Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/November

Are the brands of the world logos NFC???

http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/ This has many SVG logos here, and I was wondering if this site only has public domain stuff featured?--SexyKick 16:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope: the website says, "the artwork you download will be used for non-commercial use without infringing on the rights of the copyright and/or trademark holder...". Jsayre64 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

So for non-commercial use would be for use here? I notice the German wikipedia uses images from the site.--SexyKick 00:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a specific logo in mind? Most logos are copyright unless they have specifically been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, are so simple that they are not copyrightable, or the copyright has expired. We do not accept non-commercial use images and the website brandsoftheworld.com appear to be designers and sellers of logos whose products are copyright. However, logos can generally be uploaded here under a fair-use claim to identify an organisation for use in its infobox in an article about that organisation to comply with WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

What they said and, just to expand on a point that might not be clear, images that are licensed in a way that includes non-commercial use only aren't considered "free" for Wikipedia's purposes and can only be used if they meet the non-free content criteria. While Wikipedia itself is non-commercial, the goal is to have all content under a license that would be free for any use, even commercial. Shell ^babelfish 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very very much, I appreciate the information! This is what I suspected was the case, but was only about 65% sure. Which is why I brought it here. Thank you again.--SexyKick 08:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:GraceSherwoodCloseB.jpg

Is this image really irreplaceable, and if yes why? Sole Soul (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but since there are actually two shots in the article that display the statue (the other being File:GraceSherwoodBench.jpg) perhaps cropping the second image to focus on the bench would be a good idea. Any image with the statue will be non-free because copyright still exists on the statue; it was taken by a Wikipedia contributor who would have happily released it under a free license otherwise. There are no known pictures of the subject, so the statue is the only remaining record of her appearance and is well known itself. Shell ^babelfish 04:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

However, the statue was erected in 2006 and modern US statues do not have a freedom of panorama exception per commons:COM:FOP#United States, so any images of the statue are derivative works and need a fair-use rationale for the statue though the photographer needs to licence the image itself. The use of two images of the same non-free statue will fail WP:NFCC#3a. ww2censor (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep that's a better explanation of what I was trying to say about the two; that's why I suggested cropping to show the bench in the second if it was to be kept. (Unless the bench is part of the statue installation, which puts us right back to the same problem.) Shell ^babelfish 05:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Attribute a user name?

I read in a newspaper that they do, if using Wikipedia (Wikimedia) images, not attribute the creator, unless their real name has been revealed, which is usually not done on Wikipedia/Wikimedia. They wrote they won't attribute user code names. What is the policy? --BIL (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Attribution is whatever the copyright owner specified, which could be something different again. However a link to the Wikimedia page could be sufficient. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, do note that the re-use of open-licensed images hosted on wikimedia servers is really not within the scope of wikimedia policies. An image released by its creator under an open license must be treated the same way - according to the specific license - regardless of where the image is hosted. Interpretation and enforcement of licensing terms is the sole responsibility of the copyright owner. -Seidenstud (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Images contributed by a manufacturer of an drilling rig used in an article

A sales rep from a company that makes one of the drilling rigs discussed in the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article emailed several images of the machine for use in the article and a possible daughter article on the manufacturer or its drill rig. I looked over the email process for confirming image licenses but it seemed like a lot to ask her.

What is the simplest procedure to ask her to perform to release these images under the appropriate license for use in Wikipedia? I had suggested she upload them to Flickr but she chose to use "YouSendIt", I presume because Flickr may have been too daunting. I'm relatively new at dealing with WP:IUP and appreciate your advice. Regards, Veriss (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• The permission process is important because the copyright owner needs to understand what they are doing in releasing their images under an open license. Releasing the images - as people might think they are doing - solely for use in Wikipedia articles is not acceptable. If going through the Commons OTRS system (this would be the ideal method; read about it here) is going to be too difficult, the idea of having her upload to Flickr is a good idea that really should not be very complicated. She would have to make sure that when uploading to Flickr, she chooses the Creative Commons Attribution license - not "All rights reserved" and none of the CC licenses that prohibit derivative works or commercial re-use. Then, once she uploads them, you can upload those versions to Commons following the Flickr-specific instructions found here. -Seidenstud (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone read turkish

Hey all,

I'm wanting to use some images found on this webpage. I think it says on the page that the images are free for use, but I can't read Turkish and I was hoping some kind editor out there might help me assess the copyright status of these images.

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I don't speak turkish either, but I spent some time to assess this page with online tools. As far as I can tell, these images are still copyrighted images. The linked page offers "free downloads" of these images, but it does not refer to their copyright status. While the copyright status in specific examples may be complex, in general contemporary images are not useable on wikipedia without a copyright license under wikipedia's terms. such a license appears to be lacking in this case.Ajbpearce (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn. Well I'll keep searching. NickCT (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Images help requested

I want to ask an photographer for permission to use some of his photos for use on wikipedia in the Whitby Gothic Weekend, Goth subculture and Gothic fashion articles. I was reading the guidelines and am somewhat confused on what the requirements are, can someone explain exactly what I need to know? What license options does he have to release the material, and in what cases would they be allowed on wikipedia. Thanks. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the subject matter, I doubt fair-use would apply - in which case, really the proper way would be to do it through Commons via its OTRS system. Everything you need to know, including exactly how to contact the photographers can be found here: [1]. -Seidenstud (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Is File:Graffiti2-alphabet.png copyrightable?

Is File:Graffiti2-alphabet.png copyrightable? It seems to me that it's pd-text since it's basically alternate forms of the alphabet, but I'm not sure. (See Graffiti (Palm OS) and Graffiti 2 for background.) Ariel. (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

First, I have added some sources for this image but really doubt {{PD-text}} is valid. The image was designed by Palm and is not simple text as required for this template. It is more like a {{Non-free software screenshot}} than anything else but even that does not seem quite appropriate. I must fire up my old Palm to see if this exists on the organiser itself. Anyone else? ww2censor (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For a Non-extinct but extremely Rare Monkey can a fair use images be used?

The newly discovered Rhinopithecus strykeri had its discovery announced last week my Question is as it is a Extremely rare creature with 230 estimated in the wild can a non-free image be used in our article [2] The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the issue of the rarity of a species, and the ability to claim "fair use" are unrelated. Also, since you refer to using this on a a non-wikipedia site (www.sciencedaily.com) it's difficult to advise you with any authority. For use on wikipedia, the hive-mind here can speak with a little more authority. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to ask the photographer, Dr. Thomas Geissmann, if he would be willing to release the photo under a free license. If he is (and I think there's a pretty good chance he might be, since he is an academic researcher and is probably not taking these photographs for commercial profit), then we can use the image in any way we want. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more details about how to do this. —Bkell (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

His email appears to be thomas.geissmannaim.uzh.ch, by the way. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thats a good Idea. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Denied it techincally is out of his power as its was published else where and thus lost the rights The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

/* Does this logo qualify for {{PD-textlogo}}? */

[3] thanks guys--SexyKick 16:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely because it is not just plain text and shapes but has colour variations in the text and that demands some creative artistic input. It's not at all like File:Microsoft Logo.png. ww2censor (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

May I please have a second opinion?--SexyKick 08:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ww2censor, there is an element of creativity in producing gradient coloring that makes it ineligible. Shell ^babelfish 08:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you guys say so.--SexyKick 09:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Though you could always ask the people at Graphics Lab to make a vector version of the logo. All you would need to do is to find maybe a bit higher resolution image of the logo from where the Mega Drive text's shape can be traced. Like this one here. I presume from above comments that the shape itself is ineligible for copyright. --hydrox (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. If you trace it in any way, you have made a derivative image that is still copyright to the original copyright holder, although you are probably correct that the creator of the vector file could not claim sufficient creative input to merit copyright. So all you have is an inaccurate version of the logo that is still copyright. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue

(copied from Humanities ref desk by Jack forbes) Is an author's English translation of a charter, originally written in Latin in 1121 by King Henry I of England, and from the Public Record Office in London, protected by copyright? Is it possible to include author's translation in a Wikipedia article citing the author?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Translation has its own copyright, but crown copyright will apply, so it will expire sooner. See if you can find out when the translation was first made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a translation can be copyright of the translator, as well as (potentially, though not in this case) copyright of the original author. If Prof Foo has made a new translation of X for his book, then he can hold the copyright. The test would be the level of creative input - most translations require a creative input to render them in idiomatic English (or whatever language), as anyone who uses a machine translation will surely testify.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

NB, my interpretation of the question was that the charter was in the National Archives, not the translation. Yes, Crown Copyright can be applicable if Prof Foo made the translation for the Public Record Office. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Crown copyright will have expired, but the (private) copyright in the translation may still be in force. I doubt very much that the translation would be Crown copyright but, even in that case, it would be a separate copyright that could still be in force. Physchim62 (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this subject but this is the authors translation. I'm sure when Jeanne returns she can answer all your questions better than I can. Jack forbes (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Another important question is: how much of the translation does Jeanne wish to use? If it's just one or two sentences, with a citation to the source, it would be acceptable under the "short quotation" rule. Physchim62 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's probably safer to just quote a couple of sentences, citing the author, rather than the entire translated charter. Thank you for your replies. They are most helpful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Add copyright

File:Robotomy cast.png. Could someone please add a "Promotional material" copyright to this image? Thanks. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by UBracter (talk • contribs)

• I don't really see the point. The show only just started, and might just be a blip in history. The characters certainly aren't notable, at least yet. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture From a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Malaysia.

Can someone helped me? I found these pictures from this website/blog:http://www.teratakarmo.com/2010/10/dato-siti-nurhaliza-rumah-terbuka.html who used the right Creative Commons license (look at the bottom) and I found out some of the pictures are very interesting, but I'm kinda confused since though the website/blog is licensed with the CC Attribution 2.5, does the same thing applies to the pictures? Because if it does, I want to upload those pictures and used it here, if can't maybe I have to find somewhere else.... =_=" Thanks in advance. : ) SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 13:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the license applies to the pictures if the person (or company) who operate the blog and licensed the blog also created the pictures or is allowed to license them. From what I see at http://www.teratakarmo.com/ and the link you gave the blogger is using pictures quite well, he is not removing external watermarks and/or is attributing the sources. Some examples: this image is not cc-by, this image also not as well as all images here. The images at your link http://www.teratakarmo.com/2010/10/dato-siti-nurhaliza-rumah-terbuka.html appear to be indeed created by the blogger and therefore you can reuse them under the cc-by-2.5-my license as specified on the source website. --Martin H. (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!! I'll upload this picture to the Commons under appropriate license. Thanks again!! SyFuel^Ignite_Burned 15:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please help me with the licence for this image?

