Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/March

Is the Atomium a building, and if so is it effectively PD in the United States?

The tag on file:Atomium 20-08-07.jpg states "This is a two-dimensional representation of a copyrighted sculpture" and quotes USC 17 § 106.
However, I don't think it is a sculpture but is instead a building, ie. an architectural work, and the appropriate copyright law is USC 17 § 120, which says:

(a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. — The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

It has a restaurant and exhibition rooms inside and the official website refers to it as a building and "a unique piece of architecture", so I'd say it is clearly an architectural work rather than a sculptural work and that, as pictorial representations are permitted under US law, no "fair use" rationale is needed and the only licensing criteria which need to be considered for the image in question are those imposed by the photographer.

Your thoughts? 9carney (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The copyright on that work is somewhat controversial due to the stance taken by the owners of the building, as the article shows, however i think your argument is persuasive and I would be bold and switch the tags Ajbpearce (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I vaguely remember seeing a discussion at Commons about this subject; because its nature as a building likely isn't enough to make this a free image in Belgium, but I expect that it's enough to make it a free image in the USA. You'd do well to tag this with {{Do not move to Commons}}. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it is, the law of Belgium doesn't permit sculptures or buildings to be reproduced freely — and as the picture was taken in Belgium, Belgian law applies — so the image is copyrighted either way. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Belgian law applies in Belgium only. Wikimedia's servers are located in Florida USA thus the only applicable law is US law. There has been no disagreement that it is building, not a sculpture, and therefore the current tag is factually wrong. Legally this image seems to be PD in the USA and it would be very wrong of us to keep using a tag which misleads the public. 9carney (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If taking the picture was a violation of copyright in Belgium, then the Wikimedia Foundation cannot give the image better legitimacy than that originally held by the creator. It is a misunderstanding of the law to think that because if the building was in the US, the image would be PD, this confers PD status on an image taken in another country. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I take it that you are referring to Wikipedia policy on respecting foreign copyrights in this case and not commenting on US law - is that correct? 9carney (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Both. An image which is not subject to freedom of panorama in the country where it was taken cannot be licensed under any of the commons licenses [1], and theUruguay Round Agreements Act confirms copyright in the US for any work which was PD in the US prior to 1989, but which is still in copyright in its country of origin. Post 1989, all national copyrights are recognised in the US under the Berne Convention anyway, but prior to that, recognition was by separate treaty and it was possible for a work to be PD in the US if the creator failed to file the correct paperwork (as I recall, this happened to the first edition of the Lord of the Rings). Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the photo is categorised as non-free content under wiki policy. This article clarifies the legal situation ie. that the image copyright claims of the designer's estate have no basis in US law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9carney (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The URAA only confers status equal to what a US work that was published in the United States with copyright notice and proper renewal would have. Buildings were not eligible for copyright at all before 1990. Therefore there is nothing for the URAA to restore. -Nard 00:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Image published in a 1957 medical journal - UK copyright

I have recently uploaded the images File:oligodactyly_appearance.jpeg and File:oligodactyly_radiograph.jpeg for use as illustrations for the oligodactyly article. The original author passed away in 1983 (obituary on last page of [2]) and his wife and three children's addresses are hard to find, because the name Jones is very common in the UK. I contacted the publisher and received the permission statement below. Does a medical journal fall under any of the categories where UK copyright expires after 25 or 50 years after publication? Alternatively, is use of this image on Wikipedia "fair dealing"?

Thank you for your inquiry.

Please find below our permission statement:

Jones MV. Oligodactyly. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1957;39-B:752-4. (Figures 1, 2 and 3)

Thank you for your permission request. We are pleased to grant permission for you to reproduce the listed material from the aforementioned article, provided full acknowledgement of source is given. On this occasion the permission is granted free of charge, but please note that our fees are usually £500 for a complete article, £100 per page or £50 per table or figure.

Our standard acknowledgement is as follows (please ensure you cite the paper as shown above):

‘Reproduced and adapted with permission and copyright © of the British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery [citation].’

Please note that it is necessary to seek, or make all reasonable attempts to seek, the author’s permission in each case. The most recent address is given on the front of the articles. In this instance I would imagine that the author is now deceased.

As regards the copyright duration, it is true that copyright in the UK for certain materials expires after 50 years; for others it is 25 or 70 years. It depends on what category the material in question falls into. In any case we have decided to grant you permission to use these three images on Wikipedia at no charge.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Smocking (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's effectively a wikipedia only license so no. It also doesn't allw for the creation of derivatives.©Geni 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

for an X-ray of the condition this is probably in the public domain.©Geni 19:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So no fair use. What about the age? The copyright of printed material published in the UK usually expires after 50 years. As for the alternative image: it's okay, but I think it's not as clear as the 1957 one. There are enough people as it is who confuse oligodactly with a syndrome it is a symptom of (like Poland syndrome) or specific conditions that are also oligodactly (like ectrodactyly). Actually, the article was put up for AfD recently because someone thought it was synonymous with ectrodactyly. The fact that it's an adult case and that the metacarpals are missing (distinguishing it from brachydactyly) also adds to its value as a clear and distinct example. Smocking (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

UK is not 50 years. UK is life+70 for the most part. 50 years only applies to recorded music.©Geni 22:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, harsh as it is, we don't actually care what the copyright status in the UK is at all. We only care about the US, where, to be out of copyright, it would have had to already be out of copyright in the UK in 1996. So even if 50 years did apply, you'd still be out of luck I'm afraid. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That statement is only true for works that are OUT of copyright in the UK. If something is IN copyright in the UK, it cannot be uploaded under a commons license and it can only be used if its use qualifies under Wikipedia's non free content policies.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we have thousands of images that are out of the US (normally via their 1923 rule) that are still hosted on Wikipedia, quite rightly, as free images. Only Commons requires that they be out of copyright in their own country of origin (i.e. the UK). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you're wrong. The current state of US law is that anything that is still copyright in its own country is copyright in the US, either under the Berne Convention or the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (provided it was copyright in its own country on 1 Jan 1996).Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm pretty sure 1923 still holds it own though [3], regardless of the copyright status in country of origin. But other than that, yes, I totally agree with you, if it weren't out of copyright in the UK in 1996, it ain't going to be out of copyright in the US for a while yet. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Cornell seems to suggest you're right - I note their note 10. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads: it seems you're right, so I've requested speedy deletion. Too bad really; it was a much better example than what I've had to replace it with. The journal was also pretty surprised that their permission does not suffice. Smocking (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper clippings?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's say I wanted to add a scanned newspaper clipping to a particular article. The clippings include text and images, and are from the mid 1960s. The newspaper is Australian. What would the copyright of this be? It can be said that the newspaper clippings are historically meaningful or important. I know the question's a little vague, because I'm asking this to help my adoptee, so I don't know 100% of the details off the top of my head. If more information is specifically needed to answer this question, I'm sure I will be able to provide it, though. Swarm^(Talk) 04:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Both image and text are still under copyright; the fact that this is a scan is completely irrelevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it's Australian, does this mean fair use simply doesn't apply whatsoever? Swarm^(Talk) 05:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You can claim fair use, if the image is of high value to the article (generally used for commentary/critical review). It doesn't matter it is from australia, but it's too broad a question to know for sure. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot. One more question. The copyright would be 57 years old. How long does it take for an Australian copyright to expire? Swarm^(Talk) 21:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, anonymous works pre-1955 are no longer copyright. If the author is known, the duration is 50 years after the author's death if the writer died pre-1955 or 70 years if the writer died post-1955. If the work was published anonymously, 70 years after the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published. — Walloon (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you all. Swarm^(Talk) 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment

This photo of me was taken by a photographer Dusan Simanek. Dusan Simanek gave me permission to use his photo as long as I credit him as the photographer. Thank you again. Ivan Kral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kastrolmama (talk • contribs) 07:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please forward the permission to permissions as described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

reworked Fair Use images

Is is permissible to rework fair use images? Ostensibly resizing is a type of reworking, but what about contrast enhancements or background removal? - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is generally fine to rework it (but not to the point where it manipulates the subject) Things that are fine include crease/dust removal from scanned images, cropping (so that it still shows the whole subject) and rotating. What exactly do you want to do and to what image? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Joseph Stack in Billy Eli Band.jpg I wanted to adjust backlight and brightness. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use {{RetouchedPicture}} to document the changes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reusing US-Gov in the UK

I am aware that the specific exemption of US government works regard copyright only extends to the US itself, not other countries such as mine, the UK. In other countries, they retain the right to copyright. I would like (if possible) to republish some US-army photographs here in the UK. What would be the best way of administering copyright in this circumstance? Am I going to have to track down the author of the work and ask them to relicense their work? Or contact the US army itself? Or are there special provisions in place? I'm a bit lost to be honest. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 23:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

US army photos are probably copyrighted in the UK for the life of the author plus 70 years. Who owns the copyright is an unsettled issue. While under UK law the natural author would own the copyright, under US law the government would own the interest (if any should exist). What makes the issue unsettled is special rules tend to apply to acts of government, so a UK court could rule that the copyright belongs to the U.S. government. In all reality though I cannot think of any copyright case brought by the US government ever, and most US government websites even acknowledge there is no copyright in photos from them. In my unofficial opinion you are safe, but you should always respect the moral rights of the author (attribution). -Nard 00:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not correct about the UK copyright term, Nard. As a member of the European Union, the UK follows the "rule of the shorter term". Because a U.S. government work has no term of copyright, that is the "shorter" term that the UK follows (instead of the UK's copyright terms). — Walloon (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course! How could I have been so foolish? I've had to correct people so many times about how the US does not apply to rule of the shorter term and yet I completely forgot about the reverse. Thanks, that'll make my life a whole load simpler :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

copyright license for artwork I drew

hello,

I have drawn an image of a famous person and would like to place it in an article. I did the work and willing to release it into public domain of this famous scholarly person but have no idea what the copyright license I should use. I know how to upload the image but have no clue what it the correct thing to do after that. please help...i'm a new wikipedian --Virusunknown (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

First, if you traced or copied, or closely copied an existing photograph, then your drawing may still be a "derivative work", and thus you wouldn't own the copyright. But if this is a drawing from life, or something where you used a number of different photographic references (or you took the photo yourself), then ignore that first part. Creative works that are entirely your own can be licensed however you choose. You have a number of options, and all you have to do is choose the one that best fits what you want. See WP:ICTIC. Also, the options are in a drop down menu in the upload form, if you choose the link "Entirely my own work" at Wikipedia:Upload. Good luck, and thanks for considering donating an image to our project!-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Image review please?

I am new to uploading images and I would sincerely appreciate it if someone could review the three images below. I need to know if they have been uploaded correctly and, more importantly, if they are even allowable images under WP:IUP and other image guidelines. Thank you for your help. File:1956 Winter Olympics opening ceremonies.jpg, File:Sverre Stenersen.jpg, File:Ice stadium.jpg H1nkles (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a tricky one. It doesn't look like that template is valid at all, having been previously deleted from Commons. I nominated it for deletion. Let's see how it all plays out, then we can answer your question better. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I just saw that the template may be deleted. If that is the case I'm wondering if there is another usable template? The images were taken from an official report on the Olympic Games of 1956. H1nkles (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time, I have tidied the descriptions to include a US status. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I noticed your work and I appreciate it. H1nkles (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

PD-Italy nominated for deletion

People with copyright expertise invited to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:PD-Italy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

AndyPPUK.jpg

Resolved

I recently uploaded File:AndyPPUK.jpg and it has since been tagged for speedy deletion for having no source. I'm not quite sure how to cite the source; the file was e-mailed to me by the subject of the photograph (Andrew Robinson) and he explained that the photographer "has indicated he will not claim copyright over it and does not want a credit, so it can be licenced in any way you wish."

Any help would be appreciated -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My advice: let it be deleted her (or not), re-upload at commons, fill in the author and the source ("Emailed to uploader") and their template called "OTRSpending" and follow the instructions given on it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:COPYREQ#When_permission_is_confirmed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. File is now at Commons and OTRS pending. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How do I delete an image?

I would like to delete the image Rima Bhattacharyay.jpg. However, I am not sure how to delete it. Can you please kindly delete this image and confirm it's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanwarraj1 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How do I delete this image?

Hello, I had uploaded an image File:Rima-Bhattacharyay.jpg. But would now like to delete it. Can you please delete this image for me, and kindly confirm the deletion of this file from Wikipedia. Thank you so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanwarraj1 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification; I assume you mean File:Rima-Bhattacharyay.JPG, yes? TJRC (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just slap {{db-author}} on top of the image page. Smocking (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Images

How do I go about copyrighting images and what text do I need to display? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.221.127 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "copyrighting images"? Under U.S. copyright law since 1978, creative works have a copyright from the moment they are set in a fixed form. Are you asking how to register a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office? What image and what article are you referring to? — Walloon (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

file:Grendels mum or.jpg

This file is used at Rockwell Kent among other places -- it's from 1932, the artist died in 1971, but someone gave it a GNU license...I think it's copyvio...DavidOaks (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have been listed at WP:PUF, which is the proper venue; it can be dealt with there. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

File:2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee.jpg

Hi. I just got on Wikipedia this morning and I noticed that the image that I uploaded yesterday was placed for possible deletion. I had never uploaded car photos before, and I couldn't find out where to actually upload the photo at in the Upload file page. The photo seems fine, but I just want to be sure what to do when it comes to uploading photos again.

