then you won't have to worry. Is there a way to preview this cover online? De728631 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases non-free book covers are only permitted for use, under our non-free policy, in articles about the books themselves and not in other articles. ww2censor (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It is just text. I don't see any way to attach the file, as it's on my computer. I think it can visually draw attention to the discussion, underscore its significance. I could upload to Wikipedia if you wish. Maineshepp (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A book cover which is just text is extremely unlikely to add anything to the meaning of a biographical article, and thus would fall foul of our non-free use policy. I'd say no. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

A 1947 publication would still generally be in copyright unless there are extenuating circumstances (such as UK Crown Copyright or some other overriding term). The only way I can see the text adding value is if the writing or font was somehow distinguishing or notable, and I can't think of any examples of that off the top of my head. Perhaps the text on an early cover of Mein Kampf (and, having invoked Godwin's law, we can now close this thread) might be significant if it's different from the more common cover. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• If it's {{PD-simple}}, it may be able to be used for free. The Pleasure of the Text, for example, has a cover which is much too simple to attract copyright in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's why used the example I did - it was the first one to come to mind when I thought of something using text that was distinctive and might be interpreted as artistic. In your example, you could remake it in MS Paint, for instance, if you were so inclined. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

there is a kind of catch-22 going on here that does not bode well for the use. If it is not just text, it is still likely under copyright and not usable in an author article. If it is just simple text, it probably could be used, but the value of such a just text image to an article about the author is nil- so why would you include it?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Illustrating a bibliography, like at Lie Kim Hok, or important publications, like at Kafka. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA or GFDL?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I’m a media contributor. I just noticed that Wikimedia/Wikipedia listed CC-BY-SA as the recommended license for “own works” under Commons:Special:UploadWizard. Earlier it was CC-BY-SA+GFDL in the old upload form. Is there any specific reason for this change? Further I noticed that now all of our pages have a footnote “Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.” Earlier it was GFDL. Why? JKadavoor Jee 14:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we prefer - but don't require - CC-BY-SA 3.0 as the best license for reuse of content (particularly as the Creative Commons concept grows wider), but you can always choice the GFDL which in terms of free content re-use is functionally more equivalent. --MASEM (t) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are these images correctly licensed?

Flickr set.
These are images from Halo 4, a video game so I would assume these are copyrighted and thus if I came across an image like this on Flickr normally, I would just move on. However, Corrinne Yu (the uploader) is a programmer at 343 Industries, the copyright owner of the Halo series. She has uploaded images that she has directly worked on. Is it safe to assume that these images are free or would it need to be from the company directly for us to assume it's really free and that she hasn't just made a mistake in licensing? James086^Talk 15:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You could always contact her to see what the situation is, but your assessment is completely on the ball, that it is not likely her ability to release media in a different copyright than what 343 (and/or Bungie and/or Microsoft) would allow. That said, this is the case of a big developer. I've had a few indie developers offer their shots that they would clearly own on Flickr, which is fine for use her. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask her but I thought it unlikely. James086^Talk 16:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, these are works for hire from the United States, so she isn't the copyright holder unless her employment contract explicitly says so. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted Images

In the edit history there are many commons delinker edits. e.g. File: xyz has been removed, it has been deleted from commons by abc. Because: copyright violation. Does this type of edit history affect an article quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhajking (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why would you think that an article's history would affect the quality of the article itself? Removal of a deleted image may be detrimental to the article and may perhaps spur on editors to find a suitable replacement but images are not a necessary requirement for most articles. ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As you've been told many times in many places already, such edit history does not affect an article's quality. The article is judged by what it is, not what it has been. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License

Hi. I stumble across this website containing some really good anatomical pictures that we could sure could use at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy. In the upper right corner of the website it says; "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License". I understand that I have to "attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". The owner of the website states "A resource site for teachers and students". My question is: Is it okay to upload pictures from the website to Commons and use them on Wikipedia, if I specify what the source is (and hence attribute to the author)? If so, would "fair use" (have very little understanding of the concept) limit the number of pictures it would be okay to upload at Commons? Thanks, JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-commercial images are not allowed on Commons. All images I've found on the website additionally seem to violate WP:NFCC#1, so they can't be uploaded here either. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you very much for answering my question... and especially so quickly. JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's not give up so easily. While I understand, and respect the decision to restrict to non-commercial use, I have seen examples where someone wants that restrictions, but also would be very interested in allowing their material to be used in Wikipedia, and end up changing the restriction. It is worth an email to the copyright holders, ideally with a few examples of articles that would use the images, and point out that reducing the restriction, either broadly or on selected images, would allow the images in a much more visible place, thus achieving their educational goals. Some people are unaware that the non-commercial restriction prevents usage on Wikipedia, in some cases they know Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, so assume that images would follow the same rules. It may be as simple as asking.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair comment (and something I've had a crack at myself - getting a free image for Bullets and Daffodils), but we still can't upload the file until the commercial reuse has been confirmed. The easiest way is to get whoever holds the copyright to create a WP or Commons account and upload the file themselves. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Reach for the Stars (will.i.am song)