I uploaded this image File:Marmiro 2.TIF after downloading it from [4] , which on its own terms of use states that the image uploaded shouldn't be copyrighted. From this I deduced that I had the right to publish this image in WP as an image for public domain, but don't know which permission applies and what should I enter on the Author's info. I browsed through media copyright questions page and still don't know the answer. Can you please help me here? Empathictrust (talk) Empathictrust 22:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

When I uploaded this image "OCSFC logo framed.JPG" to the Orange Country Science Fiction Club page, a not was place on it saying it was up for speedy deletion unless I provided a copyright tag. I did, which seems to have satisfied the requirements for Wikipedia, but the note This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Thursday, October 28, 2010 is still on the photo on the Club page. Could you please remove the note.

Thank you.

Wesomniman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesomniman (talk • contribs) 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The source page does not show that File:Marmiro 2.TIF is freely licenced, so you cannot use it here unless you get permission from the copyright holder. This page] infers that all images are not copyright but there is no detail as to what sort of copyright applied to images on their site because we cannot see the individual image files with any copyright details as we do here b ut this page tell uploader not to upload images that are copyright. Ideally, the uploader of the original needs to send us their permission by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. You second image you refer to File:OCSFC logo framed.JPG does have a copyright tag but there is no source or author which you should add. ww2censor (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Adam Irigoyen Photo

The image File:Adam-irigoyen.jpg was posted on this website: http://www.poptower.com/adam-irigoyen.htm. I also have one from his own Facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=436308888111&set=a.454248288111.246956.177127163111 .Which one (if either) can be used without copyright infringement?

Thank you. JoThousand (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither image source page shows them to be freely licenced, so you cannot use it here unless you get permission from the copyright holder and get them to send us the permission by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. Just because an image does not show a copyright notice does not mean it is in the public domain. ww2censor (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Softback cover of Happy Hour Is For Amateurs.jpg

Do I need to get permission to post a picture of a book cover if I bought the book and then took a picture of it to upload? Alternately, if I post said picture, is it subject to copyright laws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolakordic (talk • contribs) 04:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Unless you can claim free-use. But only if the picture on the cover can be copyrighted (i.e. just plain text can't be), but if the picture can be copyrighted your picture of the picture is also copyrighted. Ariel. (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. When I uploaded the picture of the book I thought I was following the rules, what should I do concerning the picute? Is there a way for me to delete it? Or should I just wait until it's removed?

Nikolakordic (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a WP:fair use rationale so it may be kept. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Natural Resources Canada

Hi, a question about copyright status of images on Canadian government sites, such as the Atlas of Canada at Natural Resources Canada. I know some U.S. goverment-sourced images are free use. Is there a similar situation for Canada? The specific image I have my eye on is here. Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 04:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This page clearly claims copyright on the website material, so we cannot use it unless it is out of copyright or is specifically noted to be freely licenced. Besides which, that image should be easy to replace with a newly drawn illustration. If you can't make it yourself you can make a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that for me. Maybe I will give making my own a stab. Or let the pros do it. Either way, thanks. The Interior(Talk) 17:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Flickr image question

I've sent a polite request to a Flickr user about using their image, to which they responded "It's been released under CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic". Is that license appropriate for use at Wikipedia or Commons? The image in question is: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sewanee/3048842778/

Thanks for your help -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Although an image might not be commercially used while on Wikipedia, the license can't be non-commercial, just to make sure. So he'll have to choose a different license, or release all rights (public domain). The license can be attribution, share-alike, or both, if not public domain. Jsayre64 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely it would be fairly easy to get a new freely licenced image of this building. Perhaps not as attractive but still easy to photograph if the copyright holder of the Flickr image will not remove the non-commercial limitation. I found some freely licenced Flickr images of the Sewanee chapel here & here maybe one of them will suit you. ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ww2censor - the one I found was taken by someone presumably working for/with the University, thus my initial interest in that. I'll pursue one of the others, though, and find one that will work. Thanks much for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Buso Renkin Staff.png

Should this file be removed? I'm unsure on its status. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

i am not particularly familiar with the subject matter - but the NFCC rationale of this image appears to check out. Unless a defect can be demonstrated I see no problem in an NFCC inclusion ````

Coat of Arms for Richmond, The American International University in London

I uploaded a coat of arms to the Richmond, The American International University in London page. I was given permission by my school to upload the image. However, a message states that the image will be deleted in 7 days unless a proper license can be obtained. I could not upload the image via the normal wikipedia site so I uploaded it via wikipedia commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordByron81 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How do i add a copyright tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroman26 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• You don't in this case. Permission to use on Wikipedia is meaningless to us. Either it's available under a free license (which it's not in this case apparently), or it is not. If it's not, then it can't be on Commons. We can host it here, but it must be under a tag noting it's non-free status, such as {{non-free logo}}. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

How do I go about getting the Richmond Coat of Arms to you so that you can host it "here" on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordByron81 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Derived image?

This image look photo-shopped to me. The EXIF data says it was last created in Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh on the 2004:09:05 07:00:13-04:00

The Apollo 1 astronauts presented this picture to Joe Shea before the fire.

Looks like it could be derived from the lower image.

In both images, White's left shoulder is in front of the exact same flag at the same hight. Yet in the B&W image his arm is at an angle and still manages to rest on the table (so the table is higher). Grissom has a highlight on his forehead. The capsule is laterally inverted ( in adobe it is quick to just flip an image over if you just want to change its position by one width). The background looks as if it has been heavily work on. Chaffee's zipper tab under his chin is jutting out in both images. The left side of his face in the B&W image should be in deeper shadow and the shadows on that side conflict a bit as if they don't now where the light sources are but the folds in the material look very similar. Again table looks higher on that side too. Finally. The image only exist in low resolution black and white and on non NASA sites (at least I can't find an official NASA equivalent). As such, it looks as if it has a false attribution and thus a copyvio. Aspro (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the black-and-white image is genuine, there's no question in my mind that both photos were taken during the same photo shoot, possibly just moments apart, which would explain most of the similarities you observe. Compare [5], which indicates that the black-and-white photo existed in 1996, unless you are going to claim that's been faked too. There is not nearly enough solid evidence to conclude that the black-and-white photo is fake. If you want to pursue this further, why don't you contact NASA and ask them directly? —Bkell (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a bit odd that you can't find this image on any of NASA's sites, but given the context, it's possible that this was a more personal picture from the photoshoot and not ever released widely. It might be a good idea to ask NASA if they can confirm that it's either genuine or definitely not real. Also, this file is actually hosted at Commons currently, so discussion should probably happen over there as well. Shell ^babelfish 05:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has turned round the capsule on the table as well! MilborneOne (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think it should be removed from the article as it kinda more mocks the subject than improving encyclopedic Value The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A Tineye search turns up this magazine cover from 1996. And since it's is the official magazine site, it seems legit as far as I can tell. Samuell ^{Lift me up} or _{put me down} 03:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Uploading

How can I upload an image for the article I recently created? Can I do it myself or do I need an administrator to do it? The article is "Steinbach Millers" in case you needed to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bombersfan13 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• You will have to do some more editing first to become autoconfirmed, then the upload link will appear on your pages. In the meantime you can use WP:FFU to make a request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicii

Hi. I created my account because of the DJ Avicii, whose site on wikipedia is poor, I've added some info in the Biography article, and I also edited the Infobox and I've uploaded a photo from him too. But now when I save what I've edit, everything is right except the photo. Can you help me around here?

http://pic.mk/images/avicii.png Do you see what I'm talking about?

I'm just trying to help reaching maximum info about him. I hope I won't regret for trying.

Best regards, INTRO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyintromkd (talk • contribs) 19:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, its difficult to answer your question at the moment, because you don't appear to have succesfully uploaded an image to wikipeida / wikicommons. I suggest you wait until the deletion discussion on that article is resolved, and in the mean time read some of the pages on Wikipedia:Upload and related pages in more detail. If you still have copyright problems feel free to come back here and ask for help, but I think you probably have a technical rather than copyright problem.Ajbpearce (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

book cover scanned at lo res

This is my first time trying to upload an image, so I'm not even sure what questions to ask.

I'd like to upload an image scanned from the dust jacket of the first edition of a book published in 1974. The book is still in print but from a different publisher and with a different cover; the first edition is out of print. The author - who is named as the copyright owner in the first edition - is still alive, so I assume that means the cover is still under copyright even though it is out of print.

I have read the fair-use rationale for some images of copyrighted material - as of movie posters - that justifies using them because they were scanned at such low resolution that reproducing them for commercial use would be impossible. Is that really a legitimate rationale? Is there any other way to use the image short of getting a release from the author? I have an e-mail address for the author; if I write to her, exactly what do I need to ask for?

I would upload the scanned image just for consideration of this question, but I'm not sure it's even legal for me to do that.

Help, please!--Jim10701 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It can be used under fair use if there is an article on the book. When you click on upload file pick: "A cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or other such source". Then on the next screen fill it in and pick book cover from the licensing drop down. Make sure article description and source are filled in. Purpose is to identify the book. The scanned image is not suitable for consideration of the question, but is suitable if there is text about the book. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There has been an article on the book since 2006, so it looks as if I can just upload what I have. My purpose is to identify the book in that article, so that works too. Thanks very much.--Jim10701 (talk) 03:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Image problems plus legal threats

Cross posted per suggestion on Help desk

Hi

File:Maple Leaf 99999 Gold 2007 ObverseSide.jpg (stored here, not on Commons) , is incorrectly tagged as CC-BY-SA/GFDL. I would have fixed this, but a user left a note on the image page:

"This image is not public domain. It is a copyright image owned by Chard (1964) Limited. We do not license its use. The uploader Sloth monkeyshould be aware. The image was probably sourced from our TaxFreeGold website. It contains a Digimarc watermark which can be read using a plugin for IE. We will take legal action to protect our Intellectual Property Rights."