Thanks,

(MR.Texan281) (Talk)

The photo does not appear to be in the public domain so your solution wasn't correct. Wikipedians are good at takeing photos of cars so as a general rule and unless you took a photo yourself or it is under a free license from say flickr we we will not accept it.©Geni 15:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this it is copyright of Chrysler http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/08/autos/new_grand_cherokee/index.htm MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

i don't know what to do

i have uploaded 3 pics to Begur, India i have taken the pics myself i don't know what to do with copy rights please could some one help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejashs (talk • contribs) 01:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to decide how you want to license your images, and add the appropriate tag to the image page. I suggest {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, which essentially means you allow anyone to use and modify the photos, including for commercial use, as long as they "share alike" (share any changes or improvements they make to the image). Other options are at WP:ICTIC. The instructions for adding tags are at the top of this page. If you have further questions, you can ask here for more help. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we consider this photo usable under PD-art?

This image is of a mural on the ceiling of a church in the USA. Would we consider the image usable under {{PD-art}}, since it's a flat mural on a flat ceiling? Or is it problematic because the photographer was on the floor, quite a distance away from the original image, thus perhaps making this a not-so-faithful copy? I don't know the date of the mural, but it's mentioned in a book published in 1907, so it's plainly out of copyright. Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A work of art created as early as 1890 could still be under U.S. copyright, depending on the circumstances. — Walloon (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Painting a mural on the ceiling of a church absolutely constitutes publication. The mural is {{PD-1923}} and the photo is {{PD-art}}. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not "absolutely" constitute publication under U.S. copyright law. The work was published if the public was allowed to copy it freely, or if the church authorized the distribution of copies of the work. If the church enforced a "No Photography" rule before 1978, the work was not published. American Tobacco Co. v. Werckmeister, 207 U.S. 284 (1907),

A 1907 court case is rather unlikely to be a very good authority on a 1976 law. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Under the 1976 Copyright Law (effective 1978), artistic works are not published by being exhibited in public areas. So the question remains whether the work was published before 1978. For that question, the U.S. Supreme Court's American Tobacco Co. decision is operative. — Walloon (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

USS Holland Type No. 8 submarine drawing

Resolved

 –  – avhell (talk)

Hello all! I've got an engineering drawing of a Holland Type No. 8 submarine dated January 25, 1901. The work was produced by a private company as a contractor to the US Navy. I am wondering if there are copyright issues I need to be aware of before uploading, and what type of upload it should be (my own, federal govt source, or other)? Given that the drawing was dated 1901, we are looking at 109 years since its creation... Any help before I upload? --Avhell (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The first question is if the work ever had an authorized publication. If the work was published before 1923, it is in the U.S. public domain. If it was first published 1923–1963, it is under U.S. copyright for 95 years, provided its copyright was renewed after the first 28-year term. If it was first published 1964–1977, it has one 95-year U.S. copyright. If it had not been published nor registered for copyright by January 1, 1978, it is under U.S. copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years, or if it was a work for hire, 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation (through 2021), whichever is shorter. And if it was first published 1978–2002, it is guaranteed a U.S. copyright through at least 2047.

So, if the work has never had an authorized publication (and was not registered for U.S. copyright before 1978), it is under U.S. copyright through 2021. — Walloon (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be PD-USGov, since it was produced for the US government? Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

PD-USGov only applies to works produced by employees of the US govt. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Walloon. Unfortunately from what you have said, I can only assume that as a work for hire to the US Navy, the longest of copyright terms would apply then (120 yrs from creation)... Too bad, it's a great piece of history locked up for another 11 years still. :( Avhell (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Having discussed the U.S. copyright status of the work, I'll also say that in my opinion, the chance of anyone claiming copyright infringement at this late date is close to zero. And almost everywhere else in the world outside North America, the work has long been in the public domain. — Walloon (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There would be no problem uploading it under fair use then. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Aluminium MacBook.png

It appears File:Aluminium MacBook.png was updated and replaced a with completely different and non-free image on March 3? Swapdisk (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It should have been loaded under a different name, and probably should not have been uploaded at all. As it is non free. It will be deleted next Saturday. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Flickr

I've found images of buildings on flickr which are licensed under the Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic Commons License. Can they be used on wikipedia or not? Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

not usually, only images which meet certain requirements of "freedom" can be used freely on wikipedia, including the commercial use of such images. So images licensed under a non-commercial license would not meet this criterion and would fall under the content restrictions on non-free content that can be found at WP:NFCC Ajbpearce (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Old copyright dispute

Three years ago, there was an image of Tyrone (Amtrak station) whose copyright status was called into question(File:Tyrone PA Amtrak Station; Rebuilt.jpg). The editor who posted it made two other versions, the third of which was from a different angle. I tried to ask the editor about the original version, and received no reply. Can anybody give me a hint of whether the complaints were legitimate? Because I'd like to add the old version in the gallery. If I can't, then I'll just remove the duplicate image and get rid of the gallery. ----DanTD (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A book is in the Public Domain; Does that mean an image with a logo that is in the book is in the public domain too?

Hi, I have a book that has two pictures and an image that includes a company logo of a company no longer in existence. These would enhance two Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia's article about public domain for published works was very helpful and states works published from 1923 to 1977, without a copyright, are now in the public domain. Based on that and that the book was published in either 1970 or 1971 without a copyright mark, the book is now in the public domain and I will upload two pictures with the PD-Pre1978 copyright tag. My question concerns the image with the logo. Would the jpg file I scan of the image with the logo be considered an image or as a logo. Would this be considered a "non-free" logo? I guess I am a little confused. The book the logo is in is public domain but does that make the logo image in the book also public domain or "non-free" requiring Non-free use media rationale? Thanks, in advance, for the help.Liaws (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Was the publisher/author of the book the owner of the logo? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Answer: No, two different entities.Liaws (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Then the usual derivative work rules kick in. If the logo is under copyright the image is a derivative of it and thus partialy under copyright.©Geni 22:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of derivative works is that I would need to get the owner's permission before I post the image. That might be impossible since the company was liquidated about 30 years ago, I cannot find the publisher (out of business), and book was compiled by a committee, also no longer in existence. I don't want to press my luck with asking questions, but here is one more. I have a photocopy, made this year, of a company annual report from 1961. The annual report has a logo on it, could I use the logo from the annual report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liaws (talk • contribs) 00:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody bought the assets of the company when it went under, which would include the intellectual property. Who was that? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd still have to show that the logo is not under copyright, i.e. has the copyright run out, not been renewed etc. Otherwise, its best to use it under the non-free content criteria. Shell ^babelfish 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the link provided; that's quite a bit of information to digest, especially for a logo of a company long gone. Still, I'll give it a closer look. Thank you for the assistance. Liaws (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How to fix copyright problem?

I'm writing to ask how I go about settling the copyright issue with Image:Bradertgindlesburg1.jpg.

Note: I am the owner of the drawing which is over 100years old. The artist is dead, I feel certain and I did the photography as well. There should not be an issue but I'm uncertain as to exactly what I need to do.

Can someone PLEASE explain exactly what I need to do to resolve this issue?

Thank you in advance,

Katmaan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katmaan (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything appears to be in order already. You seem to have uploaded the same image four times. Three of the four have been deleted, but one (File:Gindelsberger1.jpg) remains, and is tagged properly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A picture of me taken by my housemate, a photographer

The image http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Chris-Bartlett.jpg is a picture of me taken by my housemate Peter Lien. He has given me permission to use it anywhere for any purpose. How can I document this, and what is the correct licensing tag? Thank you for your help. Harveymilk (talk) 04:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have him send you an email to that effect, which you could forward to permissions@wikipedia.org. Upload it to Commons, put in an appropriate creative commons tag, you might want to put an OTRS pending tag but you can get away without one, and send the email. If you are off base, they can advise you, but it should not be a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

I took the picture of the frank Lloyd wright home and i don't know how to make the copyright thing to it. please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljo2013 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? It appears to have come from this website. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for advice to make sure I obtain copyright permission properly

I have a scan of a photograph I'd like to add to Nera White. Not one of our more "important" articles, but important to me. I happened to be in correspondence with Nera's son, and asked if he could supply me with a photograph. He did, but before I upload it, I want to make sure I cross my t's and get the right permission. I found Commons:Email templates, with specific wording, but it assumes you can link to the image. The image isn't online.

I didn't want to put it online, then ask for permission, partly because that doesn't sound like the right sequence, partly because I don't know the person well, and our past interchanges have had gaps of weeks.

Then I found Commons:OTRS, which suggests it is OK to upload, with an OTRS pending template. However, scanning the talk page, it sounds like there is a fairly limited timeframe.

I'm now thinking about doing the following:

I will email the permissions wording to Nera's son, asking him to clarify with his mother that she is fine with the permission (he's actually already done that, but I know you want the right wording). He can identify a date he will plan to send the permission, and I will arrange to upload the scanned image a day or two before, so that there isn't a long gap between the upload and the receipt of permission.

I'd like to do this right the first time, so can you tell me if you think this sequence will work?SPhilbrickT 13:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The timeline isn't that important, and we can always undelete images that may have been deleted for lacking permission. I'd request permission (or ask that the copyright holder e-mail the filled out consent statement to OTRS), and once that has been completed, upload the file, noting OTRS pending. Then, once an agent gets to that e-mail, the file will be there for them to process. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

ThanksSPhilbrickT 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Use by a newspaper of an image I uploaded in Wikipedia

Hi, I would appreciate if someone could give me some advice on this:

I uploaded an image for an article I am working on about an Egyptian photographer. The image is mine (I shot it, as I have worked with the photographer). The images is uploaded in Wikipedia under GNU free documentations license, version 1.2, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. I got the permission of the photographer to use this photo in Wikipedia.

Several weeks ago a newspaper used the image in their printed and online versions. They print more than 10.000 copies. They credited the photograph as being taken by the photographer himself.

When I found out I got in touch with the editor and asked them to credit the source correctly (I was originally just asking for them to add Wikipedia or my username). They just removed the image form their website (after 3 weeks of being there). But that doesn't change the fact they broke the CCA (about printed copies) and the attribution conditions.

I already got a comment from a Wikipedia user about this, and I would like to know how should I -or can I- proceed.

Thanks, --Welle 1 (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You should discuss this with your lawyer. Wikipedia users cannot give you legal advice. Algebraist 14:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

::I don't believe that you should expect to get credit for uploading the image to Wikipedia. Wikipedia should get credit, if the image was in fact sourced from Wikipedia. It is always possible that they got the image direct from the photographer, who they did credit. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm confused. In one sentence you say "The image is mine (I shot it" and then later say "I got the permission of the photographer to use this photo in Wikipedia" Just who is the photographer? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds to me like Welle 1 is the photographer who took the picture, and should be credited as author. The other person is the subject of the photo; the subject happens to be a photographer (but not the photographer who took this photo); hence the confusion. Sounds to me like the newspaper screwed up and misatributed. TJRC (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sorry, I misread your comment. I assume that you are talking about File:Sherif Sonbol.jpg. I concur with Algebraist, you need to contact a lawyer, if you wish to take this further. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To Hammersoft, the image is a photograph taken by Welle 1 of another photographer, the subject of a draft article by Welle 1. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone, sorry with the delay in answering. Sorry also if I wasn't clear enough. Yes, I am the photographer and took the picture of Mr.Sonbol, and before I uploaded it I asked for his permission to use his image (since he is alive and its him portrayed). TJRC is right, the paper misatributed.

All I asked them was that at least in the online edition they attributed the source (that is Wikipedia). They had already printed more than 10000 copies without crediting source (which goes against the liscense terms), and their answer was to remove the online image but that's it. As the image was displayed online for 2 or 3 weeks it doesn't make much difference and that doesn't erase they broke the terms. Their argument is that the printed image was "very small", the kind they use in their headings as picture of the author of the article (it was used in a story by Mr. Sonbol). The size does not change the fact they simply violated the terms (besides the online edition image was displayed full-size, which is not what usually happens with these sort of "author-presentation" pics. Hope I cleared the mess. Was just hoping someone could give me an opinion before actually having to ask a lawyer (which looks sort of aggressive). The newspaper keeps promising they will ammend but I'm not counting on it (they have said so for the last month). Thanks guys for your answers --Welle 1 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Permission to use a photo from the website?

I would like to use an image that I found on the website in a public presentation. i would like to know if it is copyright protected or if it is public domain. The photo is of the book cover from Michael Crichton's The Terminal Man. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Terminal_Man

Is there someone I can contact to find out if I can use this photo? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsporrer (talk • contribs) 13:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As the book was published in the United States in 1972, it would be in the public domain only if it was published without a copyright notice, which is very unlikely. SV1XV (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's rules, the cover can be used in an article about the book itself. — Walloon (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This message board is related to Wikipedia and "help with image copyrights, tagging, STBotI, non-free content, and related questions." We aren't here to answer questions about your public presentation, as we cannot offer legal advice. You should probably consult with an attorney. On Wikipedia, we use the image File:Big-terminalman.jpg under our strict non-free content guidelines (WP:NFC). We clearly state that the image is copyright, but we believe our use falls under "fair use". You may or may not be able to claim fair use for your public presentation, but again, because we cannot give out legal advice, we are not the ones to answer that question. I wish you luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The question asked for help contacting someone to find whether if it was PD, not really advice on whether we thought it could be used in a presentation despite copyright. Nyttend (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Video

Does this look like it is okay to link to? We can't figure out who uploaded it. (If it was the family who are interviewed in the programme, it might be bona fide.) --JN466 23:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No. The BBC doesn't permit their programmes to be distributed through Google video, so whoever uploaded it did so illegally. It doesn't matter whether it was the family in the programme who uploaded it or if it was some other third party. -- Hux (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. --JN466 00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PD-textlogo?