From what I read on the article, this song was essentially commissioned by NASA. JPL plays the song in its entirety on a JPL produced video at this location that's even downloadable. Is this song technically, therefore, in the public domain (I'm speaking in terms of work-for-hire)? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If he wasn't employed by NASA (not merely commissioned), then it's not PD unless the copyright holder (which may or may not be NASA) put it there. (I seem to recall that the JPL, as operated by CalTech, not NASA, adds its own layer of complexity.) Using the song in the entirety on a downloadable video just means that the license that the JPL has to use it extends to that--it does not mean that anyone else has a license to use it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. The NASA/JPL certainly does not extend to this. One would need a clear license statement that said that will.i.am transferred the rights or the like appropriately. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks for the replies. I honestly wasn't sure. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this USAF or personal?

Regarding File:Brian Shul in the cockpit of the SR-71 Blackbird.jpg, technically this image was very much taken during a Blackbird mission. But I've been wondering for a while now exactly what the copyright status of these images really are. (Apparently, according to outside Blackbird-employee reunions, people were annoyed that he took the time to photograph either himself, etc. during missions.) I would think technically this image is in the PD, but the book I retrieved it from, The Untouchables, does say at the beginning that the images are copyright 1988 Brian Shul, and that no image may be duplicated without written permission from the publishers. But if the images are PD, then wouldn't the reproductions in the book be as well? I know it's this way with paintings; not sure about photographs. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a Commons image; the discussion should be had on Wikimedia Commons, not on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Should all these image files be deleted due to copyright violation?

• File:2018 Inspiration Mars diagram of periapsis.jpg

The only source for permission is this (Fig.3) which does not have copyright notice, but it is a link from this which clearly indicates that they reserve all rights. The uploader is not the owner of the image as mentioned in Talk:Inspiration_Mars_Foundation.

• File:Inspiration Mars Artist's Concept.png

The uploader is not the owner of the image, but somehow he sets license to CC V.3. The person admitted in this talk page Talk:Inspiration_Mars_Foundation that he hasn't secure the license from the owner prior to the upload. So, this seems to be a clear violation.

• File:Inspiration Mars trajectory.svg

This file seems to be another version of an image appeared in this (Fig.2) which again is from this link which clearly indicates that they reserve all rights.

• File:Inspiration Mars Foundation working logo.png

This file, the uploader claims to represent the logo of Inspiration Mars Foundation with no reliable sources. The uploader claims to be the owner of the image. If that is true, it appears to be a derived work from File:Inspiration Mars Artist's Concept.png with some additions. Not sure if this is distinctive enough for the uploader to claim as separate copyrighted work. I don't think he can claim that as the "Inspiration MARS" part looks just like what the original rendering has. The half circle symbols is probably his own invention, which in itself should never been included in the Wikipedia due to lacking of reliable sources. Note that even on the official web page, they don't have such logo.

I have never dealt with violation issue before so not sure how to proceed. Z22 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have marked two of the images as having no evidence of permission from the copyright holder. Unless the uploader proves that he has permission for the images, they will both be deleted in one week.

File:Inspiration Mars trajectory.svg is based on someone else's drawing, but the uploader has modified the drawing and it is not identical to the original image. I would say that the copied part is below the threshold of originality and that it is thus in the public domain. It is in fact likely that the entire drawing is in the public domain.

File:Inspiration Mars Foundation working logo.png is a very simple logo. I would say that this is below the threshold of originality and thus in the public domain. See Commons:COM:TOO. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am thinking of taking the logo image off the article anyway because there is no reliable source to indicate that is in fact their logo. Z22 (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

File:AlvyRaySmith_Lo-Res.jpg

File:AlvyRaySmith_Lo-Res.jpg is a low-resolution 300x300 pixels version of an very high resolution portrait of me by Kathleen King, of Seattle, website www.kathleenkingphotography.com. She has given me rights to use this image anytime anywhere. What else do I have to do? I've tried to incorporate the information just given on the stated image file page, but it keeps getting rejected. It's my image, by Kathleen King, and I have full permissions from her for it. What else can I do? I've put it under Creative Commons 3.0 with attribution.

I find the instructions for this VERY difficult to follow, and I'm an imaging whiz supposedly! With great respect for permissions. I like that you are looking out for image rights, but surely there must be an easier way to follow the rules.