The license needs to be changed on the image or the image removed, I'm not sure if this guy can claim rights to this image since it's a photo of a coin and no original work is involved. The note was posted in March, but we should still probably do something about the legal threat. I don't know if his Digimark claim is valid, and if we decide he has no claim to the image we should probably find a way to scrub it if possible.

The user has since be warned, the legal threat will be raised with the Wikimedia legal people. Samuell ^{Lift me up} or _{put me down} 03:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WEll if there is such an embedded notice, the copyright could apply to the embedded notice and modification even if you claim that the image should be public domain. However for coins it is a 3d object, and choice of lighting and camera position adds creative content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Images on ODNB site

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography have a standard legal notice for all images on their site, stating that "Copyright in each illustration that appears in the Oxford DNB is owned by the rights holder(s) named in 'Picture Details' window for that illustration." In this example, can copyright be claimed on an image taken by an unknown photographer over 150 years ago?

For other copyrighted images on the site, does their statement that "You are not permitted to download or reproduce this image from the Oxford DNB Online web site" override any fair use claim? January ^(talk) 17:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Generally, no, something that old would never carry copyright protections. However, the example you cite has a copyright tag on it from the National Portrait Gallery of London. There's been a legal bruhaha over the use of materials from them on Commons. See National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems ODNB have moved things around, that link was to a photograph of Anne Knight when I posted the question. Here's a link to the actual ODNB article, clicking the picture brings up the picture credit which is "reproduced with permission of the Library Committee of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain". Interestingly that doesn't expressly say that they are the copyright holders, unlike in the Thomas Percy picture, although it contains a link to the legal notice which claims copyright. January ^(talk) 16:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Image Copyright Tag; old SVT Logo no longer in use by the owner and licensed by the owner for limited use on Wiki

This question pertains to the file at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SVTlogo-old.jpg

I can't seem to find the appropriate tag to add to this image on your list of copyright tags. None of the tags for logos on your list apply to these circumstances.

Allen Morgan was my father; I have a very close ongoing relationship with Sudbury Valley Trustees (SVT). This logo is no longer in use by SVT. SVT has authorized this limited use on this page about Allen Morgan. The context of the logo is next to the photograph of the Marsh Wren award (a photograph that I took and I own) given annually as the Allen Morgan award -- you can see that they are placed next to each other. The art work for this old logo was commissioned by my father when he selected the Marsh Wren as the center piece image for SVT.

In effect, SVT has given me a limited license to use this logo image on this page because of its tight relationship with my father, the person who founded SVT and created the logo in the first place. That logo, no longer in use, is closely associated with him.

So what tag do I use for this image? None of the logo tags are relevant. And I can't find a licensing tag that would reflect my authorization (and Wiki authorization) for this use.

Thanks for your assistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cochituate (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Logos are used in the infobox of an organisation for identification purpose only and not just in article about people. If must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria under the fair-use doctrine and the current fair-use rationale will likely not be acceptable. The permission you have been given is not sufficient for us to use this image because it is restrictive for Wikipedia only, but, we accept freely licenced images which means they are licenced so that anyone can use it for anything including commercial use and that is not what they are allowing. ww2censor (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

copyright status of File:Anne-Marie Walters 2.jpg

This photo was scanned from a French local history publication, where its use was entirely unattributed. The image comes from the early 1940s and was probably taken as an identity photo for use while the subject was on active service with SOE. The subject is now dead and the creator of the original photograph is certainly unknown. I am convinced that the image is not justifiably anyone's copyright and is in the public domain. What kind of copyright license tag is appropriate? Simonma (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There in no appropriate copyright tag for an image whose copyright we cannot confirm, and just because an image is unattributed does not mean it is not copyright to someone. French photos are copyright for 70 years pma or 70 years per if the author is unknown commons:COM:L#France, so unless you can prove the image was published before 1938. You are presuming several things about the image, none of which can be proven without more research.

Besides that, I see, from the image log, that you previously uploaded the image with a fair-use claim but failed to complete a fair-use rationale, so it was deleted. Because she is dead it may be possible to make a fair-use claim but a fully completed fair-use rationale must be completed for it to be acceptable and all 10 non-free content criteria must be complied with for it to stay. ww2censor (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding copyright waiver...

Hey,

I've been intending to find the waiver form on this site to send to the person whose article I've made months ago so I could add his pic to the wiki page. However I've found great difficulty finding the appropriate page and the process of sending it. If possible, I'd appreciate a link to the specific pages I'm looking for.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamFromWelland (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is the template at WP:CONSENT. Keep in mind that it needs to be from the copyright holder, which is usually the photographer and not the subject of the picture. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Russel Weigley picture

After searching for a picture of Russell Weigley for his article, it seems that on the internet, there's really only one picture of him, and that's at http://www.temple.edu/cenfad/events/beyondcombat.htm. Can I upload http://www.temple.edu/cenfad/events/images/weigley4.jpg to Wikipedia? And if so, what would it be licensed under? Kevin (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The web site you link too is stuffed, however since the man is no longer alive, it could be possible to use a non free image. It should be a publicity or otherwise famous picture and you need to justify this with the fair use rationale and satisfy the fair use criteria

Uploaded under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Russell_F._Weigley.jpg. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Radio station logo, Can I use it?

NGEN Radio has a logo that I wish to use for their article. Would I be able to use it? I know how people are with radio logos... I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 17:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

A radio station logo is no different from any other copyrighted logo. It can be uploaded and used in the radio station's article with an appropriate non-free use rationale. See WP:LOGO. – ukexpat (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

personal photograph

I am trying to upload a personal photograph that belongs to the family of the subject. What is the proper licensing for this type of image? Kennedy Consulting 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)doodledorf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodledorf (talk • contribs)

You will need to establish who took the picture, and then get them to upload the picture themselves, or use email with the WP:PERMIT procedure. You uploading someone else's picture is a problem because you cannot prove you have the permission to grant a free license. If the photographer has died then their heir can perform this function. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of products

If I take a picture of a product myself (like the outside of a cereal box for an article) can I upload it to the commons or do I need to follow some sort guide? Normally I'd use the logo, non-free product template, but it doesn't seem to fit exactly if you're taking the picture yourself. Evan-Amos (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If the box is only a tiny part of the picture, such as in a breakfast table that is OK. However if you are reproducing the appearance of the box, that is not OK, as the copyright will be held by the company or box artist. Photographing a box has little creative content, and if you are trying to add a picture of a product or logo to the article on it, you must count the product image as non free, load it on en.wikipedia, and add a WP:FUR. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Images Tweeted by Celebrities

Are images which are "tweeted" by a celebrity through their Twitter.com account, particularly those whose accounts are not protected (and can be viewed by anyone, with or without a Twitter.com account) in the public domain and free to be uploaded to the Commons? For reference, you can look at an image Mekenna Melvin uploaded on Tuesday, Nov 2nd, which is linked below. I'm wanting to update her Wikipedia entry with an image of her and was wondering about these sorts of images.

Tweet including image: http://twitter.com/MekennaMelvin/status/29510090289 Direct image URL: http://m.plixi.com/p/54605954

Thanks!

JackToland (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that they are not in the public domain. They are copyrighted by default just like every other image created unless the copyright holder explicitly releases them under a free license or into the public domain. There are some suggested steps listed at WP:PERMISSIONS if you'd like to request that they release the image so that we can use it. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Concur with VernoWhitney. Please understand that just because an image can be viewed freely, it doesn't mean it's free of copyright. That sort of logic would make it such that any television broadcast could be recorded and rebroadcast by anyone without fear of copyright problems. That of course is false. As Verno said, unless there's a specific release statement that something has been released into the public domain or under a free license, then it is not eligible for Commons, and here on Wikipedia we wouldn't use it unless it complied with WP:NFCC policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not only do I agree I will go a step further. Read about an in process lawsuit about taking image from Twitter without solid permission. AFP Steals Photographers Haiti Images Then Sues Him, Haitian copyright case turns on Twitter’s TOS and Twitter Clarifies Usage Rules, but AFP Still Claims Unbridled Right to Use Content Posted to "Twitter/TwitPic". If people reading this have time it is good to read, and I would also recommend downloading the associated court papers as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nine Heidolph image pending un-deletion

I currently have a temperary page and would like to have the images to support the information. It has been one month since I sent the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent/ image upload to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org; photosubmission@wikimedia.org. I have been patient but it has been a month now. Below are all the images. File:PD 5001 SPQuick 2005.tif File:Polymax 2040.tif File:RZR 2052 control.tif File:SilentCrusher S.tif File:Hei-VAP Precision ML G3B.tif File:Synthesis 1 Multi Evaporator.tif File:MR Hei Standard.tif File:Bullseye.jpg File:Heidolph Germany.jpg Evaporation Expert (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, the OTRS volunteers are backlogged, so you need some patience. ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Help to place right licence

I need some help to place the right licence on this picture File:Fancy.jpg. It is for use on the main page for the artist Fancy as the main photo of the artist.Anyone who can help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zika-star (talk • contribs) 14:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to be more careful when uploading files because you uploaded your image over an existing properly formatted and licenced image. We only upload to an existing image when we need to replace with a better or different version of the same file. The image you did upload had no details regarding its copyright status, source, author or date, so we cannot answer your question. If you provide those details, even before uploading an image, we may be able to advise you on whether the image might be acceptable and what licence it might have. It appears that you fond the image here but there is nothing that I can read to help you and that image is likely copyright and as he is still alive you need to find a freely licenced image. ww2censor (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I did anything wrong,it is my first picture upload. I only uploaded the picture because the picture on the page didn't show anymore, it was just a red link, so I thought that it had been deleted, my mistake. I did find the picture here on this site [[6]], [[7]]. It is a discography site for band/artists where people can upload the discography. Don't know if that helps. Zika-star (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No real problem, it's just a learning curve. If you had looked at the redlinked image log, which you might not have found too easily, you would have seen it was deleted in July 2010 as having no permission. The two image pages you link to have the same problem as the one I linked to above: there is no copyright status information, so we can't use it, unless you can find more information about the image you want to use. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a wider view of the whole issue. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it US-GOV or not?

