Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. Thanks!

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
2. From the page Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
   • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
   • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
   • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Hit Save page.
6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.

How to ask a question

1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link below.
2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections with no replies in 7 days are automatically moved to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.

[edit] Okay use or derivative work?

Hi. I'm courtesy listing an image question here that needs resolution at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop#Add color to the drawing. Can textures modified from a copyrighted photo be transposed to a drawing, or does that constitute a derivative work? Please, if you can shed light, answer there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no copyright issues for works in the public domain, since noone holds copyright. You can use them as you see fit with or without credit and without restrictions. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think she knows that. She's asking whether a specific extraction of material from a copyrighted source for use in a public domain source constitutes a work derivative of the copyrighted work (in which case the copyright would follow to the new work). I'm not good at evaluating the threshold of creativity, so I have no useful thoughts. Steve Smith (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that's exactly what I'm wondering. With visual work, I share your difficulty evaluating the threshold. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Using a copyrighted source for color inspiration in a painting I doubt constitutes a derivative work, is the copyrighted source very near identical in position/pose of the public domain outline that is being colored? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I gather of the situation, the image was used more than for "color inspiration". The non-free image was used directly, but heavily photoshopped to alter it to match up better with the drawing and to remove scratches, and to filter it so it looks more like coloration and shading, than a superimposed photo. The question is probably similar to this. Was the original altered enough so that it is no longer a derivative work (and while we are at it, was the underlying line drawing simply a trace/"line inspiration" drawing of that same photo? would that be a derivative work as well, or does mechanically drawing a photo transfer the copyright?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the situation as I understand it. Sorry I didn't go into details; it's all set out at the thread I linked. This was more by way of request for feedback there. However, now that it's more fully explained here, you can see the images with and without color at the top of that link. The copyrighted source is at this pdf (which currently is not loading for me, but I know it does work; I've seen it. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is really a borderline case. My personal opinion is that it's best we stick with the black and white version and try to obtain a new photograph of it at our earliest convenience. The colored version isn't a substantial enough improvement to justify the risk here. I admit I am being really conservative though. Dcoetzee 07:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who colored the pic. So feel free to ask if you have any further questions. Andrew c summed up pretty well what I did. When I did the coloring, I did not consider it as a copyright violation. If you look at the color of the image (the black lines are public domain), you'll see that it has very little details. It is basically an orange-to-brown gradient for the shell and some shades of grey and blue for the head. I'd consider this to be too simple and vague to deserve copyright status. Then again, I have little clue about those legal issues and where to draw the line of copyright violation. As for the original line drawing, it is most certainly also based on the same copyright image from that pdf. There are very few pictures of that snail around and the line drawing fits almost perfectly to the copyrighted photograph. However, I don't think this is our problem, because the line drawing was not made by an editor here but taken from a PD publication of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Splette, has taken a copyrighted image, altered it and used it. He even said, that that he did it exactly like this. It is definitely copyright violation. (I am sorry to say that, because I proposed to color it. The correct way is like this: Look at it photo how it look like and then draw completely by yourself.) --Snek01 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What admin speedy deleted the image? It isn't blatant copyright infringement and therefore should have been taken to PUF. ZooFari 17:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading copyrighted content from owner