Please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to communicate the permission to Wikipedia for review.--ukexpat (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Colin Pearson bowl.JPG

The copyright on this file File:Colin Pearson bowl.JPG has been queried as an image within an image. It is an image of a bowl, produced in quantity by a manufacturer, not an image of a work of art. What is the copyright status of such objects? Pelarmian (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC) To clarify: I would guess that no-one may freely make an object to the same design, but does the maker own the right to reproducing photographic images of the object for the purposes of illustrating his work? Pelarmian (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Compare the Gaylord case, where a sculptor successfully claimed that a picture of his work on a postage stamp, for which the photographer was paid, breached his copyright. The photo of the Pearson bowl is arguably different in two respects: (1) It is a kitchen utensil, not work of art. (2) There is no consideration and the maker (or, more precisely, since the maker is dead, the estate of the maker) has suffered no loss. Pelarmian (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Government works of British colonies

Do the provisions of {{PD-BritishGov}} apply to the works of colonial governments in the British Empire? A long rabbit trail led me to File:QEII Stamp.jpg, which was deleted at PUI because of unclear copyright status. The Scott catalogue tells me that this stamp was issued (i.e. published) on 2 January 1956, so it would definitely be PD-BritishGov if it were a stamp of the United Kingdom instead of being issued for the government of colonial Sierra Leone. Or do we have to apply the copyright laws of Sierra Leone? The image itself is an unoriginal copy of the original stamp; there's no realistic chance for the uploader holding copyright, and the image was uploaded as PD-self anyway. Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an external link to that stamp? Colonial stamps that are over 50 years old should use the crown copyright template {{PD-BritishGov}} just like these commons images and other colonies in the parent category. ww2censor (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Opinion, please

Can any of the following be re-classified as {{PD-text}}?

1. File:Scarborough RT logo.svg
2. File:Brescia Mobilita logo.png
3. File:VIA Metropolitan Transit logo.png
4. File:Winston-Salem Transit Authority logo.png

Useddenim (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well the top part of the second one is original enough to qualify for protection. No comment about the others, but I believe stylised lettering is one thing to be more heavily protected in the UK than the US. Where are these from? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Toronto, Canada Brescia, Italy San Antonio, Texas Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Useddenim (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say the only one that might qualify as PD-text would be the first one. It appears the 4th one has already been deleted. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Photographing a book jacket?

I would like to illustrate an article on a series of books with illustrations of two or possibly three of the typical dust jacket styles used to aid identification of the books. Is this going to infringe the copyright of the original designer/publisher of the dust jacket or, because it is my photograph, will I hold the copyright of that particular image? The original books were published from 1960-1983 and the designer of the jackets died in 1998. I have not written the article yet. Apologies if the answer is covered elsewhere, I could not see it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Millar (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues to consider.

If the books in question are yours, you will want to see wp:COI

If the photograph in question is yours, you were the original holder of the copyright. However, if the photo was used for a book jacket, it is likely that the publisher contractually obtained the rights to the photo, in which case we need a permission statement to accept a free license.

However, it is common, in the case of logos, book jackets, album and cd covers to upload the image, not with a free license, but with a non-free rationale. see Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guidelineThat is likely to be the best option, subject to one question: you mention that this is to illustrate the jacket style. If the photo of yours is just one part of the overall jacket, and there is a creative element to the design, then there is a complication, We have to determine whether it is a joint or composite work. If joint, you have the right to license, if composite, both have to agree. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/October#who owns the copyright in a comic where there is a text author and a graphic artist?. However, non-free use will still apply.

You can send it in to photosubmission –at- Wikimedia.org, where it is likely I will upload it for you and fill out the fair use rationale, but this can only be done when the article exists.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If, on the other hand, you were not the creator of any of the content of the book jackets, then your photograph is a derivative work and must be used in a way which respects the copyright owner(s) rights (you have almost none of your own in this case, the reproduction of a two-dimensional piece of art). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is helpful. I realise, though, that I was possibly a little unclear in my original question. I would like to take photographs of a small number of existing book jackets to illustrate an proposed article on the Phoenix Living Poets series. Several of the poets published are significant and have their own pages elsewhere on Wikipedia. I had no involvement at all in the production of the book jackets but it would make the article easier to follow if I could illustrate the two, possibly three, main types of jacket used. I suspect from your helpful responses that I need to develop a non-free rationale once I have at least started the article. Does that sound correct? Thank you again for being so helpful. Steve Millar (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Guide page on legal status of television screen captures

Hello. I'm searching for a policy on the copyright status of screen captures from television programs. Specifically, I'd like an official policy stating, if it's true, that screen captures from a television program are derivative works of that program and as such they have the same legal status as the whole program and that such images usually can't be uploaded to commons.

I have looked at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, Wikipedia:Copyrights and Commons:Derivative works but found no clear statement. Wikipedia:Non-free content talks about fair use policy of such screenshots but also doesn't give a clear statement on the copyright status.