File:Ohio BWC Logo.png consists of the words "Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation" and a line separating "Ohio" from the remaining words. Is this sufficiently unoriginal to qualify as PD-textlogo? In case you wonder, the image is being used in a manner appropriate for fair use. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is no, there are 4 different elements in here, circle, line two different sizes of text. Just enough to have a bit of creativity included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Nothing in that image is copyrightable under US law. Even the most fancy, typographical treatment and fonts are not subject to copyright. That said, I guess since there is disagreement, it doesn't hurt to keep in nonfree. It is just an organization's logo, so I can't think of the benefit of re-licensing it (unless there are a lot of users who want to use it in their userspace or something like that). How many applications of this photo are conceivable? For encyclopedic purposes, not many, so I don't see how a more restrictive license would in reality effect our use of the image.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion... not even close to copyrightable. There are no copyrightable elements, and there is no creativity to the arrangement to me. If the U.S. Copyright Office says File:Best Western.svg is not copyrightable, I don't think this is even ballpark. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is not copyrightable, then a huge number of logos will be PD. Is there a collection of cases where PD has been asserted? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say, as many logos will simply not have been submitted for registration. The classic example seems to be File:Coca-Cola logo.svg, although that is additionally PD by publication date. We need to be careful as well in that many jurisdictions (probably most) would protect a text logo under copyright law: hence File:RSC.svg is correctly marked as a copyrighted logo, even though it is uncopyrightable in the United States, because the work originates in the UK. Physchim62 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

NKVD photo

Is this image from 1943 copyright? [4] It's the second photo down, of Paulus's interrogation and I'd like to upload it to illustrate a page on Dyatlenko. This is an NKVD photo and I wouldn't like to upset the wrong sort of people ... Ericoides (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting one. Under Soviet law the photo needs to have been marked with information on the creator and date of creation to be copyright, but copyright only ran for five years, and if the photo was taken by a member of the Red Army (as seems likely) he would not have been able to claim copyright. In Europe and the various countries that made up the Soviet Union, its PD. Your problem comes with US copyright law, because if this photo was never published in the US, and the photographer is unknown, I believe it comes under the 120 year rule, and so will not be free until 2063. You are in a better position if it was published in the US and you know the date of publication. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Elen. It leaves me in rather a quandary as to whether or not to upload it... Ericoides (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This would be one of those instances where I would upload it under a fair use rationale. It's certainly not copyright to the NKVD, it seems highly unlikely it was ever published in the US, and it is hard to imagine there is anyone who could potentially suffer a commercial loss from it's use. I believe there is a template that can be used to show that a fair use rationale is required only because of aspects of US law, not because anyone is actually in a position to gain commercial benefit from the work. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that. Thanks again, Ericoides (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to have been published in the US - just published (?). If it was published outside the US, and PD in its country of origin on 1 January 1996, shouldn't you be fine? Not my area of expertise, but... - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes you would. If there's some (any) evidence that it was published in Russia, then you could use a {{PD-Russia-2008}} tag on it, and there wouldn't be a problem. I'm not aware of any evidence that it was ever published by the NKVD, so I was putting it in Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship) where the term is 120 years from the date of creation. See [5]. The reason I don't think it was published is that the NKVD account accompanying the photo confirms that photographs and film were made on 4 Feb 1943 for propaganda purposes, but this was taken on 31 Jan, and the account for that day makes no mention of the official photographers being on site. On the other hand, if anyone can dig up any indication that it was published in Russia, we're home free. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have discovered that it was published in the UK by Carlton Books[6] and see [7] number 126. Ericoides (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that particular image, but I'll take your word for it. It would be nice to have a copy of the book, to confirm that the photos are not listed with copyright, as I've read Copyright law of the Russian Federation five times now, and I'm still not sure of the implications of it. Incidentally, this book appears to be on every torrent and download site going. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(Thanks for your interest and help with this.) The image is on p. 134 of the book (sorry, it takes a long while for the slideshare link to download and I took the Document Transcript literally (under 126 it gives, "There he was interrogated by General Rokossovskii, Colonel General Nikolai Voronov and interpreter Captain Nikolai Dyatlenko, who are shown seated from left to right. Paulus sits far right." put 126 is the image not the page no.) On the copyright page (p. 256), the image on p. 134 isn't listed under the list of credits. It therefore must come under the blanket permission on p. 257: "The remaining pictures in the book were supplied from the Rodina Archive in Moscow and the Leonid Pitersky Collection in St. Petersburg, and include the work of the following photographers [then a long list is given]." Is that any help? A Google search for Pitersky brought up the following Wiki page. Ericoides (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I'll go back to my original advice, to upload it on en.wiki (rather than commons) under a FUR. It's not as if anyone will be able to turn up a free image of Paulus in the custody of the soviets, so there's no suggestion that it might be replaceable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's here now, I think I have followed your advice... [8] Ericoides (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Flickr

One of my images from my Flickr account has been uploaded to the German Wiki. My German is not good enough to allow me to ask this question there. It's very clearly CC licensed for Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Deriviative.

http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Datei:Skoda_felicia_kit_car.jpg

I am flattered that the image has been chosen, but annoyed at not being asked.

I would like to provide a copy of this image specifically licensed for use by Wiki to replace the one already doenloaded from Flickr and rehosted on Wiki. How do I go about this? How do I get the current uipload removed? From what I can see the Wiki user that has uploaded the image is now inactive?

SG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.234.147 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it looks like a user on the German Wikipedia has noticed that there is a problem (my German isn't up to much, but I think the tag is saying that the photo will be deleted from de.wiki.x.io if the problem isn't resolved within 14 days.) More generally, we don't use images that are licensed specifically for use in Wikipedia - images must have Free licences, which includes allows others to reuse the image, including commercial use and the creation of derivative works (i.e. for Creative Commons licences, we can't use content with NC or ND terms.)

If an image is not available under a Free licence, it may be usable here (but not all all Wikimedia sites) if the non-free content criteria are met, and I don't think they would apply to this photo (although the context in which an image is used is important in this.)

If you're willing to make the photo available in Wikipedia (which would mean giving up the restrictions on commercial use and the creation of derivative works), then the easiest thing to do is for you to change the licence details on Flickr to Attribution or Attribution Share-Alike. -- AJR | Talk 12:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.. I'll let it delete in accordance with the tag and then later upload a version that I'm happy to share with appropriate licenses.

SG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.234.147 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You can make a smaller or cropped version available freely, and keep the commercial rights on your full resolution version. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama

Hi All,

I recently posted this at Wikiproject Visual Arts and i was told that the editors here would be more helpful. I am trying to get List of Smithsonian museums to FL status and a question has arised that i hope someone here will be able to answer about "Freedom of Panorama." I know that images of building are alright, but there is a problem with when a sculpture is also in the picture. I have 2 pictures in the List that this happens in, one (File:Hirshorn exterior.jpg) being on wikipedia for 5 years the other(File:Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.jpg) for 4 with out a problem. Are these photos OK according to the U.S.'s Freedom or panorama or other laws? If it is not ok then there must be a ton of images in commons that should not be there. Could this be a special circumstance since it is on federal lands and the sculptures are owned by the federal government? Any help would be great.

Thank you in advance --Found5dollar (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming they were comissioned works being on federal lands would not make a difference. Any idea (to the nearest decade) when they were put up?©Geni 00:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that the Hirshorn sculpture was put up in 1974, and the Air and Space museum sculpture was put up in 1976. Also, i am not sure if it is possible to take a picture of the buildings without the sculptures in them... could it be fair use then because the sculpture is physicaly in the way of the building? Just an idea...--Found5dollar (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm that would mean that if they didn't have copyright notices they would be in the public domain. Otherwise our usual standard is that as long as the sculpture isn't the focus of the photo we won't worry about it.©Geni 01:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so just to be clear, you believe that the pictures are fine because A) the sculptures were up long enough and there are no copyright notices, and B) because the sculptures are not the focus of the photos?--Found5dollar (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't know if they had copyright notices or not so I don't know their copyright status. In adition given the positioning of the sculptures in the photos it would hard to claim that they were not the focus of the pic.©Geni 18:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So... where does that leave this? How could i find out if there is a copyright notice? do the pictures need to be deleted? Can i use the pictures in the list? --Found5dollar (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You could contact the Smithsonian, and ask them what the status of the statues is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Good point. i will try that.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just found a picture of the plaque at the base of the sculpture infront of the Hirshorn here there is no copyright notice on the plaque. The same is true for the plaque on the sculpture infront of the Air and Space museum which i found here. Does that mean there is no copyright notice?--Found5dollar (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this photograph of an ancient statue usable?

The Aristarchus of Samos article is without a good lead picture, as the previous picture (a photograph of a modern sculpture) was found to be unfree as Greece does not have freedom of panorama. Is this picture (taken from this NASA article) usable? It's a picture of an ancient statue, so the copyright of the statue itself doesn't come into play, and it's from a NASA site, which seems okay on the face of it... but I fear the photography may be copyrighted. Is this usable? Am I missing something on the NASA website that would let me know one way or another? Thanks. --Noren (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, to be on the safe side. Low-res photos on US govt sites, especially when they're outside the agency's area of expertise, make me suspicious. Often low-level government people who don't know better are just copy-pasting. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That image also shows up on quite a few non-NASA websites at tineye.com. Who knows where it originally came from. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The NASA page was from 2006, and all the copies of the image I found were lower resolution... so it would not surprise me if the NASA page were the source of all. --Noren (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to use this photo in my peaceful camapgining leaflet, I do not know who owns the copyright o that I can I ask their permission can you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.133.103 (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Which copyright tag would be appropriate for a picture from an official website?

I have used a photo from the Olbrich Botanical Gardens official website as an example of the Rose Tower. I did the same thing with a book cover before, but book covers have different tags, it seems. What do I do? I don't want it to get deleted because the picture is a good sample of one of the main gardens. Goodyfun (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun

We cannot use that image. Please see our non-free content guidelines and criteria (WP:NFC). We strongly favor free content. This image, taken from the official website, is almost certainly copyright and thus non-free. We can only use a non-free image in instances where free content couldn't replace (or be created to replace) that image. Clearly, as shown by the other photos in the article, it is conceivable that someone could go to the garden and take a snapshot of the Rose Tower. If you live close to the Gardens, or will be visiting them soon, you could be that person! Until then, we still cannot accept the non-free image you uploaded. Sorry. I'd be glad to assist you further if you have additional questions or concerns. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I'll remove the photo. I hope I can borrow a camera in the summer or spring for a new one. Goodyfun (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun

BY-NC 2.0

Is it possible to upload an image with the following copyright tag? [9] SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Longer: it's the "nc" (non-commercial) aspect we can't accept here, though you are free to investigate the NFCC to see if we might allow its inclusion as a non-free file. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Military (South African) Unit

I want to upload the insignia of a Military (South African) Unit what will the license be ?

Do you have permission to upload the insignia? Stifle (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How many years ago was it created. If it was created over 50 years ago it is public domain in south africa. Commons copyright template NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be usable in the USA too. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Just wanted to go one step at a time. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting license

*File:Fairey poster photo source?, by stevesimula.jpg

• File:Brotherhood up close.JPG
• File:California Gamay.jpg
• File:IPhone keyboard unblured.jpg
• File:2007 Alpine Skiing.jpg
• File:2007 Curling.jpg
• File:2007 Ice Hockey.jpg
• File:50Som2002.jpg
• File:5Som.jpg
• File:DanielBere.jpg
• File:KnowledgeTree3-6CE.png
• File:Logo of Icy Phoenix.png
• File:Nautilus-2.24.1-ubuntu.png

*File:RabbitVCS screenshot.png *File:Reeltime Logo.gif

• File:ShakespeareQuestion.jpg

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've just looked at a few of them, and it would appear that there are in fact validly two different licenses, one for the photograph and the other for something depicted in the photograph. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS and permissions questions

I've haven't uploaded many pictures, so I'm still getting my feet wet. Yesterday I uploaded two pictures, both to Commons. They were taken by a friend of mine, and he sent them on to me to upload, with the understanding how they would be used. He is fine with the licensing, but wanted attribution.

When I uploaded the first File:Kalana Greene.JPG I chose the option "It is from somewhere else". I thought that last time I uploaded, there was a recommended license, but I didn't see that option this time. I selected the GFDL CC-BY 3.0 license. I was prompted to fill out the OTRS pending, which I did.

I sent the photographer an email, with the wording to send in to OTRS.

I then uploaded File:Kalana Greene Senior Day.JPG. This time, when I saw the list of licenses, I thought the Multi-license GFDL CC-BY-SA all versions was the one generally recommended, so I selected it. I did not see the prompt for OTRS.