I'd like to extract some images from the theme presentation pdfs at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/aerosols/ . For some of the images such as in this pdf, it says "After: person, University". Can such images be uploaded under {{PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA}}?Smallman12q (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If it says the image is courtesy of someone/some organization in a government fact sheet/publication, is that image pd?Smallman12q (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally, "courtesy" images are not PD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the image is courtesy of some other branch of the federal government whose material is also PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say you need to contact them and ask. Unless this document was product by NOAA, then you cannot assume PD. These documents should not have been posted online without distribution statements included. This is a NOAA booboo. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Enthiran_(soundtrack) (3 album covers)

1. File:Tamil-endhiran.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. File:Telugu-robo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. File:Hindi-robot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have a slight interpretation issue for WP:Non-free content#Images and my question relates to evidence of any current consensus or featured article counter-examples that establish a precedent. The NFCI guidelines advice against using a fair-use rationale for galleries of images but gives no specific advice where a book or album exists in several language variations and consequently has different cover images and artwork.

So my question is, can fair-use rationales be justified for multiple images in the same article for the same work with the rationale that these are unique language variants or should these be interpreted as "replaceable" and only the primary language image be validly used as fair-use on Wikipedia?

Note, if we allow such variants then a book translated into 17 languages could then validly have a gallery of all 17 book cover variations. Fæ (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you had a paragraph of text about each cover and its artwork it should be justifiable, otherwise you are not meeting the minimal use criterion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For Enthiran there is a track listing for each translation, there is no other text. Fæ (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be too minimal to justify all those covers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'll interpret NFCI on that basis. For this article I'll raise the non-main album cover images for review again. Fæ (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with uploading photo

I sent an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org that included the original email from me and the return email from the photographer authorizing use of a photo under the Creative Commons license...but I can't figure out how to upload the photo. I tried on the Wikimedia Commons upload file page but nothing happened after I clicked Upload. Do I instead upload it to the Wikipedia article itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pngiles (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You were on the right track, go to commons:upload, make sure that you are logged on, pick "it is from somewhere else". Fill in the name of the file, description, source of image, copyright holder, drop down license pick of license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0. When you click the upload it may take several minutes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

SoThin logo

I have used a logo on the Sothin Wikipedia page and now you want me to supply the copyright information. I am getting this from SoThin themselves and will add it soon. It may take a few days to get this information so please do not delete the page in tge meantime! Thanks for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boillies (talk • contribs) 13:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a WP:Fair use rationale and deleted the unused duplicate logo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with CCI

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822

Hi. There's a CCI with which I would really appreciate some assistance from somebody who might be able to help determine the age of images. I've sorted as many of the images as I felt comfortable doing, but I could not verify that some of the content marked PD actually is, and I have never been comfortable with the NFC nuances between when an image of a person is okay and when it's not. Any contributor without a history of copyright problems is welcome to help out. Please, anyone who can spare some time, just review the images in the "Additional review needed (NF or Free)" sections (one for each "Media batch" of the alphabet). If you think it's okay, move it into the nearest "Reviewed, believed clear" (with your sig). If you think it needs attention, tag it accordingly and move it into "Tagged for action" with an indication of what it needs. No need to notify the contributor; he has opted to watch the CCI instead of receiving direct notice. Do a little, do a lot. Whatever. Just help. :) Please? :D It'll be good to get this one cleared out and archived. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look at a few. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've gotten more comfortable with images in the last couple of years, but they're still not my major area. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Took a bunch of photographs of fossils and butterflies at Beijing Museums

I took a bunch of photographs of fossils on display at the Beijing Museum of Natural History. I also took a bunch of photos of butterflies on display at the National Zoological Museum of China. I have hundreds of images and many would make excellent additions to articles. I do not know what the policy is regarding copyright of items on display in museums. Could somebody point me to some relevant information regarding the fair use of such images? If need be, I may contact the museums and ask. Thanks in advance. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I should also mention, that I'd prefer to publish these images on Commons. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The original butterflies, and fossils have no copyright, but the text about them is copyright, and a large display of them would be copyright too. But all your individual photos of fossils or butterflies should be unencumbered, and you can grant a free license. Just keep off the museum description text and pictures. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the photos include a sign with only the species common name and/or scientific name. Do you think I would also have to crop that out? On another topic, suppose I "quote" the museum via my photos on the articles talk page (to validate my claim that the species in the photo is the species of the article)? Do you think that would be valid? It's all kind of funny because China is one of the nations least concerned about copyright on Earth, and here I'm doing them a service that probably 99% of Chinese wouldn't bother about. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A name would be too minimal for copyright, so you can leave that in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You certainly should mention the museum as the authoritative source for the name of the species (which may or may not be correct) so that others will know the reliability of the naming. And commons is the right place for this sort of thing. See if you can add the Chinese names in there too! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yabeinosaurus tenuis

I have added the first image to an article, shown to the right. As you see, I have left in the museum tag, which only seems to have the scientific name (English and Chinese) and some minor text in Chinese that I cannot read. All my images of fossils are similar and have similar plaques. Is this kosher for Wikipedia or will I have to crop out the plaques? Jason Quinn (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The tag is saying where it came from, Liu Ling someplace, and the period as early Cretaceous. What is a problem however is the cracked mud yellow background, obviously a work of art or picture of some sort. I recommend that you crop it off as much as possible. I don't think it matters if some of the stone slab is cut off too, as long as you keep the fossil. It is probably better without the tag, but all the information could be retyped in Chinese and English! 早白堊世 to get you started for the time period. And if you want to be more sure about this, ask for a third opinion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That mud yellow background was the design on the entire wall that held the fossil reptile displays. I'll crop closer on future uploads and also leave off the tag when possible. On some of my images, it would be hard to crop out the tag because of the shape of the fossil and the proximity of the tag. For now, unless their are further opinions, I'm going to leave this particular image as is as we seem to need to split hairs to find any possible problems. Thanks for your input, Graeme. The background wouldn't have even crossed my mind. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, it would probably be easy enough for me to edit out that background with a photo editor and replace it with black. Eventually I'll get around to that. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Round Maple

• Is http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1904062 a free image, if so please add it to Round Maple#Flushing Farm.
• If http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1087442 is a free image, please add to Round Maple#Winding Wood

Homan's Copse (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Geograph images are freely licenced under a Creative Commons copyright and should be uploaded to the commons where you should use the Geograph specific template found at commons:Template:Geograph. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And the place to ask someone else to upload an image is at WP:FFU. (files for upload) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is use of miniature railroad brochure (scanned image) permissible?

I have scanned a two-sided brochure that was first printed in 1969. The brochure was for a miniature railroad that went out of existence in 1972. (Please see Becker Farm Railroad for more information.) The farm on which the railroad was located also went out of business in 1973. There is no copyright on the brochure. Is use of these scanned images permissible on Wikipedia?Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Based on your information you most likely can use {{PD-Pre1978}} copyright template. ww2censor (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable use of copyrighted/published music clips

Is 30 seconds of a song the "clip limit" for free use of copyrighted music? For example, could someone use a clip on their personal web site freely as long as she cited properly?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.84.178 (talk • contribs)

This page is for questions about copyright on images and media on Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have general legal questions not related to WP copyrights, I recommend WP:RD/H. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, not there either because we don't answer "general legal questions" that require giving legal advice. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this picture "Free Use"?

URL of picture: http://www.newgrange.com/michael-j-okelly.htm

Could the picture of Michael J. O'Kelly at the top of the page be used in an article about him? He is deceased and there is no free alternative? Timothy Hawkins-Heathco (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If as you say, "He is deceased and there is no free alternative" then such an image could be used in an article. However, you must be careful - such a use would only be appropriate when in compliance with WP:NFCC and a detailed fair use rationale for each usage should be provided. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Plea for help

i have uploaded an image and i dont know copyright license and how to find it and add it for the image plz help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adi33333 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You should have not uploaded an image without knowing its copright status. The two images File:Devendranath.jpg and File:Devendranath-madhi.jpg are the same and were both uploaded by you. However I'm not sure the claimed license in the second image is correct. To help answer that can you tell me what the image is of, and how did you get a copy? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Medal 00004a.gif

I want to use this image which i believe is in the public domain Can someone confirm this before the file gets deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No the image is released under this license which due to the non-commericial and no-derivative works in incompatible with Wikipedia. This image should be deleted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use questions

I want to make some image changes to some pages I regularly edit. The performers in question are both deceased. I would like to be able to use the following photos with the appropriate Fair-Use rationale:

Main web page

Image page

In this case, the original owner of the image would have been WMBC radio.

Main web page

Image page

For the second image, the original owner of it would have been CBS radio; both were promotional photos for the program.

With the Fair-Use rationale filled out properly, can these be uploaded?

Thanks!

We hope (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Article > "Jurassic Park: Rampage Edition" was taken down?

• Jurassic Park: Rampage Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I am fairly new to contributing articles to wikipedia. Yesterday I created an article Jurassic Park: Rampage Edition and it was taken down for copyright infringement. I do believe I added credible sources to all the websites that I borrowed information from so if someone could help me understand what I did wrong so I don't make future mistakes or help me restore the article that would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.11.173 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it looks like you copied and pasted some of the text from the third party website. While it's good to source the text you're writing by linking to a third party source, it's bad to copy it verbatim; this becomes the copyright infringement/plagiarism that was mentioned in the deletion. In other words, right it in your words and give your source for those words; don't copy the words. You would be allowed to copy any words that fit under Wikipedia's license, however the license on that site is {{cc-by-nc}}: [8], which is not compatible with Wikipedia.

Additionally, I see you've uploaded some files on commons: [9]. We'll have to delete those too; please read up on the fair use policy (which doesn't exist on commons) and let us know if you have any other questions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

vdr

I want to use an image from this forum http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=29413

Does this meet the definition of public domain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs) 08:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say I don't know if the copyright remains for the medals themselves: laws differ by country, although it doesn't look like South Africa exempts its government medals at public domain. Nevertheless, even if the medals themselves were free to publish, you didn't take those photos of them, and as such you have no right to claim the copyright unless you get permission from the person who did. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. South African military decorations suggests the medals are recent Van Riebeeck Decoration (1952–75) and Navy and Air Force Cross (1991–2003) so 50 years has not elapsed since first "publication" of the medal. There is no change in copyright for an artistic work by the state. S5(3) states Copyright conferred by this section on a literary or musical work or an artistic work, other than a photograph, shall subsist for fifty years from the end of the year in which the work is first published. So the medal designs themselves are not public domain. Furthermore, an image of a medal would have an additional copyright. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How to get permission for a work

I am looking to use the photo of an author from http://markcnewton.com/about/ for his wikipedia page. He is still alive, and there are other pictures of him, but none of the seem to be copyright free. I contacted the author in question, and he replied (in a private email) saying 'If you want to use any of the images from my website then please feel free to do so.'