I'm asking this because an editor has asked about this on the w:hu Village Pump, and I can't find a policy page to link to. Whether the page is on commons or here doesn't matter.

Thanks in advance. – b_jonas 11:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would have thought that it was inherent to the concept of a derivative work, and that it did not need to be stated explicitly — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Yea, derivative works is a concept in law, not Wiki policy. Commons does have a page about it, Commons:Derivative works, which is both about the nature of the law and how it applies to commons. Do note that depending on the Wiki, the language-specific wiki may allow non-free uploads of such that confirm with their equivalent of the Exemption Doctrine Policy as required by the Foundation for each project (see meta:Resolution:Licensing policy); en.wiki has its WP:NFC policy, but I don't know the equivalent elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

File:'The Morning of Sedgemoor' by Edgar Bundy, Tate Britain.JPG

This image has been given a CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication by the editor who claims ownership. However its a photograph of an oil painting made in England in 1905, stated to be by Edgar Bundy. There is no information whether its an image of the whole of or just part of the painting. Now according to wikipedia, Bundy died in 1922 which is less than one hundred years ago. So should this image have a {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template and does this image has the correct copyright information? The image File:Day of Sedgemoor, The-Edgar Bundy.jpg, for instance, by the same painter claims to be in the public domain in Europe (life of author plus 70 years but it has no information in respect of the USA; whereas File:Stradshp.jpg, also by Bundy, is stated to be in the Public Domain in the USA since it was created prior to 1923. Pyrotec (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The page about the painting at the Tate gives the year as 1905 so that would be over 100 years, and shows the whole painting.— Rod ^talk 12:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Rodw but the painter lived until 1922 and in Europe his heirs could have retained UK copyright on the Painting until 1992. Arguably it is out of copyright, but I question as to whether it has the right tags on the image. Pyrotec (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:PD-art-life-70 looks to be a suitable template, CC0 seems inappropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright image - Permission requested but no answer

file:John K Castle.jpg is a copyright image owned by John K. Castle and his firm Castle Harlan that John K. Castle has authorized for publication on his wiki page. Permission for mounting this file was requested weeks ago with no answer from Wikipedia. Attempts to mount this image today were rebuffed. What does one do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlh070945 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be released under a free license see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F Werieth (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There are currently several hundred e-mails in the permissions queue. Please be patient, there is no deadline.--ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I will also say that the article is way too promotional in tone - it reads like the guy's CV, not acceptable.--ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Almyra M73.jpg

I recently uploaded File:Almyra M73.jpg, which was given to me by someone at the Arkansas Department of Aeronautics. I have photos for the rest of Arkansas's public use airports but wanted to ensure the proper license before batch uploading. They were taken by the Civil Air Patrol, which is a division of the United States Air Force so I believe Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force applies. Could someone with more experience in the area confirm or deny this? Thanks Brandonrush (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Painter from Canada who died in 1958 (and a piece ordered by the government)

Hello. I'd like to know: (1) What is the copyright status of the works of a Canadian painter who died in 1958?
(2) In 1958, before his death, the painter (a resident of Toronto) made a portrait ordered and owned by the province of Ontario (i.e., the government); what is ths copyright status of this work? Thank you, Aviados (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A work by a Canadian painter who died in 1958 left copyright in Canada in 2008. Assuming it was published in his lifetime in Canada and not the US, it will be in copyright in the US for 95 years from when it was published. I'm not sure about the other work; it depends on who held the copyright, I believe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What if it was indeed published in his lifetime outside of Canada? And how come 95 years from being published? Aviados (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Where was it published? You haven't given us nearly enough information. 95 years from publication is the standard copyright duration in the US for works published prior to 1978, with certain limitations to works that were published in the US or were published outside the US and were public domain in their source country in 1996. See [1].--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Aviados (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

About File:Babar1.jpg

Hi,

I'm surprised to see the fair use tag on this one : shouldn't it be PD-old, since the artiste died in 1937, more than 70 years ago ?

Regards, Esprit Fugace (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Wikimedia Foundation is US-based, and US copyright law for works published between 1923 and 1977 gives 95 years from publication in the most general case. In this case, Historie of Babar was filed for US copyright (registration AF15370) and properly renewed (registration R229659), meaning it will get the full 95 years and be in copyright until 2027-01-01.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Japanese logos