Two questions:

1. Did I do something wrong the second time? I assume I still must get the photographer to email the permission, but it didn't prompt me to do that, so I'm concerned I didn't do something right.
2. When I sent the text to include in the email, I got to "I agree to publish that work under the free license [ choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license#Common_free_licenses — THIS DECLARATION IS NOT VALID UNLESS YOU FILL SOMETHING IN HERE ]." It isn't obvious whether to include the name of the license, or the link to the selected license. I included the link to the selected license, but now I'm not sure that is correct. Can someone clarify what goes in the brackets?--SPhilbrickT 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

1. You appear to have chosen the "I created the image" option the second time.
2. Either will do.

Questions about OTRS emails for Commons are best to go to Commons:Commons:OTRS noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That link gives a message "This page does not currently exist." I don't know what to do next, will ask there, if I can figure out where "there" is.--SPhilbrickT 21:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe here? Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard--SPhilbrickT 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

how do I attach a copyright tag?

I don't know how to attach a copyright tag. The paintings are all in the possession of his widow and are not formally copyrighted but they are her property. This site is very confusing to do anything. And I am not stupid. The site is NOT user friendly. Edieangelo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edieangelo (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be a downer, but I worry that your article may be deleted once it goes live. It's not clear that the artist meets the requirements of WP:ARTIST. Getting permission to upload the artwork may be a long and arduous task. I recommend having your article go live in the "mainspace" first, make sure it doesn't get deleted, and then come back to get advice about adding pictures. If you do it now and your article is deleted later, it will be a lot of wasted energy. (By the way, even if your uploaded images get deleted, they can be easily undeleted later.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright in the People's Republic of China

Are any of the images here in the public domain? The image on the bottom left is approximately 65 to 73 years old (the caption places it as having been taken during the "Anti-Japanese War"), but according to Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights copyright protection in the PRC applies for 50 years after the copyright holder's death. Since I have no idea if/when the copyright holder died, or if the copyright of the photos is or was held by the Chinese government or a private person, I am not sure whether any of the images can be used without a fair use rationale (I think fair use in Nie Fengzhi could be claimed for the headshot).

Also, the images are hosted on the website China Military Online (chinamil.com.cn), and the website's English-language main page contains the following notice:

Copyright @China Military Online. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Any clarification would be appreciated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

From Commons:

According to copyright laws of the People's Republic of China (with legal jurisdiction in the mainland only, excluding Hong Kong and Macao) and the Republic of China (currently with jurisdiction in Taiwan, the Pescadores, Quemoy, Matsu, etc.), all photographs enter the public domain 50 years after they were first published, or if unpublished 50 years from creation, and all non-photographic works enter the public domain fifty years after the death of the creator.

Yes, it should be public domain then. This is from commons:template:PD-China NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out! This allows me to upload at least one of the images (the group photo).

Any suggestions on how to handle the first photograph (the headshot)? I could not find information about the age of that photograph, but I also can't rule out the possibility that it is less than 50 years old. Should I just treat it as if it was copyrighted (i.e., upload only with an accompanying fair use rationale)? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It says it was conferred in 1955. Although I'm not that good with copyright, that picture could probably be assumed to be from 1955, although don't take my word for it. Zscout370 (talk · contribs) and Durova (talk · contribs) are much more knowledgeable on the subject than I. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

City logo free?

First off — while this image is on Commons, it was uploaded here; I'm asking so that local admins can see the image's history, since obviously Commons admins might not be able to.

File:Cleveland Municipal Seal.svg was tagged as PD-self at upload, and has been tagged as PD-uploader since transfer to Commons. Do we have any reason to believe that this logo is really free? Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely not PD under the 'it's only text' rule. If it was made by an employee of City of Cleveland it is definitely PD. It doesn't look like it is old enough to qualify as PD because of its age, but the possibility exists that either it's pre 1923, or it's pre 1963 and copyright was never renewed. Without more info as to why the uploader thought it was PD (other than 'I made this', which is what he says - aargh!) one would be on the safe side assuming its not. I can't find anything in th history of Cleveland, but the image on Wapedia is fair use [10] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's File:Cleveland seal-T.png, which we have here; Commons file is tagged for deletion. I'm not clear — is Wapedia related to the WMF, or is it just a mirror? Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wapedia is Wikipedia repackaged for WAP. Point is - if the png image is fair use, there's no way the svg image is pd.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, where do you get the idea that "if it was made by an employee of City of Cleveland it is definitely PD"? That is true of employees of the U.S. federal government, but not necessarily true for state or local governments, which may hold copyright in works made by their employees. — Walloon (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Walloon, you're so right. My only excuse is that in the UK there isn't so much of a differentiation between local and central government employees - although, that said, work created by government employees in the UK isn't PD anyway. I am striking the faulty sentence.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is IMDB headshot images fair use?

I'm trying to add a headshot of actress/writer Gloria Kellett from IMDB.com. Is this possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephguzman (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Not under wikipedia policies, for articles of living persons of whom a free picture could be taken non-free alternatives are not generally permitted I am afraid Ajbpearce (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

España y Filipinas

Is this 1886 painting entitled España y Filipinas by Juan Luna still copyrighted? - AnakngAraw (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not copyrighted. However this falls into a sort of gray area. commons:template:PD-Philippines and commons:template:PD-US would be used to describe copyright status. In other words its copyright has expired. However, the only picture of the painting I can find is here on flickr [11] Then it becomes a question of commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag or commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag. This is a bit of gray area. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Image of a simple 3D object

Is File:Pokéwalker.jpg copyrighted, or is the object not original enough? Theleftorium 17:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's no more subject to copyright protection than, say, a television remote. Of course, the image itself is original enough to be copyrighted, but it's not anymore because the photographer released it into the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I see. So the object has to be a "work of art" to be copyrighted? Theleftorium 15:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but it has to have a creative element. The gubbins that make the doofer work will be patented, and the pokeball logo is trademarked. The pokeball design is probably also copyright, so the doofer could be a derivative work in that sense. To warrant copyright, something has to be creative - one can copyright the design of a piece of technology if it is unique and creative. I think Nyttend is wrong, and DS could have copyrighted the design of this object - however I have no information as to whether they did or not.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing creative about a circle that's half white and half red with a black line through the middle. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bear with me here, and bear in mind that the pokeball symbol didn't originate in the US. The pokeball logo will be copyright in most countries, including the country where Pokemon originated (the US copyright code is something of an exception in this respect) and the doofer is intended to look like a pokeball, hence it would at the very least be a derivative work in the copyright code of most countries. It would be improper to load the image onto Commons, as a work which is copyright in its own country cannot be licensed under the required CC-BY-SA licence. It is a nicety that up until recently US law might have disregarded the possibility of recognising a valid copyright for the object - and I only say might. I would think it would be advisable to check if a copyright for the thing was ever registered in the US. I'll leave it for others to comment on the effects of more recent legislation, particularly the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. I don't *know* if it is copyright, but I do believe that your statement that it cannot be copyright is incorrect, given that the base design originated outside of the US.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Klotzman.jpg and retracting a free license

I added this image to an article after a conversation that you can see here. In the meantime they seem to have changed their mind and now there is a sternly worded "all rights reserved" notice on the website. So here's my question: Can they do that? They released the content under a free license so it could be used as the basis of a Wikipedia article, then turned around later and said "never mind it's now copyrighted." I'm not real worried about the image being deleted, this is more of a general question in case this should hapen again. Not only does it seem disingenuous, it seems legally shaky. How can it be free content one day, to be re-used by anyone for any purpose, and private property the next? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

They can't revoke the license. Assuming we have complied with all the terms:

"...the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above." CC-By-Sa 3.0 legal code (Section 7: Termination)

We do need to be able to prove that it was actually licensed under it, though. I've checked Internet Archive and WebCitation.org, and neither have copies of the page. It's possible that the owners of the site want it to be on WP, but don't want other people using it - which is tough, if they have released it under a CC license. – Toon 19:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrote something much longer and more complicated first - but what it boiled down to was that, assuming we have valid proof of release of that specific work under a free license at some point then in this situation, what toon said Ajbpearce (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's more or less what I figured, I don't know how we could prove that it was under a free license at one point though. If I had to guess I would say that the guy they hired to promote Mr. Klotzman on the web got in some trouble for releasing their content, he hasn't made another edit since the day the image was added to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The other point which i forgot is that the person claiming to relicense the image needs to be either the copyright holder or authorised to relicense the image on behalf of the copyright holder, which in this case we also have no idea about; obviously someone without the actual power to license an image under a creative commons license cannot purport to do so effectively, and if this guy was just a publicist for Mr Klotzmann even though he may have "built, wrote and maintain the site richardklotzman.com" it would be unlikely that he would hold copyright in those images, though that would be a matter for OTRS to work out through their system Ajbpearce (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ingame photo

The page listed about ingame pics isn't really helpful, so I'd like to know if I can use an in-game pic from Roller Coaster Tycoon 3? Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Maronibraterbig.jpg

How should we treat this image of a recent painting? It was originally uploaded as nonfree without a rationale, but after being tagged for deletion because of the lack of a rationale, the uploader added GFDL and cc-by-sa-3.0 templates and claimed to be the "author and copyright holder", despite giving a different name than the name of the painter given in the previous sentence of the image description. Should I tag this for deletion as lacking evidence of permission, since we don't know that the painter gave permission, or is this best treated in a different way? Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We have an identical situation with File:Frankfurtrudern.jpg and File:Alte-Donau.jpg, both of which (as well as Maronibraterbig.jpg) were painted by Siegfried L. Kratochwil. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

what would be the copyright for information regarding organisation

Hi wikipedia team

I am the founder and executive member of the Sathkruthi Organisation. You have asked about the copyrights for this. How can i submit copyright tag for this. Please let me know. Thanking you,

Sirish Krishna P

Contact details

<e-mail redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris enigma (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we cannot answer by e-mail. This page is manned entirely by volunteers and e-mail replies are too time consuming. I have also redacted your e-mail address - Wikipedia pages are highly visible on the internet and revealing an e-mail address here is a magnet for spam. To answer your question, if you want to release copyright material for use on Wikipedia, please follow the process set out at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Having just read your article, I have tagged it for speedy deletion as it clearly violates our policy against advertising - it is way too promotional in tone. Please also read our advice on editing with a conflict of interest. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo fair use opinion -- a bit urgent

This question is a bit urgent in that it is impacting a pending Today's Featured Article Request. The seahorse logo File:Avery Coonley Logo.PNG in The Avery Coonley School infobox is used under a {{logo fur}} rationale. There was an argument on the article talk page that it was actually free given the OTRS ticket and should be deleted immediately, but the OTRS volunteer on the ticket has opined that it should be considered "in a standard NFC context." The complexities are explained on the TFA page. It would be helpful to have an expert opinion on whether the image is used acceptably in this article. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The image has been removed from the article while the issue is discussed, but an opinion on the acceptable use is still needed. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The NFC context is a bit of a red herring because I think you are probably able to obtain a free version, Avery Coonley School in its OTRS ticket empowered you (Nasty Housecat) to act as an agent for the school, this means that by default the contents of the site are not free but that they have empowered you to release any content from that site on behalf of the copyright holders under any license. However, because logo's are different from act as both copyrights and trademarks(in a non-legal sense) and so generally copyright holders would not release them under a free license (for example the wikipedia logo is not-free!) the OTRS volunteer wants to be very sure that you are a) explicitly exercising your power to license that logo as free content and b) that the school has not given you any private directions about how you are to exercise the power that the school has given you that would contradict you releasing the logo in that form. These are the two steps necessary to explicitly release the logo to wikipedia as free content, but even if the school has not given you any private duties you should still contact them and make sure that they are really ok with you releasing the logo as free content and that they understand that anyone will be able to use or modify the logo for their own purposes if it is done; especially because ( and this is not very clear from the language and I don't know enough about US copyright law to say) it looks like you may have some form of duty to act in the best interests of the school.

Looking at your comments it seems you have not been clear about whether you are able to or wish to release the logo as free content and you need to clearly state these things first. Once the status of a possible free copy is clear then we can move on and consider a NFC rationale. IF there is no possibility of a free version then the current image should be assessed on standard NFC logo criteria as to whether it can stay. Ajbpearce (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Ok, I have just seen your edit at [12] which makes the above redundant, In that case the logo must simply conform with WP:LOGO , which the use would appear to, so if the image is re-uploaded by you under the NFC with this rationale then this should suffice for the article Ajbpearce (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice however that editor and agent 'Nasty Housecat' contradicts that in previous edits, including the following one that says the OTRS permission applies to the entire website and all text and images without restriction. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this has already been addressed pretty well by Moonridden girl at WP:TFAR, unless Ajbearce disagrees. Whatever I may have said about the OTRS permission, the fact is only OTRS has actually seen it, I think she had been very clear about its scope. As both reviewers have said, the right thing to do is to ask the school. Which I will. I have no idea what they will say but I would not be too hopeful. Even Wikipedia, I am told, reserves its logo.