Does this constitute as consent to use the image on wikipedia? If not, then what needs to be done? Apoorv020 (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please send the permission by e-mail to OTRS/permissions as set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note, however, that the OTRS system us currently backlogged and it may take several days (or longer) for your e-mail to be reviewed. – ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Make sure you have the required permission then do this. Hope that help, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of scanned team schedule cards for college athletes

Hello - I am wondering if it is acceptable to post a scanned image of a college basketball schedule card that pictures a player on that player's WP article. The caption would read something like "a 2009-10 University of America schedule featuring Joe Athlete." Are there other circumstances where a schedule scan would be acceptable - such as on the entry for a team's season (for which the schedule is for)? Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm dubious. The information on the schedule is not copyrighted, it's a list of dates and universities. The photograph certainly is. It might work for pre-1979, if there was no copyright notice, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How do I pick a copyright tag?

I know the image I am uploading has a copyright (I am the owner) but how do I pick that non-free content tag for upload? I am unsure if it falls under the policy to be uploaded. This image is on the official website and it is the logo for the company. Thanks.HealthyYouth (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We cannot just accept your word that you are the copyright owner, you will have to follow the procedure set out at WP:IOWN. I would also strongly advise you not to create an article about a subject with which you are connected - please see WP:COI. – ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Slight disagreement. Feel free to consider creating an article about a subject which you are connected, but DO see the conflict of interest document on wikipedia as suggested. The conflict of interest guidelines are often interpreted as "thou shalt not" but I prefer to see them as "thou shalt consider and understand." The most knowledgeable people about a subject may often be someone who is indeed connected to the subject. Consider the potential issue of prohibiting anyone who attends a university or college, or any team member of some sport, from contributing or editing about their organization/team - that prohibition doesn't make sense to me. But DO read the guidelines. They'll help you understand how best to proceed. But I am a REAL hard ass when it comes to thou shalt not own a wikipedia article. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say Thou shalt not, I said Thou art strongly advised not to... – ukexpat (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to expand on both of the above replies. The question is a bit vague - you state you are the copyright holder of an image. If that was all it said than it is somewhat fine - just use one of the Wikipedia accepted free license. But you toss a bit of a wrench into the mix when you say it is a "logo for the company" that has been taken from "the official website" and you are unsure of which fair use tag to use. That places it under Image use policy - Fair use images and the more detailed policy on Non-free content. In this case the file needs to meet all 10 criteria that are found at the policy. If it does than step one is to upload the file and fill out *all* of the needed information. Best step to understand what is required of *all* images is Image use policy - Requirements. I always suggest people follow the Mini how-to guide and use the {{Information}} template. Once that is done add a copyright tag - as you say this is a logo that would most commonly be {{non-free logo}}. The must be followed by a FUR - the most common one uses the {{Non-free use rationale}} template but you may consider using the "all in one" {{Commercial logo rationale}} instead. One final consideration is if the logo is also a registered trademark, in which case the {{trademark}} tag should be placed on the image as well.

The second issue is that if the article does not yet exist the logo will be most likely be speedied as failing the Non-free content policy, namely number 7 - "One-article minimum". Beyond that there is a concern, based on what you say, that you are associated with the company whose logo you are wanting to upload. If the article does not yet exist and you are considering creating it there would be a true Conflict of interest concern. And going one step further if the *only* reason you created an account was to contribute information on this business you will be considered an SPA. If that is the case you should consider reading the "If you are a newcomer or editing as a single-purpose account" section of the Single-purpose account essay. On the off chance the business you are talking about in all of this is "Healthy Youth" you should also be aware of the Wikipedia Username policy, in particular the section on Company and group names.

Having said all of that - of there are further questions please feel free to ask. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

10~014a_Kopie.jpg

16.11.2010 I applied for the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. I hope that the image now can be published in my Wikipedia article re Zafar, Yemen. I have no idea where the difficulty lies. The procedure is a bit difficult. Kind regards,

Paul Yule —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyule (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, what you should have done is add the {{cc-by-sa-3.0|Paul Yule}} tag. I have done it for you, but you may wish to confirm it on the page at File:10~014a Kopie.jpg. By the way, do you want a better name for the file? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Government copyright - PD?

this image File:SA_Navy_Rank_Insignia.gif is marked for deletion. It is copyright by the South African government but surely this could be used as it is PD? A similar image File:SAAF gen.jpg is marked This file is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.

How do we ensure consistency when images are reviewd? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs) 08:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The file you mention are not hosted here, they are at Wikimedia Commons. Any discussion here would not help with the files located there. Having said that File:SA_Navy_Rank_Insignia.gif appears to be a poster, and there is no indication at the source website that the file is in public domain. Most likely it came from Rank Insignia of the South African National Defence force page/s and I see "copyright © 1999 - 2010 Department of Defence" on not only that page but all of the pages on the website, which would indicate all material found on the website is under copyright. Public domain implies there is no copyright. Links on the site also go to the South African Government website, whose terms state that any material is only to be used "for non-commercial informational or reference purposes" and those who wish commercial use "may only do so with the prior written permission." Soundvisions1 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely Wikipedia would fall under the definition of reference purposes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs) 09:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

For fair use yes. Wikipedia does not accept material licensed as non-commercial or with permission as "free". See Non-commercial only and By Permission Only Images to be deleted for more information on that. The only "free" licenses that are currently acceptable are the ones found at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses. Keep in mind these are all license where the copyright is still valid, and, again, Wikimedia Commons is *not* Wikipedia. The file in question could not be claimed as fair use at Wikimedia Commons. Soundvisions1 (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no change in copyright for an work by the state. S5(4) states be subject to the same term of copyright provided for in section 3 for a similar work meaning S3(2) fifty years from the end of the year in which the work (i) is made available to the public with the consent of the owner of the copyright; or (ii) is first published; whichever term is the longer. So they are not PD. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

PD criteria

Are there a list of criteria for PD eligibility such as the criteria for Non-free content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It will vary from country to country. I would suggest reading the Public domain article and the Wikipedia:Public domain guideline. For country specifics skip to the Country-specific rules section. See also Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights for more information. Soundvisions1 (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is more of a complex mess. It may be old 70 years after author died, it may be crown copyright In Australia 50 years after publication, it may be an Australian photo taken or published before 1955, it could be the work of the US r Californian or Florida government, or it may be released to public domain by creator, it may have been published in USA before 1923, or without a copyright notice before 1978, or not had its copyright renewed when required in the US. Or it may be too simple to have copyright. There are lots of possibilities. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at your contributions I see you will interested in copyright in South Africa. This says that image copyright expires 50 years after publication, and government publications expire after 50 years to public domain. So you can use images from before 1960 from South Africa if they were not published in USA. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, hold on a second here. If they became PD in South Africa after 1995, they are still copyright in the US because of the US accession to the Berne Convention and the fact that the US does not follow the rule of the shorter term.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Putting Source Information on Images

Hi!

How do I put up source information on my uploaded image on this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seaoil_Logo.jpg#filelinks

Is there a simple process to follow? Robert Osorio (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just edit the file page, and fill in the source= parameter of the logo fur template. The source is often the url of the original picture you copied, but it could have come from some other place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Permission given for, the use of the photo, in 'Wikipedia environment'

I received below permission from the author of the photo. Same e-mail containing the permission with the attached photo was sent to WP Permissions by the author. But, when I tag the appropriate (only in the Wikipedia environment) license, while uploading, I'm getting a warning, (a speedy deletion,) sign.

• Hi

I send you the BH Foto.

permission text: I, the copyright holder of these works only permit Wikipedia for the use of the photo in Wikipedia environment with my name attached.

Thanks, XxxxxxX

--

What shall I do? Help will be appreciated. Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not a sufficient permission for use of an image on wikipedia. Wikipedia does not accept images that are licensed for "non-commercial" use, licensed only to Wikipedia, for which permission is required for reuse, or that do not permit derivative works to be created. There are several reasons for this policy, but the short version is that Wikipedia's mission is to provide free content and having images encumbered by restrictive licensing schemes runs counter to that mission. Images must be released either into the public domain or a free license, such as a Creative Commons license can be used. For the purposes of Wikipedia, a "free license" means one that permits anyone to reuse the image for any reason, including commercial purposes. The most used license is the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License. You need to get permission to use the image under such conditions. Ajbpearce (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Federal Writers' Project

Are works of the Federal Writers' Project considered to be PD-USGov, or are the authors of those works generally considered to be contractors who retained copyright over their works? I've found a collection of images created by the FWP, but as they're online without the context of the books in which they're printed, I can't check to see if the books carry marks of "Public domain work of the federal government" or copyright notices, or if they lack copyright notices and would thus be PD-US-no notice. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Were they employed by the Federal Government? Please remember that the US can acquire copyrights, and those are still enforceable. I've run into this with official portraits of Supreme Court justices, which are done by a private contractor (the photographer) and then the rights are purchased by the US. You might want to see if you or someone else can get even one of them by interlibrary loan and see about the copyright notice. WP's filled with college students, likely a decent college library would have some of these, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, all Works Progress Administration workers were paid with federal funds. I'm well aware that the federal government can own copyrights; my question is whether the writers counted as federal employees or as outside contractors. Part of my problem is that the only one I've found online is the Cincinnati guide; according to the FWP article, federal funding had ceased by the time that this book was published, so it's copyrighted by the city of Cincinnati. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see you figuring this out without finding some primary sources somehow.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit strange. If you are referring to the American Guide Series - the main output of the Writers' Project - the writers were paid by the Federal Government, and their work was given to some state agency, e.g. our favorite PHMC, who then published the work with a copyright! Harry Hopkins (head of the Fed agency) would write a standard forward that made the arrangement extremely clear. I checked with a Stanford database on copyright renewals (is this an acceptable source here?) and only 3 states renewed copyright on the guides - Illinois, and if I remember correctly, Louisiana and Montana. I'd find the pix in the guides at this link, and then check the copyright renewal at the Stanford site.