Hey, I'm working on a wikipedia article for a tv program, and I'm not sure what to list for copyright info for the photo. The source of the photo is not a website, as I'm doing it for the company the photo was supplied directly. I was not given any written permission, just the photo for the purpose of putting on the website. I have read that specific permission for wikipedia is not allowed, do I need them to write me an official statement declaring that it is a promotional photo? I have direct access to the owners, so I can pretty much get anything... Whatever's easiest I guess. Thanks in advance BunnySound (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can get whatever you want, I would suggest you get them to send the following e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org: "We hold the copyright for File:NAMEOFFILE on the English Wikipedia, and hereby release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, allowing for unlimited re-use by any person for any purpose, including derivative works, subject only to the requirement of attribution and the requirement that any derivative works be released under a similar license." Then, tag the image page with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Steve Smith (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot one thing, however, and I'm not sure how it affects things. I and the company are in Canada, does that mess with the creative commons stuff in any way?BunnySound (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in the least (so am I, actually). Steve Smith (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you. One last thing, the photo is of characters which are of course copyrighted. Would sending that letter simply mean that the specific photo could be used, without undermining any other copyrights? This may be a silly question, but this whole world of copyright and fair use is fairly new to me. I'm just an assistant making this page as a side project, so there's lots to learn.BunnySound (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the copyright of the characters is held by the people you're working with, there's no problem; the licensing would only be for the specific image (and works that can be derived from that specific image), and not for the underlying characters. If the characters are owned by somebody else, then depending on the nature of the picture and the characters you might need permission from those owners too. Steve Smith (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, you've been extremely helpful!BunnySound (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I should also mention that if the owners don't want to release the image under that license, it would probably be possible to use a single shot in the article even without them needing to release it. I can give you more details on that approach if you like; the downside is that it's more complicated and the terms under which you can use the image are more strict, while the upside (from the owners' perspective) is that they don't relinquish any control over the image's use. Steve Smith (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That might be worth it, if you don't mind. Then when I talk to them next I have a couple options... As long as I've got you here. Very appreciated!BunnySound (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, American law includes a concept called fair use (which is similar to the Canadian concept of fair dealing) which allows for copyrighted works to be used under certain conditions without the permission of the copyright holders, so if we went that route we wouldn't need the owners to do anything by way of permission. Wikipedia voluntarily uses fair use images only in very narrow circumstances, defined by our non-free content criteria. In brief, this means that in the article about the show we could probably only use a single low resolution image, and would have to make the case that the use of that image significantly increased the reader's understanding of the article. If we go the CC-BY-SA approach, on the other hand, we could use as many images as the owners were willing to license, and at whatever resolution we could get (but, once the owners licensed those images, anybody else could also use them for any reason). If you decide to go the fair use route, let me know (either here or on my talk page), and I'll help you jump through those hoops. Steve Smith (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm disconcerted at the practice of recommending CC-BY-SA as a "default license." Many copyright owners are happy to release their media under more liberal licenses, without regard for the license of derivative works. Shouldn't we be encouraging these works to be as free and unconstrained as possible? Dcoetzee 10:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DVD Covers and Movie Posters?

I was just wondering if it's all right to upload DVD cover art and Movie Poster images for articles about the movie? I've noticed it being done in other articles, but I just wanted to make sure if it's allowed before I do it. Thanks! Ibrflvs (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• It depends. Follow the model of other movies, generally speaking. You can do too much, if you're not careful. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• One or the other is probably fine. Both might be questionable — you'd have to show each one added something to the article that one on its own wouldn't add. Stifle (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If the movie poster was first published in the U.S. before 1964, odds are that the copyright was never renewed (and no, movie posters are not covered as derivative works of the movie they advertise). If the poster was first published 1951-1963, its copyright renewal should be in the online U.S. Copyright Office database of registrations. If the poster was first published in the U.S. from 1964 to the present, with a proper copyright notice, it is still under copyright. — Walloon (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Postcards

I would like to upload a copy of a postcard (which includes a copyright 1905 located on the image.)

Has the copyright expired?

Buckyboot (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What country was the postcard produced in? If the US, then most likely, yes. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I beleive it was printed in New York USA. Thank youBuckyboot (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sculptures and murals on a cathedral

Two images are being used for the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels#Design article feature two public artworks, a sculpture File:The Virgin Mary by Robert Graham.jpg and a tapestry File:Los Angeles Cathedral Tapestry.jpg. Am I correct in thinking these two images should be marked as non-free with accompanying criteria and shrinking? Since both pieces of art are mentioned in the discussion section I'm guessing they could be used, although they should probably have their contextual significance reasoning strenthened, correct? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The sculpture photo is fine: a photograph of a copyrighted, three-dimensional work is itself considered a copyrighted work - the copyright being owned by the photographer - provided the sculpture is permanently on view in a public place. So the license on that is correct. The tapestry photo, however, is not properly licensed. The rules apply differently to what in law would be considered a two dimensional work: photographs of such works retain the same copyright status as the original, so that image needs to be licensed as a copyrighted work, with a non-free use rationale. In the case of the tapestry photo, you're right that the contextual significance needs to be better than it currently is. -- Hux (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about the sculpture being unique? That may be true in other countries, but as this is in Los Angeles, CA I would assume Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States. I was wondering more along the lines that if there were any Public Domain related to either the Catholic Church, or to sculptures mounted to buildings being considered under the architectural aspect of the FoP exception. A question I had earlier this month (link) came back as FoP does not apply to sculptures. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Commemorative plaque