Also, if I could ask Ajbpearce to check the image rationale at File:Avery Coonley Logo.PNG, which I believe should already conform with WP:LOGO, but given the contentiousness of this discussion, would like a double check. Thanks for taking a look. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to contact the school further. Due to the following: The OTRS release specifically empowers Nasty Housecat to act as an agent for the school as "We permit <name redacted> to license the entire site -- inclusive of images and subpages. We have no limitations on what <name redacted> can license -- we trust him." Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

SunCreator he is empowered to do so if he feels that it is in the interest of the school, but he is not obliged to do so. Nasty Housecat has (very understandably) indicated that he is unwilling to do so without explicit permission from the school & I cannot see in any of his edits something that would indicate he has ever considered otherwise. In any case the point of our copyright policy is not to seize on possibly ambiguous statements ( which i don't think Nasty Housecat's was, It seems tolerably clear that he never intended to license the logo under a free license) and then use that to try and use content against the wishes of copyright holders. In regards to the image rationale at File:Avery Coonley Logo.PNG I can't initially see any problems with it, have any specific issues been raised other than the OTRS thing? Ajbpearce (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There was an initial question at the top of the thread about the use of a non-free image, before the free/non-free questions arose, but nothing specific was raised. I believe this issue is now resolved. Thank you very much for your help with this. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How do I upload a new version of a file?

I want to upload a new version of a file but it doesnt have the link that says upload a new version of this file. How do I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertomi (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Images in my article

After several weeks, I am still unable to resolve the warning messages that I recieve from Wikipedia reviewers regarding a few of my images. It keeps asking that I provide a rationale for the usage of these images. I have included an explanation that I am the lawful copyright holder of these images and am providing them for this article. The date for deletion keeps being pushed back. I simply cannot figure out what further rationale is needed. I can delete all of the gallery images if that will allow the article to be reviewed and to actually be posted on Wikipedia. Please advise as to what I need to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryanassadi (talk • contribs) 17:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is is that you are uploading these as free images - claiming your own work - when in reality they are images copyrighted to other people, in some cases relatively-recently deceased, which would make them non-free. For example File:Frankfurtrudern.jpg you appear to say its your work, but given the page it is linked to - a dead artist - I doubt that. You probably should be using the {{Non-free 2D art}} licensing tag in addition to {{Non-free use rationale}} to provide the proper rationale. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, I am not the painter, but the legal copyright holder of this work. This can be verified on the artist official website www.kratochwil.com. I had previously uploaded these images as non-free 2D art and the images were tagged for not providing a proper non-free use rationale. My rationale remains the same, that I have legal authority to distribute this work and in this particular case, thought that adding some images of the artists actual work would greatly enhance the wikipedia article. Do I have to upload them into the wikipedia commons page in order to use them. Should I just delete the gallery for the sake of enabling this article to be published in wikipedia? PLEASE ADVISE. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryanassadi (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) I would appreciate notification on my talk page if someone replies. Thanks! —User:Aryanassadi —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC).

I suggest that you e-mail OTRS with evidence as described at WP:IOWN. – ukexpat (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How Do You Delete A Picture?

I have a picture I would like to delete that I uploaded. It is already set to be deleted because of copy right problems. Do I just have to wait for it to get deleted or can I do it on my own? Goodyfun (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Goodyfun

Just edit the image info page to add the text {{db-author}} at the top and an admin wil delete it. – ukexpat (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Scanned Content

What are the copyright rules regarding advertising material produced by a now defunct (or at least I believe it to be) company? I am trying to create an article on an illustrator who did a significant amount of work for them, going so far as to draw himself into one of the advertisements, and I would like to use the self portrait ad as the picture for the top of the articles info box. I have a hard copy of the ad from 1946 Which I scanned, enhanced for color and clarity, cropped and saved for use on Wikipedia. I am not sure what the rules regarding this image are. Am I even allowed to use it? If so, which tag might I use and from whom, if anyone, would I need to receive permission for using the likeness of this advertisement. I would greatly appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable in this area as I am quite confused by the veritable sea of different copyright tags and information available here.

Dead Artist Fan (talk) 12:00PM, 18 March 2010 (EST) DeadArtistFan

Whether the company is defunct is unlikely to affect the copyright status. However, many pre-1978 U.S. advertisements are public domain, due to lack of a copyright notice - see [13]. Assuming that you have a published copy of the advertisement that File:1946 Floyd Davis With Drink in Hand.jpg is part of (as opposed to a copy of the original artwork), check the ad carefully for any copyright notice. If there is none, you can tag the file with {{PD-US-no notice}}. But be sure to include the source / publication information (name of the magazine or newspaper, date, page) - this was the original problem with your upload. --dave pape (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a logo

I have a company logo that I want to upload to an article's infobox that I am currently in the process of making for Steiner Electric Company. But it is a non-free logo that I need help uploading because I don't know how to tag it or understand all the copyright and licensing information required. It is not a logo that can be uploaded in Wikipedia Commons and do not know how else to get it on my page like other company pages. If someone could please help me upload the logo and then tag it properly so it will not be deleted it would be much appreciated! This is the page so far. User:Lizzard388/Example/Steiner Electric

207.7.208.253 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I can help you with that, but non-free images cannot be used in userspace so it will have to wait until the draft is moved to mainspace. Before it is moved, there are a few issues, I will leave a message at User talk:Lizzard388. – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyfraud?

File:Phi Gamma Delta Star+Diamond.png, a composition of simple geometry (vis. a single diamond and star), does not appear to be copyrightable, despite the claims on the file page. It may however, be trademarked. Thoughts? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, just two simple geometric shapes arranged with no particular creativity. Looks like a {{PD-textlogo}} to me. – ukexpat (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Unable to add photographs

I've twice submitted 3 photographs. Photographs were not made by me. I've gotten email permission by the photograph's creator and submitted it to the permissions-en email address. The last time I submitted it was on March 9th. The photographs were just deleted. I nor the creator of the photograph have not gotten any email or other notification. So, how do you add a photograph with email permission from the creator? If sending the email to the permissions-en email is correct, what happened to the last time I submitted the photograph?

The three photographs in question are: File:Chestefield Idaho Meeting House.JPG File:Chesterfield Idaho Ira Call Cabin.jpg File:Chesterfield Idaho Denmark Jensen House.JPG Bgwhite (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is usually a backlog in the OTRS system as it, like the rest of Wikipedia, is manned by volunteers (actually a fairly small group of volunteers) so you will have to be patient. Once your submissions have been reviewed and approved OTRS will undelete the images and tag them with an OTRS template. – ukexpat (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the normal time it takes to get thru the OTRS system? I first submitted Feb 27th.

Just a suggestion, it would be nice to get a response email from OTRS that my ticket has been submitted and subsequent emails/web page to see the progress of the ticket. I haven't run OTRS forever, so I don't know if it has the capabilities (I'm using jira and maintain a system by Kace). The defaualt stance at Wikipedia seems to be guilty until proven innocent. Being labeled "guilty" while trying to contribute to an article isn't fun.Bgwhite (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The delay time on permissions where the image has already been uploaded (i.e. is not attached to the email) is about two weeks now. The delay where the image is attached is around 30 weeks. It appears that this email is being managed under ticket#2010030910053125 and a series of replies has gone back and forth between you and OTRS yesterday.

The facility to auto-reply to emails is available in OTRS but because of the ridiculous amount of spam we get, it hasn't been enabled for backscatter reasons.

Wikipedia cannot afford to be complacent in the matter of copyrights. We don't assume it'll be OK or that the copyright holder won't care. Apart from the risk of being sued, ultimately Wikipedia aims to use content that's verifiably free, and with the number of people who just don't understand copyright but still upload stuff here, the default position, that is that an image is assumed free but when challenged, the uploader must produce proof of freedom, is a happy medium. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright tag

Dear Sir / Madam,

following images are I created myself, I want to use in Wikipedia ( Digital art and Digital illustration) section, Which license is need to add for this image and any charge is needed further. Image details:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Cognition-Libido.jpg http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:Absence_of_Freedom-2008.jpg

lake of the copyright tag they will delete my image soon.

People can use this image only with my permission.

Please guide me.

Regards R.Gopakumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.194.92 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Material donated to Wikipedia cannot be "used only with my permission" as the diea is that this is a free encyclopedia that any one can copy and modify. So if you don't want to give your images to every one, don't put them in here. Instead I encourage you to take a look at CC-BY-SA-3.0 license and see if can can accept that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Pop Top Machine that kept us awake at night

Re: Message about Copyright "The Pop Top Machine that kept us awake at night" I can't find how to respond, I can't find my article, "FREDERICK ABINGER (TOM) WARDER" (after submitted numerous inquiries) and I am just plain fed up! How can I withdraw the copyright from all the other images I posted onthat page? And how can I completely delete my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venturian (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

for File:The Machine that kept us awake as it pumped out poptops!jpg (WinCE).jpg you say that you created this image by yourself. You must give out a license such as CC-BY-SA-3.0 it seems that there is nothing here. If you did not take the photo, but got the picture from somewhere else then there may not be any permission to have the picture here. put {{db-user}} tag on the pages or images you uploaded if you want to remove them. For File:TomWarder 19.jpg we would like to see a license and a description of what the phot is of, and when it was really taken. For File:Tom Warder Mandolin.jpg did you really take this photo in 1964? and if so what license would you like to grant? File:Tom Warder (Medium) (Medium) (2) (Large) (Large) (Large).jpg is on commons with different procedures. This one has the CC tag, so you cannot revoke the license unless you had no right to grant it in the first place. The article you are looking for is on your user page: User:Venturian, it is not yet in article space. 00:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer

Hi, I want to know if this picture qualifies for fair use. this one. Please help me, I don't know, if so, how to upload it, because I can't in Commons, it doesn't allow fair use images. Thank you. --SouthAmerican (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the person is dead and could not be photographed again this could be fair use. But is this a publicity photo widely available? Are you impacting the commercial interests of the copyright holder? Please look at WP:Fair use, all 10 criteria have to be met. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Maps related

Dear editors,

1. Pls help me understand what historic maps are count to be valid and which policy they have to accord to?
2. If the historic map is from a published book or Atlas, which is the copyright type to be used?
3. If a historic map is from a non-reliable source, what is the procedure to change it with a more reliable map?

Thanks for help!Aregakn (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1. To be used here the map should be public domain, which means old enough, published without a copyright notice in the United states before a certain date, or copyright not renewed and published before a certain date. Any map published by the United States federal government will be public domain. And crown copyright with limited life will apply in some other countries' government maps, eg Australia over 50 years old - so prior to 1960 can be used.
2. If the published book is a faithful reproduction of the old public domain map, you may use it, but if it adds extra text or restoration, then copyright will be renewed.
3. Just load up the new copy with the same name, you will be prompted that the same named image exists already. Please update the source to say where the copy came from, and actually only do this if the other version is better. If not better it would be more appropriate to upload with a different name.

Thank you for your previous answers!

1. Please name the policy I have to read, if possible.
2. What is the method to defrintiate which historical map is better?
3. If a dispute accurs in this regard, how and according to which bases is it going to be solved
4. Is more than 100 year periud enough for the historical map to loose the copyright?

Thanks again.Aregakn (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

You are going to make more specific. You can read Public domain. In which country was the map published? is it online somewhere already? If both pictures are online then which picture to use can be discussed on the talk page of a relevant article. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, this will describe what makes an image the best. Things like high resolution, clarity, lack of distortion, correct colour, lack of noise, defects rectified (or not). Maps published before 1923 in the United States should be copyright free now. If elsewhere then other country rules apply. If you are going to scan or photograph a historic map, please do it in an uncompressed form. This will give the restorers the best chance to make it better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms, non-free licence and recreatability

A number of coats of arms on Wikipedia use a non-free licence, and say: "Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent". To the best of my knowledge, this is untrue. The "real" form of the "logo" is actually the blazon (a textual description of the arms), so anyone can actually recreate a free equivalent, as long as they understand the jargon of a blazon and can use drawing programs.

Is my interpretation, that these images are actually improperly being included, true? Should we delete and/or replace the images of the arms, with a free equivalent?

Some examples I've come across are: File:Melbourne_Crest.png, File:Coat_of_arms_of_the_City_of_Sydney_(old).jpg, File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Margaret_Thatcher.PNG, and possibly File:Perth-coat-of-arms.png.

I would appreciate notification on my talk page if someone replies. Thanks!