Apparently, logos can be public domain if they only consist of text. However, is this the case according to Japanese law? I'm asking these because of these two logos: this and this, which would appear to be ineligible for copyright in the US. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems in fact to be the case, cf. File:Sony logo.svg. Regardless of the Japanese jurisdiction I'm not sure whether the Kyoto Animation logo is too simple to be copyrighted. The flower emblem may be too complex. But at least for purposes of the English WP with its servers in the United States, the other logo is definitely not in need of a fair use rationale, so I'm going to tranfer it to Commons. De728631 (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: File:P.A. Works logo (square).svg is already available at Commons. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That's weird. I searched it earlier on Commons, and it didn't show up. Weird. Maybe KyoAni's logo needs more discussion? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Depends on the logo. Simple logos are in the public domain while complex logos are not. A Japanese court found that File:Asahi logo.svg is too simple to be protected by copyright. In another case, a logo for Sumitomo Kenki was found to be too simple to be copyrighted, although I'm not sure if the court ruling was about the current logo or an earlier one. Not sure about Kyōto Animation. The closest court ruling might be the one about the Cup Noodle packaging where the two middle cups on the bottom row in File:Cup Noodles.jpg were found to be too simple to be copyrighted. See Commons:COM:TOO#Japan for details. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Usability of material containing both copyright notice and "Creative Commons Attribution License"

This questions concerns the usability of text and (more importantly) images from [2], which contains this notice:

Copyright: © 2012 Van Horn et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Also, at the bottom of [3] we find

All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Maybe I'm having a senior moment, but isn't there a conflict between the statement of copyright and the Creative Commons permission. As I write that I have the feeling there's not, but now that I've begun I might as well get an answer from the experts.

So, can I import images from this article to WP and/or Commons? If so, which of the zillions of licensing tags should I use? (If someone wants to be really kindhearted, he or she might go through the motions on this image [4] to give me an example to work from.)

Thanks. EEng (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there's no contradiction. Unlike a public domain declaration – where the author (at least can be said to) gives up the copyright – with a CC-BY licence the copyright holder retains the copyright but grants the user a licence to use it under wide terms. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Emboldened, I went ahead and uploaded it, aided by the estimable Upload Wizard. When I was all done -- every i dotted and t crossed -- I found out that someone had already uploaded it, except with better descriptive info etc. [5] Are you empowered to delete the redundant copy I uploaded i.e. [6]? Thanks, and sorry for the bother.

EEng (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Here's what confused me: When searching to see if the image was already available, I somehow arrived at this thing, a "page" on Commons, which doesn't show it; thought later I discovered that this thing, a "category" on commons does show it. I am admittedly Commons-naïve (though fairly Pedia-savvy) yet this page-category distinction seems to me oversubtle. Any words of wisdom?

As to the duplicate, it's not something I can do but another visitor to this page might. Else check the criteria for speedy deletion, since you might have some luck there. The page/category thing can sometimes be useful, although it can also be confusing as you;ve decribed. Media can be properly organised on a page, whereas categories can be much broader, nested (with subcategories and things). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Afaik, pages at Commons work like representative galleries for assorted content from a larger category. De728631 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The commons category page commons:Category:Phineas Gage shows all the images that are tagged with the category while the one you found must have images added by manually. I will tag the duplicate as such. ww2censor (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I guess my point is that it's a trap for the unwary to have "pages" and "categories" with indistinguishable names, so that I (for example) -- not realizing there's even a difference -- thought I was seeing everything "Gage" when in fact I was only seeing someone's selected subset. EEng (talk)

Neurobiology image

I need a bit of input from some knowledgable copyright folks on this one... One of the WEP students on Marquette Uni's Neurobiology course has located a couple of brain scans which she wishes to use in an article about Aicardi–Goutières syndrome (currently a sandbox draft). The scans are located online here, at Science Direct, and appear to be copyrighted by Elsevier, so at first glance, we can't use them here.
However, it seems to me that a case could be made for fair use of these images. There's unlikely to be a free equivalent - this is a very rare brain disorder, and unless some of our editors have access to an Aicardi–Goutières patient and an MRI scanner (in which case, message me!) I can't see a free version being made available. It/they would only be used in a single article (the scans are pretty much irrelevent elesewhere), and would enhance a reader's understanding of the subject. I won't go through the rest of the FU requirements here, but suffice to say I think the images would meet them. That said, image copyright isn't my specialist subject; I'd appreciate some advice from those of you for whom it is. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that a diagram may be able to replace this sort of image. So therefore not satisfying our criteria. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

That idea hadn't actually occurred to me, thanks Graeme. I've advised the student accordingly; hopefully they'll be willing to create such a diagram and upload it. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 11:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To avoid the new diagram being a derivative work, ensure the student doesn't use an automated process to create the diagram (this is a good rule of thumb, anyway: when you do it yourself, you think a lot more critically and originally about what is shown, how it is shown, and so on). This would almost certainly mean a better diagram if done properly as well. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Miss Independent music video.png

File:Miss Independent music video.png – The image is a low resolution screenshot of the accompanying music video of "Miss Independent", and I've added a little bit more explanation in the purpose text the reason for including it there. It is a also not a random scene, identification and critical commentary on the music video section of the article. So should it be deleted? Chihciboy (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Kantragada

Kantragada — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilrajkaddala (talk • contribs) 16:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a media copyright question to do with the article Kantragada? ww2censor (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Conflict on source page on license - what takes priority?