Ohio Guide at [10] Cincinnatti Guide at [11]. Smallbones (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For pre-1949 produced material in the guide series with author "Federal Writers' Project" the only material with renewed copyrights are for Illinois, Idaho, and Florida. In 1949 and after, there are new maps and minor revisions with renewed copyrights (so just use the originals) and what looks like some new (non-Guide Series) material. The Delaware Guide needs some looking into, but is probably just for material revised in 1955. For the others non-renewed copyrights that were (to my mind) questionable to begin with ==> not now copyrighted. Smallbones (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

? re license usage

Hi,

A photojournalist, whose photo, taken on a recent trip to Sudan, I have requested using on my wiki page, has asked if his photo can be licensed under the following license?

Thank you!

Sincerely, Nell ______________________________ Template:Non-free promotional

This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion.

It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:

   * the person(s), product, event, or subject in question;
   * where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;
   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation;

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other usage of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Publicity photos.

Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license.

Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale must be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent. Commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights. To the uploader: This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. Please add a detailed fair use rationale as described on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, as well as the source of the image and copyright information. Additionally, if the copyright holder has granted permission, please provide further details as to the terms. Nell 06:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That is all extremely vague, so bear with these answers:

• First if you are claiming fair use you may *not* use it on your personal user page if that is what you are asking. ("I have requested using on my wiki page") Fair use files may only be used in mainspace and where all 10 of the Non-free content criteria have been met.
• Next is the issues of "A photojournalist" having taken the image. That alone is not enough - what is this persons name and who was the image shot for? In other words is it from a commercial content distributor? (AP, Getty, etc) If it is there is a high probability the image will be deleted no matter what unless the image itself is being discussed.
• The third item is that you say you "have requested" permission. Does that mean you are requesting permission to upload it by posting the question here, or does it mean you actually have contacted the copyright holder for permission? If it is the first one than nobody here can give you permission, if it is the second one they need to submit a permissions email to OTRS (see also: Wikimedia Commons OTRS) and most of the time they will need to release it under a Wikipedia compatible free license. See requesting permission to re-use somebody else's content in Wikipedia for examples.
• Lastly you are asking if the {{non-free promotional}} tag is the correct one to use, and, again, without knowing anything about the file there is no way to accurately tell you what the correct tag is. Typically the {{non-free promotional}} tag is used for items such as product shots and promotional material. An image "taken on a recent trip to Sudan" does not sound like promotional materiel.

If you can provide a link to the source and the image a better answer may be given. In the interim you may want to also read Wikipedia:Image use policy if you have not does so already. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Federal Bureau of Prisons image

Hello, I am double checking image sources in advance of a GA review. File:Federal Bureau of Prisons Central office.jpg is an official photo of a U.S. federal government office from the official government website. However, the website does not identify the photographer or date the photo. What is the opinion of the copyright status of such an image? Thank you. KimChee (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Does it say on the BoP website, usually it's on the "about us" or similar page, what the copyright status of the images on the site is? If it says something like "Some matter on this site may be subject to copyright", it does not look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have found no statement asserting copyright on any of the web pages, with exception of content pertaining to PDF files hosted by the site. The only disclaimer I have found was for copyrights from externally linked websites. Would that make this image reasonably clear? KimChee (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the government is capable of acquiring copyrights if the images are taken by an outside contractor.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thank you! KimChee (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been on this site before - the copyright info is here. If you right click on the image and select image properties, then the general tag, it confirms that the page was created by FBOP. I think that would probably be good enough in this case, although you could always email them to askElen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There are problems with that, however. First, by the terms of that page, "This copyright notice only pertains to the Department of Justice Web site." It's not clear that that applies to the Bureau of Prisons website. While the BOP is part of the DOJ, the BOP website is separate, and is not part of the DOJ website. It's also kind of immaterial to the query; works of the federal government are generally PD, regardless of what the organization states on its web site.

The second problem is that the creation data refers to the page, not to the image. You're just seeing the same metadata (<meta name="dc.creator" content="Information, Policy, and Public Affairs Division">) that's in the HTML header for the page; not for the photo. If the photo had EXIF or IPTC info, we could check that, but there isn't any.

But this is moot, in light of the commons image that shows the same building from a nearly identical angle; and that is of better quality, too. TJRC (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We must have a bunch of Wikipedian photographers in DC; is there any way to request that one of them head down to 320 First St., NW, Washington, DC 20534 ([12]), and take a photo? TJRC (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, look what I found on commons: commons:File:Federal Home Loan Bank Board Building.jpg. TJRC (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again. This solution wins, hands down. :) KimChee (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

File:McDonald's Golden Arches.svg

I thought I was fairly au fait with a few areas of copyright but I found this image which puzzled me. I was going to change the tags on this image but thought that on (what I imagine to be) a widely seen logo someone would have got there first and maybe I was wrong. How can the McDonalds sign be copyrighted, surely it doesn't meet the threshold of originality and {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}} would be the correct tags. Am I missing something? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My non-lawyer understanding is that this would fall under trademark, rather than copyright. I'm certain that McDonald's aggressively protects its trademark rights to this symbol, but even if the corporate HQ is claiming copyright, that doesn't make any sense (they would be copyrighting the single letter "M", correct?). Anyone can claim copyright, and anyone can register a copyright - that doesn't mean it's valid. However, in wiki-land, we tend to err on the side of caution. Not sure what else to add ... --Quartermaster (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This image has a more serious issue. It has a fair-use rational for 1 article but is used in 75 articles without a rationale for the rest of them and rightfully the image can be removed from the other 74 articles unless someone writes specific rationales for each. Either way it's bit of work for someone. ww2censor (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well actually that ties up with my question. If I'm right, and I suspect I am, no FURs are needed because it isn't non-free it is just a PD stylised letter "m". I'll wait to see if there is any objection but otherwise I'll tag the image as PD (with trademark). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also note those 75 articles were due to an edit to the McDonald's template late last night which I've undone. Most will be gone now, although it may take some time for file links to update. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're definitely not missing anything. This is far too simple for copyright, as it consists solely of two letters (neither of which are in a very unusual font, either) and a circle. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much of the subject but I happened to read the question and I must say that from my "common sense" judgement the image should retain its copyright and notice. The original upload gave a source and assumed copyright. Did you return to the source to verify the new claim? Did you check that the uploader should not be holding derivative work claims? (Btw. I don't live in the US and my sense may be uncommon or biased from that.)

As I see it there is no reason to take an image and boldly decide that it is PD. It could very well have been used under "fair use" conditions for logos instead. As said above, Wikipedia should always be restrictive on copyright and rather err on the safe side. Wikipedia:Non-free_content clearly states "The use of non-free images on Wikipedia must fall within purposely stricter standards than defined by copyright law".

Same source says "Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia". I don't read that as an initiative to push copyrighted works into the "free content" category. Instead the initiative is to look for free alternatives. The fact that Wikipedia Community judges an image PD is to me no reason to change the copyright notice. Let those needing to use the image decide the usability. Wikipedia does not give legal advice.

That said, there seems to be a well spread notion that basic logos are not copyrightable. I can't say if that is true or not, but I'd say reality is rarely as simple as that. (Is there really a published typeface containing the arching M? Was that available before the logo or is it derived from the logo? I've read that the arches in the first restaurant inpired the logo maker. Isn't that originality?) The template "PD-textlogo" saying that images made only from simple geometric shapes are not original enough to be copyrighted is to me as little "common sense" as saying that a melody made of harmonic tones can not be a work of art. There might be a court rule saying so, but my common sense does not. That's why I would rather see extra effort put in finding alternatives, rather than just claiming available images.

I'd go with the Wikipedia rule treating content "stricter than copyright law", and would refrain from use of the image if there are alternatives. If no possible alternative, use the image under acceptable license (e.g. fair use). That brings me back to IMHO the most relevant questions:

1. It would be fair use to have the logo on McDonald's and possibly List of McDonald's trademarks. (Currently seen in the template only.)
2. McDonald's Israel chose to have another image of the logo. It states "fair use of copyright" and gives a reason (that is interesting here as well) why not to use free alternative.
3. I can't see the logo on Burger Wars and I really don't see the need either. Can you double check the template and that article? (I don't know how templates work myself.)
4. There are many photos on Wikipedia showing the logo on a sign or so. I agree that the plain logo is to prefer in the template.
5. To get a plain logo I would not choose to cut from a pdf. Instead there is official press material avalable. Not the best format, but the reference gives you get clear terms and conditions for use.
6. If the logo is truly nothing but an M in a known typeface it should be a breeze to create a truly free image and delete this disputable image. (If then using that free image is not compatible with trademark terms I don't see any reason to separate copyright from trademark either. What makes the current image and color correction ok?)

Again: I admit that my arguments are slightly off topic if the law is clear on the logo being PD. But I don't think Wikipedia should take the law argument just to make it simpler to use a disputable image. Compare how File:Subway.svg treats the fair use in template. (I don't know if that way is ok, however.) JAGulin (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Hess-Shulman r6 Foxwoods 2009.jpg

I was asked to indicate a license status for File:Hess-Shulman r6 Foxwoods 2009.jpg. It's a picture I took with my cell phone at a chess tournament at the Foxwoods resort and casino in Connecticut in 2009. I guess I own the copyright but I want it to be on the Robert Hess page. I'm really not sure what license tag to use! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willkie1940 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you did take the image and did not just find it on a website, you need to release it as freely licenced. Many images are released into the public domain by their copyright holders by adding the {{PD-self}} template to the image. Other free licences are found at here, such as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. You should also fill in the missing details to the information template that I added to the image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did take the picture myself! I made what I hope are the changes you requested. Let me know if you need more info. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willkie1940 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Scans from historic magazines and newspapers? / legal things

hello friends,

i collect historic magazines and newspapers in english and german language and would like to contribute photos and illustrations to wikipedia by scanning and uploading some of them.

for example, in the wiki entry about a doctor namend Lord Dawson of Penn a photo would be handy - and i have one. i found it in the jan. 25, 1936 issue of the "Illustrated London News". also of interest might be images and drawings from WW I magazines most of which have no indication of a photographer's names.

since the authors are not known or long dead there's obviously no way asking them for GNU- oder whatever permission. is there a rule of thumb about this?