—Felix the Cassowary 09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If Commons:Coats of Arms is accurate then it looks like it points the way fairly neatly here. In short: a coat of arms (CoA) downloaded from the web must be assumed to be under copyright unless otherwise indicated, because it may have been recently created. However, as you note, since it's not possible to copyright the blazon (or if it is, that copyright has long since expired), it's entirely possible to simply create a CoA based on that blazon, as long as it doesn't look like an obvious copy of a potentially copyrighted CoA. In other words, the specific CoA's you linked to probably are correctly tagged as copyrighted works. Hope this helps! (I'll post this to your talk page as well.) -- Hux (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just bear in mind that the Royal College of Arms is still busy creating new blazons in England at least[14]. Having said that, I do not believe that the blazon is copyright even on a new grant, hence it would follow that only the artist could claim anything, and then only for their exact rendering.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A dig around the Royal College of Arms site suggests that while arms can be created in any style based on the blazon, the holder of the Letters Patent (or their heirs in the case of a grant to a person) can take action in the UK and Commonwealth to prevent their arms being misused [15]. This doesn't seem the same as being copyright. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hux, I'm afraid your answer only concerns me all the more. It seems we agree that the image is copyrighted. But my question isn't abut whether the image is copyrighted, but whether it's legitimate to include it on Wikipedia at all! A part of the justification for including those copyright images, is that you can't recreate them in such a way as to accurately represent Margret Thatcher's (etc.) coat of arms. But you can! So isn't it then non-fair use, to include an image we can recreate? Shouldn't we delete them? —Felix the Cassowary 13:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The simple solution would be to draw another one based on the blazon (Commons has all the components you might need, unless you're feeling particularly artistic). The case where it would be acceptable is if a CoA is also the official logo for an organisation, so it would not be possible to obtain a free copy of the version that is actually the logo, only to draw different versions that don't match the logo (thus being useless for showing what the logo looks like). This is often the case for companies or governmental organisations (like the City of Sidney), not for Margaret Thatcher though. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue with holders being able to prevent their arms being misused sounds to me like a noncopyright matter that's not considered a problem at Commons. There are many other such images at Commons; for example, File:CIA.svg is public domain, but there are strict legal penalties (detailed on the description page) for its misuse. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Is design protected by (national or international) copyright

There is discussion on Commons, see here about the question whether or not design is protected by copyright law or not. I am not an expert in the field, and I would welcome any expert opinion. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Design is not the same as copyright. It is more like trade mark, where it is registered and then the same item cannot be reproduced by others. A design on paper, such as a clothing pattern or blueprint will have copyright though. Design rights would not be infringed by photos here, but may be so if someone manufactures the item in the photo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What Graeme Bartlett said. — Walloon (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky area. Some countries do recognize copyright in certain designs, for example the UK and many Commonwealth countries with the idea of "artistic craftsmanship", but often with shorter copyright terms and rather subjective criteria as to what is protected and what is not. The New Zealand Court of Appeal famously classed the mould for making frisbees as a "sculpture" and so protected by copyright: Wham-O Manufacturing v. Lincoln Industries [1985] RPC 127. Physchim62 (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Recreated maps

I have been creating maps for Wikipedia articles, based on information in a number of published maps, and textual information from both © and non-© sources. I have been doing so in the understanding that I am creating something new, and tagging them PD. My maps show only coastlines, borders, and named locations. Example Although I sometimes scan source material for accuracy, the scan is not visible in any way in the final work. Can I upload these maps to Wikipedia? Wikicommons will not allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpoolWhippets (talk • contribs) 09:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I can not see, why the restrictions mentioned on commons and on Open Street Maps also shouldn't also apply on EnWiki, as it doesn't qualify as Fair Use. --Heb (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If every part is drawn by you, and not a duplication of a still in copyright map you can claim the copyright. Note that google maps and street directories usually include trap streets to see if people are copying their work. Remember the information is not copyrighted but the representation is. I have used Google maps to figure out how to transform a free aerial photograph to be a flat 2D map. But then I just use the transformed free map. Then I draw on the buildings and streets and water features based on what is visible in the photo. The google map can give you the name of the feature, but is very poor for water features. Also there are quite a few public domain, do to age maps around. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to File:Bougainville location and detail 1945.jpg? Your problem here is attributing the image to multiple sources — the "source" line of the information template refers to the source of the image itself, not the source of the data that it represents. Since you explained the source of the image on the description page, I've removed the no-source tag and rearranged data in the information template. As far as I can see, you're not doing anything against policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How does one handle someone else over-copyrighted images?

Let's say one comes across an image which, for example, someone has tagged as fair-use or GFDL but which one believes to be, or which clearly is, PD. Unfortunately I do not have a specific image in mind. What does one do in such a case? Is there a policy or guideline? Is there a standard practice? Does one just take the image and run with it? Or is it somewhat like the Restrictions on Van Vechten Photographs? Hyacinth (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is tagged as fair use, and you have evidence it is PD (say for example it is a pre-1923 US newspaper photo), then it would be fine to change the tag. For less clear situations you may want to try to discuss with the uploader before making the change, especially if it is a situation where the person who uploaded the image may be attempting to claim ownership of the image. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So no, there's no policy or guideline. It's a sea of anarchy where one is free to claim land in the name of PD like a barbarian or to engage in dialogue like a gentleperson. Hyacinth (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we address this with a guideline? Hyacinth (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In the USA it is an offence to claim rights that you don't have, but what you see may be a derivative which could have a new copyright. It depends if there was sufficient creative input. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For the Restrictions on Van Vechten Photographs, saying no derivatives is unenforceable if the images are really in the public domain. Living authors may have extra moral rights though, even if they did release image. In Australia the moral rights cannot be released. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to strongly recommend, and I imagine still does, that while generally one should claim the least rights possible in the case that one is not sure one should claim the most rights possible, while providing a warning regarding the dangers of infringing on others rights. Given your point above this recommendation should either be revised or have a warning regarding the dangers of claiming rights one doesn't possess added. Hyacinth (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Death of Cleopatra painting by Juan Luna

Is the 1881 The Death of Cleopatra (Spanish: La Muerte de Cleopatra) by Juan Luna still copyrighted? The images available on the internet are the following: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Your reply is appreciated. Thank you. - AnakngAraw (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Not in the United States (published pre 1923), nor anywhere with copyright of (life+70) or (life+100) years - i.e. the whole world. So go ahead and upload to Commons. Jheald (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Was it published before 1923? If it was first published 1923–2002, it could still be under copyright in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It was shown in an exhibition of 1881 where it won a silver medal. I think that counts as published. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Audi A4 B4 user manual

Greetings, Can i obtain an Audi A4 V6 2.4 Quattro Avant Model 2000 user`s manual as i just bought it so it came without one. It is imported from Japan

Thanking you in advance Tumelo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.246.67 (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe you have the wrong forum. You should probably e-mail the company or search on google. WP:RD might be able to help. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

House Floor Plan

I am working on an article for a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Oak Park, IL and I wanted to use floor plan graphics to illustrate the various alterations made to the house over the years. I drew the plans from scratch using CAD software but my dimensions for these plans were based off of similar plans drawn and published by someone else (Jack Lesniak). I found these plans by Mr. Lesniak in a PDF file which had been compiled by the Oak Park Historic Preservation Commission, however as a result of several reproductions, the plans were of poor graphic quality and were also slightly distorted. After reconstructing the floor plans, I intend to insert overlays and markups to point out the different changes and remodels.

So my question is, does using someone elses representation of a work as a basis for creating your own in this case constitute copyright infringement? While Mr. Lesniak did measure and document the building to create his plans, the results are nearly identical to Frank Lloyd Wrights original plans. I would credit both Lesniak and Wright as the basis for my own set of plans. Also, if acceptable for use on Wikipedia, is there any limitation regarding what licenses I could apply to my plans/diagrams? I think I may also be able to hunt down a contact for Jack Lesniak if his permission would be necessary.

I would appreciate any clarification on this topic as it seems to fall into a bit of a gray area of copyrights and ownership. —Preceding comment added by Fox69 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As you probably know, under U.S. copyright law all buildings constructed before 1990 are in the public domain. So the Wright house itself is in the public domain. Assuming that Lesniak's measurements are an accurate representation of the house, and do not contain his creative variations — the "merger doctrine" goes into effect: there is just one way, or a few ways, to express a particular idea or fact. If both Lesniak and you used common, standardized methods of drawing floor plans, both works would lack sufficient creativity to have a copyright. — Walloon (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From your description, I would say that you are the sole owner of the copyright in the plans that you have created. The measurements that Mr. Lesniak made are data, and cannot be copyrighted – it's a bit like saying that you can't copyright the fact that ethanol boils at 78 °C. You are free to use his data to construct your own plans. Obviously, it is both common politeness and intellectual honesty to credit Mr. Lesniak as the source of the data from which you created your plans, but the general philosophy of copyright is that you are free to present data (in the widest sense of the word) in whatever original form you wish. Your plans may be very similar to the originals of Frank Lloyd Wright (1867–1959), but they will probably not be identical and, judging from your description of the process, they will be "original" in the sense of copyright law. Physchim62 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright tag

Hello

I have included a picture on my Wiki page that shows a head shot of the person I am researching.

I am being told I need to include a copyright tag, but I am unsure which one to use!

I found the image on the University of Texas website and saved it directly from there.

The image is:

thank you

Thoff096 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence that the image has been licensed freely, then we have to assume it is copyrighted. If it is being used to illustrate what a living person looks like, we cannot use non-free images (copyrighted images) because it is feasible that a user could locate this individual and take his picture. Therefore, unless you know the license of this image, and it is free, we must delete it as a replaceable non-free image. If you link to the place where you got the image, I'd help you look for any licensing notices. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the link to the source. At the bottom of that page it says "©2005 McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin". So it doesn't seem we can use it. You may want to e-mail the individual in question, and ask if he wouldn't mind donating an image that he owns the copyright to. See WP:PERMISSION and WP:CONSENT. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

how do i update

i want to update the gokwe centre stub .seceral developments have since taken place as from 2007.im the town scretary for the town.asssit please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.74.239.201 (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Use the edit this page link at the top of the page. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright snail pix

Dear all,

There are at least three pictures released into the public domain without my permission (Maryvonne Charrier). They concern the snail Tyrrhenaria ceratina, two of them where you can see the snail burrowing in the sand and one showing a clutch. Would you please, insert a copyright with my name: My. Charrier. It seems that someone called Jymm is responsible for this diffusion without my agreement. Thanks,

Yours sincerely, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notobus (talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the image files please. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The images in question are: File:Tyrrhenaria ponte.jpg, File:Tyrrhenaria ceratina 2.jpg and File:Tyrrhenaria ceratina 3.jpg. Another file, File:Genêt de Salzmann épiderme.jpg, exists in the same manner. They were uploaded to Commons by Commons:User:Jymm and incorrectly claimed to be released to the Public Domain by the uploader. I have removed the incorrect tags, which should result in their deletion soon, unless the author would be willing to release them under a free license. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Currency details

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Image-20bahtbklegendbw.jpg has me wondering what to do about any images of details from currency in circulation. The disputed image was formerly in use at Ananda Mahidol - In memoriam as Figure 4: Detail of legend at lower right. Translation: If all Thai people know they are owners of the nation/and each one discharges their duties accordingly/and according to right principles,/then the difficulties of the nation will pass away./Thus spoke/King Ananda Mahidol/A.D. 1925 - 1946]. The article isn't terribly diminished by its exclusion, but my enthusiasm for posting images to Wikipedia, is. --Pawyilee (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In Thailand, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) has the sole right to design, produce, issue, circulate and manage Thai banknotes. The reproduction of Thai banknotes is protected by the Copyright Act B.E. 2537. So it is certainly the case that any use must conform to WP:NFCC The issue with the use in the article above is that the article does not make any reference to the banknote, why the banknote is important etc etc. The question is, could the point be equally made by saying "in memory of their deceased king, the Thais put his most famous words of wisdom on the 20 baht banknote." If you can make the case that an image adds substantially to that, then you could keep it, but I'm hard pressed to see how showing a picture of the banknote adds to just quoting the words, as its only an image of words, unlike the other image of the banknote, which shows the multiple depictions of Ananda included on the note. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your cogent reply. Don't think anybody but me cares what quotes on currency say, so leave 'em out. But why have all images of coins and banknotes been removed from Thai baht? --Pawyilee (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know. They're still on file at the moment - the images haven't all been deleted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory copyright in image?

In this image --> File:Cassegrain.en.png and most others uploaded by this user there is a signature and a copyright symbol. Is this a problem or does the free license it is uploaded under supersede it? 16:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (sign MrFloatingIP (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

I would think the licence supercedes the copyright symbol. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. All free licenses except public-domain dedications are built off of copyright: the work is copyrighted, and the license permits people to use the work under certain conditions. --Carnildo (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Without copyright, the license would be useless; because the Mona Lisa is public domain, I can't require that users follow the GFDL with it, since I don't own any copyright on it. Nyttend (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Details of using {{Non-free historic image}}

Is it appropriate to use a nonfree image, tagged with this fair-use template, in an infobox? I've only twice uploaded nonfree images with this fair-use template; as you can see at Holy Rosary Catholic Church (St. Marys, Ohio) and St. Patrick's Catholic Church (St. Patrick, Ohio), I've put both of them next to a free image and added a caption with sourced commentary; I'm not sure whether any other use really qualifies under WP:NFCI #8. I'm interested in adding the photo from here to Huffman Covered Bridge, but I don't have any free pictures with which I can compare it. If it's appropriate somehow to use it, I know that it will fit other criteria well: it's clearly not replaceable because the bridge has been destroyed; I can reduce it to a small size; and the Ohio Historical Society doesn't make commercial use of the image that could be damaged by our use of it. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In my view, this template is overused. The point is to allow us to fairly use iconic images, say the VietCong officer getting shot or Elian Gonzales getting extracted from his relatives' house. I suspect that you are overusing it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Wehwalt, at least from the wording of the template. It states that they "must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts" (emphasis in original). My favorite example is V–J day in Times Square. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but yes, the template should really only be used if we've got at least a paragraph, and preferably an article, discussing the image itself rather than what it portrays. --Carnildo (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

When I was preparing to write the article on St. Patrick's Church, I asked for advice (can't remember where; perhaps at the Help Desk) on which fair use template to use, and I was advised to use this one. Since you want to discuss this subject, can you advise a better fair use template? And can you address my actual question and advise whether it's permissible to have a nonfree image in an infobox? Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Aren't copyrights fun? Never the same answer twice. Anyways, I don't see any difference with it being in an infobox versus any other part of an article-it's just the purpose of it which matters in fair use and that wouldn't change (unless I'm missing something). As far as templates go I don't see a standard one which applies, so probably just Template:Non-free fair use in. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

File released as PD-author with reason 'No free equivalent available. Copyright apparently held by NATO, but there is no indication anywhere that this is or is not public domain.'