A user uploaded File:Harlem Shake meme B-Town ASU.jpg under a PD license, which are screengrabs from a YouTube video. The video is clearly self-created (but not likely by the editor that uploaded the image) so its not a question of original copyright On the video's page, the uploaded states in the description that the video is in the public domain, but the licensing is the default YT license, which presumes copyright to the video's owner. Clearly there's a conflict between these two. Short of contacting the video owner to get them to correct the conflict, what should be done in a case like this? If the video owner suggests PD that would seem to override the more restrictive YT license, and thus making the screengrabs free, but there's the possibility that the more restrictive YT license overrides that (since it's formalized out). --MASEM (t) 17:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I know the video uploader and can ask him to modify the YouTube license to reflect the public domain status of the video. The only conflict I can think of (I'm not super familiar with YouTube) is if YouTube won't allow the free license due to the use of a copyrighted song. Nevertheless, the actual video content—if not, maybe, the full video with audio as it would appear on YouTube—was released into the public domain by the copyright holder. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point about the music. We know what the intent seemed to be. Maybe at worst we do something like WP:CONSENT to say that your two screengrabs can be licensed PD, removing the music issue and the YT license from the equation. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That works for me (and the copyright holder)—where should we submit a PD consent message? I'm not really familiar with the process. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just ask him (not you) to send an email to the ORTS with the message described , all as listed out in WP:CONSENT. (it's a template message, just need to entire the right things. I know it doesn't include a Public Domain license, but I would believe that if he starts that the video-only portions of his video are public domain, that should be sufficient.) ORTS will eventually (it takes time) review and tag the image, but given good faith, I don't see anything else that we need to do with the image after that so it should be fine as it as a free image. --MASEM (t) 18:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK great, thanks. To check the exact wording of releasing into the public domain (since that is a little irregular as you said), the text of the email should include:

I, xxxxxxxx, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the "ASU B-Town Harlem Shake (OFFICIAL)" video found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWt0wHBXob4

I agree to license the video into the public domain.

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 any other applicable laws.

I am aware that releasing the video into the public domain is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

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

... Correct? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd make the "I agree to " line be to license the two screenshots in your image taken from his video to be int he PD (and include the link to that image). That way, there's no attempt to infringe on the song rights or difficulties otherwise; he as the video publisher absolutely controls the images and putting them to PD is his right. But otherwise that's good. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks, I really appreciate your assistance in this matter. The email should be sent later today. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete Copyright Information for File:Valérie_Bemeriki.jpg

Hi! I recieved a note on the incomplete information I provided for File:Valérie_Bemeriki.jpg. I've responded, does this answer the mentioned criteria (1 and 10b)? I'll make the mentioned adjustments. Thanks for the patience, this is the first time I've uploaded an image. PZAJ (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Israeli Air Force logos

I posted a question at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright that pertains to some files currently listed here at en:WP as non-free logos. Input there is welcome. – JBarta (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Can someone reduce this?

I have no idea how to reduce File:Elio Motors Production Shot.jpg, is someone able to do that? Ryan Vesey 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

reduced to 0.1MP Werieth (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I reduced it to a quarter the size, Werieth reduced it further--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was really fast. Thank you both. Ryan Vesey 17:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, Plus I deleted the other two versions.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• NFC recommends 0.1 megapixel which is what I used. Werieth (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Is there an easy way to do this in the future or do you have special programs? Ryan Vesey 17:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ryan, I use Photoshop for image editing, but it is overkill just for size reduction. All graphics apps have this ability and I think most recent flavours of Windows (well XP anyway) can reduce image size within Windows Explorer by right-clicking the file name and selecting that option.--ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Furthermore, can someone check and/or reduce my other files? File:Mancur Olson.jpg, File:European Journal of Cancer Care.gif, File:Larry Buhler.jpg, File:Abu-Zaid al Kuwaiti.jpg, and File:Cambria logo.png Ryan Vesey 17:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't calculate the exact resolution, but all of those files look good. Werieth (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have reduced File:Larry Buhler.jpg and File:Abu-Zaid al Kuwaiti.jpg, but the others are ok and don't need any treatment. De728631 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reduction is really simple by using our servers themselves. Decide the size that you want and preview a page with the image at that resolution (i.e. if you want 250px, preview the page with [[File:Elio Motors Production Shot.jpg|250px]]), download and save the image (if in IE, rightclick and select "Save Target As..."), and then upload that one on top of the existing image. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

US copyright renewal for 2D works of art

How did the copyright renewal process work for paintings — was it the same as for printed works? The Detroit Industry Murals were painted in the early 1930s, so they're definitely from the renewal-required time period, and their painter was a foreigner, so it's probably a little more possible that he would have forgotten to renew them. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

How much copyright research "good enough"?