thanks,

---

maximilian Maximilian Schönherr (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is 100% verification that the authors and copyright holder are "long dead" any claim of being free should not be assumed. What you are describing would, first, fall under Wikipedia:Image use policy. Beyond that, if there is any chance any of the material is still under copyright you need to look at the Non-free content criteria policy. If it confirmed to be out of copyright you can also look at Wikipedia:Public domain and in particular the section on Country-specific rules. It is important to note that the servers which host Wikipedia are located in Florida, and so Wikipedia is bound to comply with United States copyright law: To determine the copyright status of a work in its country of origin (and there are at least 192 different national copyright régimes) it is typically necessary to know the date of death of the author, while to determine the copyright status in the United States it is typically necessary to know its publication history and its copyright status in the country of origin not on the date of uploading but on January 1, 1996. I hope that helps. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In the UK. “There is no copyright in photographs made before 31 December 1945.”[13]--Aspro (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

good to hear. i mean, it's practically impossible to find out the year when a photographer died unless he/she was really famous. so the UK solution seems just right. any idea about the german rules for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian Schönherr (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have links in my response that you should read. From what you stated you have more than one item, in which case you really shouldn't assume a blanket statement covers them all. If you flollow the links above you should get a better rounded understanding. If you want to skip it all it is you choice - see Non-U.S. copyrights - Germany for a general statment about Germany. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll also find this from Cornell University handy dandy. If something was published outside the US and was never registered for copyright in the US (usually this would be because it was never published in that form in the US) and is PD in it's country of origin in 1996, then it is treated as PD by US law. This does mean that photos published in the UK but not in US prior to 1946 are PD, which is helpful. You'd need to know details for German law for your german publications. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the claimed "no copyright in photos made before 31 January 1945" does not agree with [14] (linked to in Commons, where it says that photos of unknown authorship taken before 1 June 1957, then copyright expires 70 years after it is taken is unpublished, or 70 years after the photo is published. And here is the relevant UK law.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

1946 is incorrect: it refers to the old fifty-year copyright term. The correct date is 1926, as the UK extended it's copyright term to seventy years before the URAA came into effect. Physchim62 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Whitey Band Logo.jpg

File:Whitey Band Logo.jpg is being used to illustrate the band page, although the image is of an album. It is my understanding that album covers can't be used under fair use to illustrate articles on the artist, but only on articles on the album. Am I correct in that belief? Corvus cornix_talk 07:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody? Corvus cornix_talk 20:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only that (and file page saying "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question") but also no logo at all could be recommended. However, I don't know the band and this particular cover art may very well have become the symbol for the band. In that case adding that info to the article may merit inclusion. On the other hand I'm not sure of the article merit and I would rather see more attention to the text now, adding any needed illustration later. Let fan research stay on fan sites. JAGulin (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What is Computer

Computer is an electronic machine which converts input in to output. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faqir Qasim (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of a commercial photograph

Is all multimedia on Wikipedia considered public domain or can some level of copyright be retained? EXAMPLE: I want to add a portrait photo to the article John Gordon (author) I recently created and would like to use a professional photograph which is owned and copyrighted by a photographer I know. He has allowed me to use his .jpg on the condition that I add "by the kind permission of Alan Howard Photography". Is this image now free to copy or does the owner still retain copyright? I also would like to use images of book covers, if they appear on a google image search can I use them? Thanks for reading Selseywill (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

All images must be freely licenced unless they are used under the fair-use doctrine which is not allowed for images of living people like John Gordon, but in the case you suggest the copyright holder may be prepared to release the image using the Creative Commons licence {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} which give attribution to the author. However, you will need to get the copyright holder confirm his permission by sending us his WP:CONSENT directly. Essentially he retains no rights to the image exacpt that it must be attributed as noted. Regarding book covers, they are usually used under a fair-use claim and must comply with all 10 non-free content criteria which, for book covers, usually means it will only be used in an article about the book in question and not in an author article, that, based on your question, may be your intention. ww2censor (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this PD?

I was looking at creating a vector of File:Coat of arms of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.png after seeing at request at the Graphics Lab and noticed that the file has both a FUR and a PD tag. If I were to create a vector and upload it, should I use the PD tag or a FUR? Thanks, Shep^Talk 17:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It may or may not be right, but commons has it as free: File:Coat of Arms of the Philippines.svg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that what you linked to is a COA for the Philippines, the image I linked to is for the Commonwealth of the Philippines. But, thanks for the reply. The image has been tagged as lacking a source, so it looks like it might be deleted anyways. Shep^Talk 23:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Canadian government: sound recordings

I'm getting a particularly good signal from CHU tonight, so I just got finished with making two recordings of its signal: one of the normal minute's signal plus the English voice announcement (one minute long), and one of a French voice announcement (about twelve seconds). I'm the first to admit that I'm no good with image policy -- when I went to upload, I couldn't decide which tag to use or whether the broadcast was even copyrighted or not. On the NRC's website (the NRC runs CHU) is a notice explicitly stating the non-commercial exemption mentioned at Crown copyright#Canada. But it appears that notice is only for materials on the website, so that does me no good. Is there anyone here who has worked with materials from the government of Canada? Which tag should be used in this instance? Xenon54 (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

All works created by an agency of the Government of Canada (such as the National Research Council) are under Crown Copyright. (See Crown_copyright#Canada.) Non-commercial use is allowed, but that is still considered "non-free" by Wikipedia. You would have to use {{Non-free Canadian Crown Copyright}}, and only use it in an article where non-free use would be permissible. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with removing image for me

I uploaded File:Sagebrush_Symphony_Orchestra,_1916.jpg with honest intentions, but I am now second guessing if this image is allowed on Wikipedia. I would rather the image be removed to be safe. Can an admin do this for me? Again, my intentions are good, but I find copyright restrictions very confusing... --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it was this conversation that brought me here to request removal. If Wikipedians familiar with image uploading and copyright restrictions are interested in assisting me with PYP images (hey, I know it's not your job, but I thought I'd ask!), any help would be much appreciated so that I can improve the article I am working on. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• If the image is public domain then there are no restrictions because of copyright. However we need more information to show where the picture came from, so that it can be verified. Was the image published before 1923 as the template said? Or was it published without a copyright notice? Or is this the first publication ever? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The image has been deleted. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Allowed?

How can I find out a photo is allowed to publish in wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alborzagros (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a specific image in mind? All images used on the English wikipedia must be freely licenced though under limited circumstance fair-use may be claimed. Are you talking about File:NYLON POLYESTER Fiber.jpg, File:Bicomponent Fibers.jpg that you uploaded? Those image is likely copyright to a supplier who uploaded them to the website you found them on. File:49629267.Achalladercastle38.jpg is clearly replaceable so the fair-use claim will fail and the CC licence is unconfirmed. It depends on several issues, such as date of image, country of origin, who photographed the image but you can be pretty sure that if an image is not specifically noted, or known, to be in the public domain or under any other free licence, it can probably not be used here. ww2censor (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Kristian Berg Harpviken.JPG

I have been asked to provide the source of this image. However, it belongs to my employer, and I am mandated to make it public domain (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License attribute added to the file page. Not sure how to proceed. Could you please give me a hint what to do to avoid deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halber (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide us with verification of the permission from the copyright holder. You can do that by following the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION but you may also want to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials as well as WP:CONSENT. Please be aware that you may have a conflict of interest and in that regard you should be aware of the guidelines of WP:COI. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting the post. I just realised that I am uncomfortable with making public where I work, and hence removed the post. With regards to the CoI, I see the point, but believe I have provided neutral information, and apart from one page, all the work I have done on pages related to my employer amounts to expanding or updating. If you see the need for reviewing my edits, please do so. That being said: thanks for the response regarding the copyright question. I found the whole process confusing, but a declaration of consent is now sent by email for the image in question. Halber (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted song on PD DVD

I've obtained a PD video of the 1969 Inaugural from the Nixon library on DVD (Government employees took it to make a 30 minute public information film about the Inaugural). On the clip I want to use, however, showing the theme float, you can hear the people on the float singing the Inaugural theme, which I know was copyrighted then though I doubt it's been heard of since January 1969. Am I OK using the clip, or not? I guess I could mute the audio track somehow if necessary. The point of having this is for the video, the article is "Bring Us Together" if anyone is interested.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The legal copyright status for audio works is a mess. In general, if I record a copyrighted song being performed, then my video is a derivative work of the original song and is subject to copyright. That's true, even if the video is not itself copyrighted. I guess it would matter whether the audio performance is an incidental sound (merely a small portion, and not intended to be a duplication) or whether it's a reproduction of a large percentage of the song. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The song is played for 42 seconds, the final 12 seconds of which the commentator talks over it. I believe the full song is somewhat longer, but that probably showed the entire portion that was sung while parading down Pennsylvania, it is difficult to say, the audio is not wonderful and you can't tell if it was spliced. Isn't there also a thirty-second rule for song fragments?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this in relation to uploading the clip here as fair use because of the audio? If so the same 10 criteria would need to be met. The bigger question as I am reading it, why is the audio is important? It seems as though you want to use the visual portion "showing the theme float" correct? Or will this be used in an article about "the Inaugural theme?" They are two different things. Can they go hand in hand? (Never mind - I see you added the name of the article) Yes but you also mention "the commentator talks over it" which brings another element into the overall question. While the clip itself (visuals only) may be in PD the audio may not be and I gather you already understand that - so the question is really what your use is for? There is a really great "comic" that was put together several years ago to help filmmakers (and other artists) get a basic grasp of fair use and copyright law. Tales from the Public Domain: BOUND BY LAW?, If you have never seen it I highly recommend it. EDIT: Now that I see the article in question I the use of a short piece of the audio (minus the commentary) fits into the same concept as 'Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm.', which was a case that brought into play use of about 15 seconds of a campaign song in a campaign ad. Because only a few seconds of the song was used, and because part of the commentary in the ad was about the campaign song, it was ruled it met fair use. This is slightly different than the 'Jackson Browne V. John McCain' lawsuit, although there is a good read in an analysis of the case called THE SINGER DID NOT APPROVE THIS MESSAGE, which also cites the 'Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm.' case by saying the District Court of New Hampshire found fair use when one-twelfth of a song was used in a campaign ad; however, the court found the small amount used relevant only to the extent that it affected the market for or value of the song. But remember Wikipedia is a lot more strict that U.S Copyright law in regards to fair use. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I cut it down so the song only plays for a few seconds; File:Bring Us Together video.ogv. The article is "Bring Us Together" The audio is unimportant to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See above. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would rather the song wasn't there. The only point to the video is to show the girl in the Inaugural Parade (and Nixon's reaction, though it is hard to say anything much about that). It seems better to have the audio track than silence, but I'd settle for silence rather than lose that video, which I am proud of getting.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I use this photo?