The file NATO Allied Command Atlantic - July 1954.svg is marked as {{PD-author}} by User:Marcd30319. While this user has made the SVG-version, it is just a auto-rendered version of this file on nato.int (which is also stated as source). For permission the user has noted that No free equivalent available. Copyright apparently held by NATO, but there is no indication anywhere that this is or is not public domain. I'm having a little trouble understanding, how this file can be released as PD-author, and thus marked it with {{di-no permission}} on March 5 (diff). It was removed later the same day by Marcd30319 (diff). I've asked the user why he considers this file to be a legal PD (because I don't think it is) on his/her talk-page (here), but after 12 days still haven't received any answer. Can anyone please elaborate on how this file can be PD or what I'm missing? --Heb (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The image is from an electronic version of a copyrighted book (NATO: The First Five Years), and as it is easy to make a free-content replacement, I've deleted it as a copyvio. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the appropriate template be {{Non-free fair use in}} followed by a justification. Hyacinth (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bloody diagram -- the sort of thing you can whip up in Paint in five minutes. What justification can there be? --Carnildo (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It should have been tagged {{PD-ineligible}}. Copyrights are for creative content (Wikipedia:Public_domain#Non-creative_works). This is little more than a list with boxes with negligible creative content. Please note that if a protected creative work is copied, the copy is protected as a derivative work if it includes the elements of creativity of the original. I don't think this is the case here. The original has advantage of historical verisimilitude and should be retained, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't historical verisimilitude imply a certain degree or level of creativity? --Heb (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Use for a Film?

I need to get in touch with an image poster, I need to speak with him/her directly to ask about licensing their image for use in a film. How do I go about this? 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candy 123498 (talk • contribs)

Leave a message on their talk page, or check their userpage to see if they have enabled Wikipedia email.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, check the license on the image - you may be able to use it without specifically licensing it from the uploader. -- Hux (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

License plates in pictures?

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed in http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Wal-Mart_in_Madison_Heights.jpg that the license plates (and in some cases drivers) of many vehicles are clearly visible. Is this allowed? Because many, many media sources blur out the numbers on plates. Thanks for the time. 16:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more a privacy issue than a copyright issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear of where I would report privacy issues. Lots42 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Many situations such as you note have the potential to identify the owners in a way that might be problematic for them. Since it's not at all problematic for it to be known that someone shops at Wal-Mart, there's no real privacy issue here. Moreover, if you can read many of the license plates, you're better off than I am; I'm having trouble reading the license plate on the Chevrolet SUV that's facing toward the camera, slightly left of the middle of the picture, and there's no way that I can read any other plates. Nyttend (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You make good points. Thanks for your time. Lots42 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Watermarked image

This flickr [16] image has the CC-BY-SA license but it is watermarked, can i upload it on commons anyway? Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not look good as it is, but you can make a derivative by cropping to have his face and upper part of his body. Cut off the watermark. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, don't do this! Any image whose copyright status is unclear, or where there is conflicting information, must be assumed to be under copyright. If it is then any derivative work created from it would also be under copyright. The watermark leads to a photographer's website which looks pretty legit, therefore what most likely happened here is that the Flickr uploader put a CC-BY-SA license on it in error. In other words, we can't use this photo except under the terms of the non-free content criteria. -- Hux (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mercouri Photo Permission - Ticket 2006081310005151

Hi there.

What is an OTRS member? I would like permission to use this photo, but it is apparently only available to OTRS members. How can I become one? My request is on behalf of TVO, the public broadcasting station in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Thank you.

Laura Lucas Team Leader, Visual Research & Copyright, TVO <contact details redacted>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.32.90 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use File:Melina Mercouri.JPG without getting more permission from the photographer, subject to the conditions of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license whereby you attribute it to Björn Roos, and any derivative that you make from it follows the same condition of being under the same license. You don't have to be an OTRS member, you just have to trust them enough to have confirmed the permission. The permission granted will be what you see on the image description, but the privacy of the submitter's email address is protected by the volunteers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you want them to be permanently removed from the page history, please email this address. – ukexpat (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues adding an image from a website

I'm just wondering why the option An image from a website is on the upload page if every time I upload an image from a website it is deleted. Any insight would be apreceated as i am starting to get anoyed. Thanks!

Fly it 'till the last piece stops moving - somebody, User:Sumsum2010 01:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the page you get when you click this option?: You will see "The vast majority of images on the internet are not appropriate for Wikipedia". Some websites do grant a suitable permission, or an image could be used under fair use, or may be you own the copyright on that image. So there are some circumstances. The only file of yours that I see deleted was File:Beech Barron FSX Over Nassau.jpg a screen shot of a game. This needed an explanation of why it was fair to use a copyrighted picture, from a copyrighted game. There could be a reason if you are describing the game appearance. For File:KCLR Cliff Hatfield.jpg copied from http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCLR. The web page says " AirNav, LLC. All rights reserved. " and it is not clear who owns the copyright on that image at all, so we can't know that it is licensed with CC-BY-SA-3.0. If it is licensed that way there will be some indication of that with the image. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to get up in a plane and take photos, I have uploaded over 100 pictures like this, that I took myself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The license attached to File:KCLR Cliff Hatfield.jpg is clearly incorrect. It is an obvious copyvio of http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCLR and I have tagged it for deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand now thanks! I tried to go up and take pictures but I forgot to charge my camera... Fly it 'till the last piece stops moving - somebody, User:Sumsum2010 16:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, help!

Does anyone mercifully have an answer to Image that may not be in the public domain above? Beebuk 03:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beebuk (talk • contribs)

Well first of all we have to know which country(s) it was published in or exhibited in. Then we will know what laws apply. It sort of sounds French to me, but I don't know. So if the picture was published or exhibited in public before the painter died, then the 70 years may be relevant, but if it was posthumous, different rules apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Son and rumba clave.tif

I signed up with the W Commons so that I could upload a jpeg of a musical example I generated in order to illustrate the text I wrote. I uploaded the graphic into the my Commons. How do I imbed it now into the my text entry? Thanks. David Penalosa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr clave (talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well normally you would put [[File:Son and rumba clave.tif|thumb|desciption]] but because the file type is tif, it is unsupported by Wikipedia and does nothing. This needs to be converted to png form, which I did for you. This can be used as [[File:Son and rumba clave.png|thumb|desciption]] resulting in:

desciption

I also had to reduce image size by 50% because it was too big for Wikimedia to handle. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

CSA - ESA - JAXA - Roscosmos

CSA - ESA - JAXA - Roscosmos
I need to upload images from JAXA, ESA, CSA, Roscosmos, most likely also do a lot of copy&pasting. I solved a problem with NASA, sort of, but the rest is mystery. One link, to show extent of the problem:

• Research and Science on the International Space Station
  --ThorX (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the copy/pasting goes, please remember to use the appropriate attribution template for whatever PD source you're using. That's an impressive heap of work you have lined up. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and link. As to the amount of works, yea, and it would be much easier without this kind of hassle. I also hope i will not do it all on my own, and will keep biting, slowly .. ;) Anyway, there is no ESA or JAXA or Roscosmos there on that link ? I also don't see anything that could apply ? Who knows, where to ask ? --ThorX (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's always the default {{Source-attribution}}, or I could probably modify the NASA template to give you some other templates to use (assuming all those other sources do release public domain material). As far as mass image uploading hopefully someone else around here can help you with that. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

...continuing comments about text on your talk page since it's off-topic here. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

marwatan banda

marwatan banda is the village of distt karak known for education —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontworrykarak (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly free image

May I use the picture on this website in the Benet Academy article? It appears to have a free license. If so, would I have to get an OTRS ticket or some other kind of formal documentation? Benny the mascot (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the picture explicitly states that it's available under a CC-BY license, you don't need an OTRS ticket, you just need to attribute who took it and the webpage you got it from. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

copyright of digital file of photograph made before 1900

I'm confused... nothing new. Here is an example of a photograph I'd like to use. Photograph was made in 1880, but the copyright says, "Digital Image © 2008 Utah State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved." The photograph should be in the Public Domain, but can a copy of the photograph be copyrighted? Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pish, upload (to commons) under {{PD-scan}}, I can't see how they can possibly claim rights. Especially in the US. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If the work was first published 1923–2002, it could still be under copyright in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Our Industrial Museum has half a million old photos of Bradford, most of which were never published. In the US, copyright came with publication for years. You'll need to check with the Society, rather than potentially pirating the image.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I was referring to the copyright the Utah state for having scanned the image rather than the underlying copyright, which I wasn't considering. Apologies for the confusion. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the State of Utah isn't so special that it has separate legislation saying you can create a copyright version of a PD image just by digitizing it. There are two possibilities here:-

(1) The author assigned the rights to the historical society, which then published the image (in a book say) prior to 2002, so they would be able to establish their copyright in the US. This would give them the copyright in the digitised image also (2) This is effectively copyfraud, similar to the attempt of a well known art establishment to say that since it had taken and was publishing photographs of its PD artworks, said photographs were copyright to the art establishment, not PD as derivative works. That didn't fly either. The Utah historical society cannot gain copyright by making a scan of the photo.

My money is on (2). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Image that may not be in the public domain.

I am confused about the criteria for judging works of art to be in the public domain. One the one hand, I am told flatly that an image (a painting) is in the public domain if more than seventy years have expired after the artist's death. On the other hand, I am told that an image that is published after 1923 cannot automatically be regarded as belonging in the public domain, even if the artist's death occurred more than seventy years ago. I am referring explicitly to File:Juan Gris - Pierrot with Book.jpg (1924), which I uploaded to use on the Pierrot site yesterday. (Gris died in 1927.) Which rule of thumb should I follow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beebuk (talk • contribs) 11:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The answer depends on whether the painting was published, where, and when. An original work of art was "published", under U.S. copyright law in effect before 1978, if authorized copies of the work were distributed to the general public (e.g., reproduced in an art book), if it was placed on display where others were allowed to copy it, or if the work was placed on sale to the general public (e.g., at an open auction).

If the work was first published in the United States:

• With a proper copyright notice
  • If the work was first published 1923–1963, it had a U.S. copyright term of 28 years, which could be renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office for a second term, for a total of 95 years from the date of publication. If the copyright was not renewed, it is in the U.S. public domain.
  • If the work was first published 1964–1977, it automatically had its copyright renewed for a second term, for a total of 95 years from publication.
  • If the work was first published 1978–2002, it has a U.S. copyright term of the life of the author + 70 years, or through 2047, whichever is later.
  • If the work was first published 2003–present, it has a U.S. copyright term of the life of the author + 70 years.
• Without a proper copyright notice
  • If the work was first published before 1978, it immediately lost its U.S. copyright and entered the public domain.

If the work was first published outside the United States:

• If the work was first published before 1978
  • With a proper copyright notice
    • 1923–1963,
      • If its U.S. copyright was renewed for a 2nd term, it has a U.S. copyright of 95 years from publication.
      • If its U.S. copyright was not renewed for a 2nd term, but it was under copyright in the author's country of citizenship as of January 1, 1996, it has a U.S. copyright of 95 years from publication. If it was in that country's public domain as of January 1, 1996, it is in the U.S. public domain too.
    • 1964–1977, it has a U.S. copyright term of 95 years from publication.
  • Without a proper copyright notice
    • U.S. courts consider a foreign work published outside the U.S. without a copyright notice before 1978, to be an unpublished work for U.S. copyright purposes. Its U.S. copyright term is the life of the author + 70 years. But if the work was later published at any time before 1978 with a proper copyright notice, it has the same copyright term as if it were published in the U.S. that year.
• If the work was first published 1978–2002, it has a U.S. copyright term of the life of the author + 70 years, or through 2047, whichever is longer.
• If the work was first published 2003–present, it has a U.S. copyright term of the life of the author + 70 years.

— Walloon (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos of Elgin Lessley

The current headshot of Elgin Lessley was temporarily restored. I had permission from the owner of the web site I took it from to use it. But after looking around the net for more information about Lessley, I'm unsure as to who the original copyright holder is/was. The photo was taken prior to 1923 and thus is likely in the public domain.

Elgin_Lessley_Headshot.jpg

The other photo is this:

Arbukle_Normand_Lessley_On_Set.jpg

This photo was originally published in 1915, in "Picture Play Weekly", a magazine that has been defunct since 1927. It is thus highly unlikely that they have renewed the copyright on this photo.

Am I correct that these photos are thus suitable for Wikipedia use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristinaDunigan (talk • contribs) 22:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If it was published in the US before 1923, it would be public domain. If Picture Play Weekly is a US publication, I would think you are in the clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

PD-US-nonotice?