I have purchased an original glossy International News Photo dated 1944 that does not carry a copyright notice. According to the [Library of Congress ] information very few of these were copyrighted during that period. Unlike a book or other bound work this photographic image does not have a title. Even the US Copyright Office [Circular 22 ] states that searches are not always conclusive. My question is how much research must I do to "prove" it is in the public domain? If it was never copyrighted it is very difficult to prove the negative. Any editor could disupte the rationale for PD with a claim that the research wasn't sufficient.Blue Riband►

Basically, what you have described is good faith effort towards asserting the freeness of the photo under known copyright laws. I would recommend that when you upload it that in addition to the normal elements, you simply include your rational you give above, which all seem on the up and up. An editor may dispute the image and may require more leg work but you have provided enough rational here to make a fair initial claim to allow it uploaded as PD. --MASEM (t) 14:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response. I'll incorporate the above information as the PD justification.Blue Riband► 01:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Public Available Images

Hello, These two images are available publicly for usage;

• File:Deepika Samson on the sets of Sasural Simar Ka on 1st Aug 2011.jpg ‎
• File:Mukul Harish.jpg

Why is there a deletion tag on them ? please notify me why and how to avoid that happening. Thank you. Best Regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrox2 (talk • contribs)

The deletion tags are there because there is no proof that the images are in the public domain. I believe that for each image you wrote "the image is publicly available for sharing and usage from the source and can be found everywhere on the net", however, being available for public to see online in no way indicates that they have been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. The source website don't verify your claim, so you must verify that this is so, otherwise they will be deleted. In fact the Times of India webpage has a copyright notice at the bottom of the page with an "All rights reserved" statement that you appears to have missed or ignored. Unfortunately most images found on the internet are copyright to someone and cannot be used here. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Painting of Frederick Ruple

I bought this painting at an Estate sale and Frederick Ruple the artist lived from 1871 to 1938. I want to show a different painting he did. He normaly painted portraits and battle scens from the civil war. I bought a postcard and the copy right on the back says: CURTEICHCOLOR 3-D NATURAL COLOR REPRODUCTIONS(REG. U.S. PAT. OFF) The painting is named "Battle of Paris" if you go google images of Frederick Ruple you will see the 3 postcard images I would like to put in the article. Am I allowed to put a copy of the painting that I have in the article? Shall I copyright the painting first so I own the copyright? Am I allowed to put an image of the 3 postcards in the article about Frederick Ruple?

--Creative Hansen (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lithograph I own

I own a lithograph of a pretty famous painter. There were 200 in the series. It was produced in the late '60s or early '70s. She's now deceased. If I take a picture of the lithograph I own, can I post that as Creative Commons/PD? Or is the image itself owned by her estate? If it's owned by the estate, and all works by the artist are still copyrighted, can I post it anyway as fair use in her article which has no images? 108.54.26.164 (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately ownership of a litho does not confer you with any rights of reproduction unless they were specifically sold to you by the copyright holder. Any photo you take of the lithograph will be a derivative work which requires the artist's, or their heirs, release under a free licence. The litho is normally still in copyright for at least 70 years after her death though it could be as long as 95 years. However, the date of publication is important because it depends on whether the litho was published pre-1963 without renewal of copyright, pre-1978 without any copyright notice or between 1978 and 1978 with neither copyright notice nor registration within 5 years. This Commons page may be of help to you in determining that if you know publication date. Generally a fair use image of the person may be acceptable in their own article as identification in the infobox but for an artist examples of their work may be used so long as the image is used to illustrate critical commentary about their work which requires some reliable source and must comply with all 10 points of our fair-use policy which is stricter than the US legal understanding. ww2censor (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot to comply with! Maybe I'll just help the text along. I was thinking it didn't make sense I would be able to release the copyright because then I guess anyone could just take a photograph of anything and then say they own the image. Thank you. 108.54.26.164 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Some copyright issues can be difficult to understand or determine especially if you don't have all the details. Your litho might be in the public domain but you need more research to decide that. Working on prose will be good too and we always need new constructive editors, so good luck. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page if you want more copyright details to ponder on. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Government copyright on maps

Hello all. We've got a discussion going on the Canadian noticeboard about the recent release of a lot of useful cartographic material released under this license. There is some disagreement whether this meets our GFDL/CC requirements. Any expert advice would be appreciated - these maps would be very beneficial to Canadian geography articles. The Interior (Talk) 23:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Facebook link

Can I give link to Facebook page created by me, it is social, not personalVijayaivalli (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If your page is neutral, contains information about a subject with a Wikipedia article, and doesn't make use of images, texts, etc. that have been published elsewhere, then you could add a link to the "External links" section of the article. Please see also Wikipedia:External links for more information. De728631 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