Can this photo be added to the photos at Wikipedia Commons? If the answer is "yes", would you please do it? I am not lazy, I just do not have enough computer knowledge to do it. http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00071359+MCC-1359 Thanks Gandydancer (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the full record page for the image it was taken before 1923, so yes, it is now in the public domain. You can make a request at the commons:Commons:Help desk. ww2censor (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that simple. My understanding is that a photograph would have to be PUBLISHED before 1923, not just taken before that time. The site itself states "Copyright and Permissions: All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright © protected and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees. We require that all images be credited to the Denver Public Library, Western History Collection. Please refer to the price list for commercial and private use, listed below." --Quartermaster (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Free Images

In the WP:AfD sections, there is a link next to the article's name that says free images. Clicking that link takes you to Google Images. Am I right in saying that the images on Google Images are not, by and large, free images? — Fly by Night (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Google also may know that the image is free for commercial use, or free to modify. The free image search limits the results to these. But you are right that most images returned in the basic Google image search are not free. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so there's some kind of search filter in place? Would it be advisable to bookmark that page and search for any images I might need on there? Would I need to check copyright myself, or could I trust the search filter? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In the Google advanced search, you can filter the search but you have to be sensible about deciding if an image is really free because Google only gives results based on the licence provided by the image page or image itself. Here are two stamp images [15] and [16] that Google found using the "labeled for commercial reuse with modification" filter and shows them to be freely licenced. However, the Frank Sinatra stamp is definitely copyright of the USPS because all post-1978 stamps are copyright, per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#United States and the other is a photo of a 2009 poster produced by the Royal Mail taken by a Getty photographer who released it with a free licence but it is a derivative work, so it too is most likely copyright. You still need to check the copyright claimed is valid, some are obviously wrong, other copyright licences look false and of course other are proper, so use caution. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Gary_larson_school.jpg

Just asking for assistance on the NFCC of the above image.

I uploaded it, and completed a Non-free media use rationale, and it's now being disputed[17], but as far as I can see the rationale is valid.

Anyway - can anybody help? thanks. a_man_alone (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

A post earlier about stamps being copyright got me thinking. If something is in the public domain, and is readily visible to people, but is copyrighted, then could someone upload a photo? For example, stamps after 1978 are copyright in the US; but what if I took a photo of one any uploaded it? The same goes for trademarks. Say I took a photo of a can of Pepsi, could I upload the photo? The reason I ask is that I know you are allowed to watch and photograph people (be it for security surveillance, for a psychological experiment, or for a newspaper) if they are in a place where they would reasonable expect to be seen by the public. So taking a photo of someone in a shopping mall is fine, but through their bathroom window is not! How does this apply to photos of copyrighted things? — Fly by Night (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking a photo of a stamp or logo is making a derivative, and a good image will not be adding anything, so you will not have added any copyright to the original. Displaying a logo in public does not give away the rights to reproduce it. A person is not a work or art and so has no copyright in their own image. (unless there was some body art or tattoo). Privacy issues are separate to copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking it a step further - you can take a picture of, say, your dining room and if there is a can of Pepsi on the table it is still fine for you to license your photo of your dining room. However if someone came along and cropped your photo to show *only* the can of Pepsi that derivative work would not be ok, even if your license terms allow for derivatives to be made. You don't own the design of the Pepsi can or the logos/artwork/graphics on that can so you can not legally re-license it. Same goes for anything else - think of it as, in the digital age, making a copy of a digital file. Just because you made a 1:1 copy does not imply any transfer of copyright from the original copyright holder to you. And, as Graeme said, privacy issues are another issue. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure the etiquette for US Government images

Oops! I added File:EGRID subregion map.gif (my first uploaded image) without using the copyright template. It was flagged.

The image was downloaded off an EPA web site (cited in the description), and I have also seen it in documents generated by the EPA. So was pretty sure the image would be legitimate to use.

I just added the PD-USGov-EPA template. Was it OK to do this? Does that template need to be added from somebody in the US government? Or perhaps I need some more authoritative source? Am I supposed to somehow attach the cite for the source of the document to the template?

I did not remove the di-no license template because I have these questions. But I will remove it if all is OK now. M.boli (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Martyn Godfrey image needed

Hi! I think a picture is needed for the deceased author's article named Martyn Godfrey. Would it be ok to use this image from this link: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/g/martyn-godfrey/ Please let me know. Thank you.Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That is not an easy question to answer. You should know the source of the image first of all, and by "source" I don't mean the website you link to above. I mean where did that website get it? Is it a crop from a larger image? What is the copyright status of the original work? For example I also find the same image here as well as here that is credited to "School Services of Canada", so it may well have been a publicity image that was sent out by a publisher, or one provided by the author. If that was/is the case you could use it via the {{non-free promotional}} tag with a FUR that explains how the image meets all 10 of the criteria found at the Non-free content criteria policy. It is important that you read Wikipedia:Image use policy and understand why it is important to follow what the Adding images section says. And I know that this person is deceased however the question will always arise with a fairly recent death of if there is a possibility that anyone took a "free" photo of him when he was active and 2000, when, he passed. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Tour Eiffel Citroen.jpg

Why is this image tagged as public domain? As far as I can tell, its author is unknown and hence the usual arithmetic of author's date of death plus 70 years is not applicable. Considering the picture was taken in 1925, it is well possible its author lived beyond 1940. Thoughts? Madcynic (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a file from commons: I agree that it seems dubious to suggest it is in the public domain, you should raise it in a deletion discussion on commons rather than here. Ajbpearce (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Image of Edward Popham

I am currently expanding the article on Edward Popham. There is an image of him on the National Maritime Museum which says the image is for sale. This image must have been made several hundred years ago & has been scanned from a book "History of England" but I'm able to clearly identify when the book was published. If the image &/or book it was published in are out of copyright how can the museum say the image is copyright & would it be OK to copy the image and use it on his wikipedia article?— Rod ^talk 10:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

They are claiming copyright in the image as a derivative work, in common with practises at several other british museums (see National Portrait Gallery copyright dispute). However, the view of wikipedia and the WMF has always been that such a position is not tenable and that "a simple reproductive photograph of a two-dimensional artwork does not give rise to a new copyright on the photograph." (see also Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp) You should therefore feel free to use the scan taken from the book in the article; and it can be considered public domain. You should upload the image using the PD-ART image tag. Ajbpearce (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've uploaded it to commons at Edward Popham.jpg but could you check I've got all the tags in the right places as the "public domain - art" seems to appear twice.— Rod ^talk 11:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dilly

Hi. The band Band of Horses have recently become the first band to release a music video via the movie website IMDb. The video, for the song "Dilly", was accompanied by a poster which was created to promote the video. The poster appeared on Band of Horses website and some other news websites. Can i upload a scaled down version of the poster and use it as a thumbnail to accompany the paragraph about this event on the main Band of Horses wikipage? Thanks. Iangurteen (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds it could be a fair use. It would be best for text in your paragraph to also talk about the poster. You also have to make sure that all the criteria for fair use are satisfied, including that it aids comprehension of the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To add slightly to Graeme's reply, if the poster is just being used for decoration, as opposed to illustrating some critical commentary in the article, then it will fail the non-free content criteria. Most importantly, under any fair-use claim you must justify its use by providing a good "Purpose for use". The bottom line often comes down to the question, does the lack of a non-free image detrimentally affect the user's understanding of the topic in question that could just as well be explained with prose alone. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

picture copyright issue - please remove!!!

I uploaded a picture for the "Leonard E. H. Williams" article but now I am having a second guessing (and cold shivers) for any possible copyright issue. The family gave me green light but I could stumble on a Crown copyright and then it might be trouble. I urge any admin who has a minute to spare to drop by and erase the picture. At least until I have cleared up the subject. regards to all. File:Williams3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hollow Man2010 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 29 November 2010

I have added the {{db-author}} template to the image so it gets deleted. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nestor Vladimir Portillo /OPA

From a pro soccer player to bodybuilder in Ontario Canada after a full achilles rupture .[[18]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.7.132 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg

This file probably needs moving to Commons. We seem to have permission of some kind from Barbara F. McManus, Co-Director of the copyright holding body, though perhaps not the clearest. This was in 2006 and our standards have probably changed. The question emailed was:

"I am writing to you as requested, to ask permission to use your image of bestiarii in the online encyclopedia "Wikipedia" (en.wikipedia.org), to illustrate the article on bestiarii. The image is linked at (link). Wikipedia is non commercial, however it is conceivable that some articles may appear in print, or in a DVD or other version, in future, and third parties may use Wikipedia content for purposes outside Wikipedia's control. Would you be willing to allow use of this specific image, for this purpose? If so, could you please visit the following web page, and confirm this is in order, giving a name and position, so that others in future may be sure we asked properly."

The response was: "I added the permission statement"; also "Photo of bestiarii courtesy of the VRoma Project". here.

Comments on the need to update this? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• - I wouldn't move that to Commons with a IP talkpage assertion. If she wants to release it under a commons license and she alone has that authority then she needs to contact OTRS and get checked out and verified. Until then it needs a fair use rationale. It can't go to commons even if you accept the statements she has made as it is not freely available for third party use, or perhaps I am reading that wrong, anyways her statement is unclear and doesn't make it clear what commons license she is attempting to release it under. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, in the absence of unambiguous free licensing, the fair use option isn't an option either: it's clearly replaceable, so there's no way this would be legitimate under NFCC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I hadn't considered the fair use possibilities. If there is no acceptable fair use rationale then, its on its way towards deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Simple answer: email the photographer again asking for clear permission and forward to OTRS. If the photographer does not respond, delete the file. (I am assuming that the artwork depicted was originally made a long time ago and is now PD, so fair use does not apply.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting images

How do I delete an image that has not been placed into an actual article yet but rather only uploaded to a page?PREMIS2010 (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Image I am trying to delete is : File:Illuminator Image.JPG if someone can delete it please PREMIS2010 (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. File:Illuminator Image.JPG has been deleted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)