As far as I can see, File:16candles-single.jpg should be PD because it was published in the USA before 1978 without a copyright notice. Is there any way that it could have been copyrighted, such as perhaps a copyright notice appearing on the back side of the record? The side visible in this image clearly has no copyright notice, and the song that appears on the record was published in 1958, so I'd expect that this record was published less than 20 years after the song was. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A copyright notice on the other side of the sleeve would be valid, so we can't just assume that it is nonotice from the image itself. Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; for all I knew, there might have been some requirement that the copyright notice appear on the front, just like (to use a different odd and rather bureaucratic type of legislation) the law required stamps to appear on the front of an envelope to be considered valid evidence for the prepayment of postage. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo

Good morning,

I am trying to find out if we use a logo for our Women's Ministry of our church and part of the Logo is a clipart from a clipart software, how do we go about getting permission to use that clipart as part of our Women's Ministry Logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.97.67.91 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This forum is for question in regard to uploading images at Wikipedia (and the associated copyright tags, non-free content policy and related questions). Your question seems like you are asking legal advice. We cannot offer legal advice, and I suggest you consult an attorney. Sorry. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

General advice - check what it says on the packet. Clipart software (gosh! does anyone sell that any more) and clipart sites will have a notice somewhere that says what license you have got - what you can and can't use the images for. In general (and this is just general) you can use clipart images without restriction provided you don't either resell them, or make them part of something that can be resold. Sometimes the restriction is just on commercial reselling, so you would be OK if for example you printed the image on some t-shirts and sold them as a fundraiser for charity, but sometimes it's more restrictive, and you might not even be able to make the image part of another image. So do check. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright expired on these images? (1927 film)

File:CatandtheCanaryPoster2.jpg, File:CatandtheCanaryHand.jpg, File:TheCat.JPG, File:CanaryCast.jpg, and File:CatandtheCanaryPoster.jpg are all from the 1927 film The Cat and the Canary. The original work on which the film is based is the 1922 play of the same name, on which the copyright is expired, so the copyright on the original work does not apply. None of the posters contain copyright notices or marks. I have not viewed the film, so I don't know if the film itself has any copyright notices, but it is unlikely as most works of that period do not contain them. According to Wikipedia:Public_domain#When does copyright expire?, if the works were published between 1923 and 1963 without notice, the works are in the public domain. I want to get the opinion of more people, however. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1927 film is also in the U.S. public domain. If the pre-1978 poster contains no copyright notice, and if the artwork is derived from images that are in the U.S. public domain, the poster is also in the U.S. public domain.

By the way, your statement that most films of that period do not contain copyright notices is quite untrue. Almost all contain copyright notices. — Walloon (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, of all the ones I've seen (which is a fair number), only a very small number have a copyright notice (with the required-at-the-time © symbol), so that's why I wrote that. The images, then, need to have the licensing information changed to reflect that they are in the public domain. As I don't often tag public domain images, is there someone here who is more familiar with the license tags who can place the appropriate public domain tags on the images? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

{{PD-US-no_notice}} I'll tag it for you though. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 22:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The color one isn't covered: it's a derivative. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was mostly concerned about the posters. Thanks for your help. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to the copyright notices visible in seven other American features from 1927 (and no, the copyright symbol © was not required then; the word "Copyright" was just as acceptable): The King of Kings, The Show, Wings, Captain Salvation, Chang, Mr. Wu, It, The Jazz Singer. — Walloon (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being pointy. As I wrote, "all the ones I've seen (which is a fair number), only a very small number have a copyright notice". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the posters, but I think they would fall under the same licence. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize Images

Hello, I've got some problems with a couple of images that are present on Nobel Prize. I'm terribly bad at this however and would love to get some help. It's one of the last things to do before I can nominate it to FA. The images are:

• File:Nobelpristagare Fleming Midi.jpg - According to Talk:Nobel Prize it needs incidication of status in the US.

• File:Melvin Calvin and Swedish king.jpeg "Source provides a creation date, but does not discuss publication or author death." How can I find this?

I'd be happy for any help I can get. Thank you. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For the first file, all we really need to know is in what year it became public domain in its country of origin (fingers crossed 1995 or before) - I'm unfamiliar with the local laws. The second could well be trickier. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, do you have any idea how to get hold of that information? EDIT: I found this: [17], could it help? I don't really understand the "British Library Add. MS 56115, f.81 " etc --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd need to be (moderately) familiar with Swedish copyright law, a department in which I am sadly lacking... :( - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

marwatan banda

marwatan banda is the village of distt karak known for education —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontworrykarak (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I am logged in to my account and I have clicked on the link to upload a file which then takes me to the page to upload an image, which is what I want to do. I do not see a button to click on to browse my computers files to upload the image I want to upload. Is something wrong, or I am not seeing what I should? I have had an account at least since summer of 2009 and I previously uploaded a file in August, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhodlof (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to pick on of the options in the links first, such as entirely my own work, then you get the screen with the browse button. This is so that you get the appropriate copyright template selected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Have permission yet, not the photographer.

I am the webmaster for the site KaraDioGuardi.com I have been trying for a year to update the photo on her page. I would like to expedite the process but i have not gotten a response from my latest email. and eventhough i have provided the proper license my photo keeps getting removed. I need to know what things i can do (Minus asking Kara herself to contact you) to legitimize my authorization to use the photo.

[18]

I can assure you i have the proper authorization for this photograph.Sytable (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The fastest, most simple way to get this done is to add a notice on the official website stating that the image in question is released under the terms of the free license of your choosing. You can do that on a "copyright page" or as a caption for the image, or create a new page with the notice. Since you are the webmaster, this hopefully shouldn't be a big deal. Alternatively, you need to have the copyright holder e-mail us a consent form, see WP:CONSENT. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I decided to use your "fastest, most simple way". Will this page be sufficient enough to display the license?

[19]

Sytable (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That page looks fine with a free CC licence, as does the image, but remember that once it is uploaded with that licence its use is not limited just to Wikipedia as suggested by the initial phrase, "In order to allow this image display on Wikipedia.org". Anyone can use it for anything including commercial use. ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I've changed the phrasing to be more appropriate. and re-uploaded the image i hope this is the official way to display everything? [20] i would like to edit her article with this image now. Sytable (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All looks fine. ww2censor (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos from B'Tselem

I have used 3 images from B'Tselem to illustrate the facts in the Palestinian freedom of movement article.

B'Tselem explicitly allows the reproduction of its photos:

Photos in the archive that are taken by B'Tselem are available for reproduction. Please email seran@btselem.org in order to obtain the full size version of the photo file. B'Tselem should be credited as the source of the photograph. Permission must be obtained directly from the photographer or agency for pictures from other sources.

If that is not enough, I will contact B'Tselem about using their photos in Wikipedia. What exact statement do I need from B'Tselem to allow their photos to be used in Wikipedia? Factomancer (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That notice isn't good enough, because images on Wikipedia must allow 3rd parties to reuse, modify, and possibly commercially use the images. You can request that the copyright holder e-mail us a consent form WP:CONSENT or clarify their copyright notice by stating a specific license such as the Creative Commons Attribution license, or "public domain" (etc). -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'll contact B'Tselem ASAP. In the meantime it would be good if the images were left on Wikipedia. Factomancer (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Once you have sent something along to us, you can use {{OTRS pending}} to prevent speedy deletion. Hope that helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

KADDB

hi my name is asem daboobi and i am a promotion specialiest in KADDB(KING ABDULLAH II DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT BEAURU) AND I AM RTRYING TO CREATE A PAGE FOR KADDB ON YOUR WEBSIT...SO WHAT ARE THE STEPS PLEASE???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaboobi (talk • contribs) 12:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place for your question, but I will answer it anyway. As you have a conflict of interest you are strongly advised not to create such an article. General article creation advice follows:

A Wizard is available to walk you through these steps. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

Before creating an article, please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject. Please also review a few of our relevant policies and guidelines with which all articles should comply. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, articles must not contain original research, must be written from a neutral point of view, should cite reliable sources which verify their content and must not contain unsourced, negative content about living people.

Articles must also demonstrate the notability of the subject. Please see our subject specific guidelines for people, bands and musicians, companies and organizations and web content and note that if you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline strongly recommends against you creating the article.

If you still think an article is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Your first article. You might also look at Wikipedia:How to write a great article for guidance, and please consider taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial so that you know how to properly format the article before creation. An Article Wizard is also available to walk you through creating an article. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Turkish copyright law

File:Kubadabad.jpg is marked with {{Do not move to Commons}}. This is a photograph of a floor tile produced in Turkey in 1236. Does Turkey really allow the copyrighting of objects nearly eight hundred years old? This seems like a clear case of PD-art to me, since it's a slavish photographic reproduction of something that I'm sure is PD. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

dorian linatopi

DORIAN LINATOPI.lindur ne Lushnje me 03.08.1992.GJatesia 1.79 dhe reth 64 kg Shkolla aktuale 18 TETORI Sporti preferuar natyrisht Futbolli (i ben zbor ),pozicioni mesfushor krahu.lere pastaj lojrat kompjuterike (1 fare ,i papare , i pamposhtur ne pes 2010_kush ka fitus i hap sfide te adr.lagja Morri afer kanalit ,te ELTONI ,bar MILAN)per me shume informacion kontak... ose lere fare —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.38 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how a would-be article about an Albanian footballer (in Albanian nonetheless) ended up here... VernoWhitney (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How to do this right?

Copyright holder has very valuable, commercially-for-sale images they are willing to have copies of shown on Wikipedia in an article, but do NOT want to release as free content.

I am working with the copyright holder on the article (biographical, about an artist, images are the artist's work).

1. Is there any way they can provide these images, yet limit their use only to the Wikipedia article? -- ie, NOT free content license. It's very important that commercial use NOT be allowed or implied!

2. If I upload the images for them, how should they be described / tagged for license? Fair use?

Or is this just not a viable option? Thanks for any advice / recommendations. Rep07 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The short answer to question 1 is, "No." — Walloon (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

...unless the piece of art itself is notable enough for an article of its own. – Toon 20:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

An alternative is to release a thumbnail size image under a free license, such as 200 pixels wide, This will not be of any commercial value in a magazine, but could illustrate an article on a Wikipedia web page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"This image is totally free, releaseable under any license."

Is it appropriate to tag this image as {{PD-release}}, since the caption contains a statement of "This image is totally free, releaseable under any license."? Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because there is no information about the age of the image, what its source is, nor what country it was taken in. The uploader may no realise it but he may have no knowledge about copyright issues. If you can find the answers to these questions it may be possible this is a free image but without it we must err on the side of caution. Tineye.com finds this image used on two blog sites but there is no additional information to help us. ww2censor (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that we re already hosting the image at File:OldWiseTaoistMonk.jpg, under CC-By-SA and attributed to the same source as above. – Toon 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's where I found the image; just before posting this question, I'd removed a speedy tag that was placed because the image allegedly had no evidence of permission. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

NLM content template correct? "United States National Library of Medicine ... public domain"

Pages such as L-selectin seem to be populated by a Bot and tagged as "NLM content" which expands to "This article incorporates text from the United States National Library of Medicine, which is in the public domain."

I work with these biomedical databases, and I'm pretty sure the situation is more complicate than that.

See, for example, NCBI copyright and Disclaimers and Copyright Information & Downloading National Library of Medicine Data. DanConnolly (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right about it being more complicated, as it appears it would have to be evaluated on an article-by-article basis. The actual copyright page for the NLM states that "Government information at NLM Web sites is in the public domain", which is what the attribution tag indicates, but it also says "Specific NLM Web sites containing protected information provide additional notification of conditions associated with its use", so it would require looking at the particular page(s) the information is copied from to make sure it doesn't have any of those additional conditions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright tag

Hi

We (the publisher Zed Books) have an error message about our logo image, saying it is going to be deleted since their is no copyright tag.

I've tried looking at the copyright tag page, but I can't work out how to add one (or the right one). Basically, it's our logo, so we definitely have the copyright to it. What do I need to write and where do I need to write it, in order to resolve this problem and prevent its deletion?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endofcertainty (talk • contribs) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to File:ZedBooksBigLogo.gif you are about 7 months too late. A fair-use rationale was added to the image at that time. ww2censor (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What do I do when a picture is an own creation and I am unsure where to go to copyright/tag after uploading a picture? Tibbjoy (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You can select the copyright licence under which you are releasing an image, from the drop down list right during the upload process. You must release it with a free licence, such as {{PD-self}}, {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, or other free licences found here otherwise it may be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Images of buildings

I am currently working on the article List of Liverpool John Moores University halls of residence. I have searched numerous sites such as Flickr for images of these halls of residence but to no prevail. With the buildings being owned by certain companies, is there any way a photo of a building could be uploaded to Wikipedia just for use on that article to simply portray the subject (in a similar way to non free-use logos) - e.g. using a photo of Prospect Point from the website [21]. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming these buildings are extant, then you cannot use a copyright image without their permission to release it under a free licence. Go out and take some photos yourself, find an editor in the area who can help you, or tag the article talk page with a photo request template {{reqphoto}}. Don't forget to check out the Geograph website whose images are freely licenced. ww2censor (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You certainly cannot upload any copyright image of these buildings under Wikipedia's non free content policy, as the UK has freedom of panorama, and thus anyone can go and take a photo and license it for free use.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)