If the OP is asking about adding Facebook links to articles, WP:ELNO would suggest otherwise...--ukexpat (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Facebook is discouraged "except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". So it would depend on the subject and FB page. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Film copyright question

Hi, I have a series of a few videos on Youtube. I am a professional photographer and filmmaker. I have shot, produced, edited and published these videos myself with the music and all. I've put in several hours of work on these films. These videos feature the art of an ebru artist. We made a bunch of these one night but recently had a falling out. He re-uploaded these same videos from my channel onto his channel. You can clearly see my name on the copyright and at the end in the credits. Who has the rights to these films? I mean these are MY images and the movies are the fruit of MY labors with the editing and the music and all. What is the situation in a case like this? Here's a link to one of the videos in question, all videos are similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36EYBCTK1_8

Jpbrunel (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC) JP

We are not a law firm and cannot give personal legal advice. this forum is for internal discussion of content on Wikipedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You should probably consult an attorney who specialises in intellectual property. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

External link copyright issue

Per a discussion at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#EL I have a question regarding a link that was removed after nearly three years on the Planet of the Apes (novel) article. We only want to link to the site, not reuse the images on Wikipedia. This is how the EL appeared:

La Planète des singes at The Sacred Scrolls - History of the novel's international editions with book cover images.

We want to narrow the question here to whether or not WP:ELNEVER prohibits linking to this site in regards to the images. As pointed out on the Talk page, it's worth bearing in mind that image use on another site doesn't have to meet our FUR criteria (which is set above the legal criteria), just the legally understood definition. In this case, FU usually applies if the images being used are of sufficiently low resolution, do not hurt the copyright owners commercial prospects nor are used to generate an income. If you can clear using The Sacred Scrolls site as an EL concerning copyright issues, we'll take it from there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this as a massive copyright violation on the Wikia end, in the sense that it might be over fair use, but it's not wholesale reproductions or the like. Removing the like on the issue that the page enables copyright infringement is not appropriate. (There may be other reasons that WP:ELNO outlines, but I'd clear it of copyright issues). --MASEM (t) 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Television screenshots

I would like to upload some television screenshots but am having trouble figuring out how to do so. I think these would be helpful in illustrating certain articles: [7], [8], [9], [10] [11]. Can comply with the copyright criteria? --1ST7 (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Screenshots are subject to the same copyright status of the work they are from. So they are only public domain if the film, tv series etc they are taken from is also in the public domain or has been released under some sort of free licence. As a recent TV show it is unlikely that NCIS has been released under a free licence and is definitely not in the public domain due to age, so the screenshots are not released either. Screenshots ineligible for a free licence can be uploaded if, and only if, they comply with all the criteria of the the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The one you would really need to address would be #8 and that presence of an image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. NtheP (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

To add to "NtheP's" comments about copyright images, any such non-free image MUST comply with all 10 non-free content criteria not just #8. ww2censor (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I think the images can comply with the criteria. Most of the articles I am hoping to add an image to currently do not have one, and I think they would increase readers' understanding of the subject. --1ST7 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

copyright

Is the name "Voyeur" for a band name copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.208.36 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S., neither a band's name nor a short phrase as such would be under copyright. However, they might be trademarked or protected as service marks and it is probably far too much work for anyone with Wikipedia to research whether a particular trademark or service mark exists. And it is common for bands not to trademark their names and yet their names are protected under the law against unfair competition. Your best options are probably to research (through search engines, music literature and websites, catalogues, and so on) the possibility of existence and, if you're more concerned, to ask a lawyer (or do your own legal research) for how to protect the name. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC) (Corrected my misspelling: 18:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC))

Movie Poster submission for the film CORKY 1972

What do I have to do to upload this image file to Wikipedia? I followed the steps however I was told not to upload it if I had no real Copyright claim to it. I can't see why MGM would object to it since they allow most all main stream film's images to be uploaded. I have the image on file in my pictures but this is where it came from: [12] Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by KentuckyBootleg (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded the image as File:Corky 1972 movie poster.jpg and added the appropriate non-free rationale and licence for such a poster and put it in the infobox of Corky (film). The poster is likely still in copyright but without proof the copyright has expired we have to assume it is still copyright, so requires the format I added which you, as an inexperienced editor, will not be familiar with. There is some text at the bottom of the poster which may be a copyright notice but it is unreadable. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

New User

If anyone has words of advice or encouragement to this good faith new user,User talk:Prairie dog yeah#Photo who appears to have a bit of a copyvio issue on an image they have some kind of permission to use. Please help and comment on their user page. Thanks.Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You may find it useful to point him to my image copyright information page that I wrote in an attempt to cover most copyright issues many inexperienced editors may have or come across, with lots of explanations. ww2censor (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)