I have a supplementary to that: in L. T. C. Rolt#Biography it mentions a canal bridge named after the article's subject. There is a plaque attached to the bridge explaining this; I have taken a photo of that plaque, and would like to add it to the article. The plaque is cast iron with raised lettering, dated 27 July 1999, mostly text but with two logos (those of the Inland Waterways Association and British Waterways). I'm not sure whether this counts as two-dimensional or three-dimensional art, or something else. I (verbally, off-wiki) asked User:Geni, who knows about canals but wasn't at all sure about suitable licensing. I understand that the rules differ significantly, so I would like to know what licensing would be suitable, please; further, would it be suitable for Commons, or just English wikipedia? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The bridge in question is located in the United Kingdom. Having now been directed to Commons:Freedom of panorama, would {{FoP-UK}} be applicable in this case - could it be considered to be a "work of artistic craftsmanship"? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image using in multilanguage wikipedias

Hello. I was translating the article about Boston Celtics from the English to the Lithuanian Wikipedia. And I ran into this problem: File:Boston Celtics alternate logo.svg (by the Team Logos section) is not displayed in the Lithuanian article. I've asked the Lithuanian administrator to check what's wrong and he uploaded the picture to the Lithuanian Wiki (before that the image address was in red). But he doesn't understand either, why this file isn't shown. Plese help. Thank you Shakurazz (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For that to have worked, the image would have had to have been from Wikimedia Commons, the shared media repository. However, commons only accepts free-licensed files, and so all non-free files are hosted locally. Thus, to get a non-free file to show on a different project, you would need to upload it there, just like you did. (Note, though, that not all projects accept fair use images; indeed, many of the biggest Wikipedias outside of ENglish explicitly don't.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PD as per Indian copyright law

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this question. I am under an impression that according to Indian Copyright Law a photograph enters public domain after 60 years. I'm not an expert and hence a bit confused with the legalities. Can these images be works of anonymous author or should the author details be known? I don't see why we should need author information for something that is obviously in a public domain. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I asked the above question is to know if these [1] [2] taggings are necessary. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this, anonymous photographs are counted starting with the publication date. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question about photos/maps in an old book

I have a copy of Sir John Alexander Hammerton's "A Popular History of the Great War", published in 1933 by The Amalgamated Press - as far as I can see, it was never re-published.

There are 6 volumes of this, going into a lot of detail about the First World War. Also, there are about 800 photos of people, ships, battle sites, etc - as well as maps of various battles.

Would it be possible to use these photos on Wikipedia? I've not looked indepth, so I don't know how many I would like to use, but I don't want to go to the effort of scanning and uploading them if they'd just be deleted anyway!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe they are all copyrighted if the author is known. See Commons:Commons:Licensing#United Kingdom The applicable standard if the author is know is life of the author of the works, plus seventy years. However, if the author is unknown, then it's 70 years after creation. So if there's an author, unless you can determine that they died before 1939, they're not public domain, and if no author is known, they apparently are public domain (if they are PD, upload them to the Wikimedia Commons, not here, so that all projects have access to the image [sign up]). You might be able to upload a few locally even if copyrighted if they meet fair use standards (maps would rarely qualify, because they're replaceable), but you would need to determine this separately for each photograph on a one-to-one basis for a particular article, whether is qualified as fair use. So this would not be proper as any sort of mass upload of numerous scans. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought that might be the case (the author died in 1949, so we've got another 10 years to wait!) I'll look through the photos in case there are some for individuals that aren't already on Wikipedia, as fair-use - but the maps are no problems. It might be that there are no suitable photos, so there's no problems here anyway! I only asked, as I knew that the text of the books would be under copyright, but wasn't sure about photos! Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do hope you will do me the courtesy of giving me a status update on November 15, 2019:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You won't have to wait quite that long - the author died on 12 May 1949, so I'll update you on the 13th of that month! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary - if it's a magazine, which shows the editor at the front, and some articles are credited with an author but some are not, do the uncredited ones count as "authored by editor" or "anonymous"? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but I think the uncredited ones count as "authored by the magazine", which would mean that the copyright expires 70 years after the demise of the magazine! However, if you could find the actual author of the article (contact the magazine if it still exists), then it'd be 70 years after the author's death. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] From ar.wikisource - problem?

Would uploading an image from [3] be a copyright issue? I am under the impression that because it is on Wikimedia it is ok? Supertouch (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily true. Just like how anyone can upload, say, copyrighted content to the English wikipedia, people can do the same thing to other language Wikipedias as well. Because of that, we cannot assume that anything you find is free. You should just be able to verify the copyright/licensing status. If you can verify that the work is freely licensed (or if the copyright has expired), then the best thing to do would be to move it to the Commons so everyone can use it (as opposed to just moving it to en.wiki). I cannot help you identify the copyright status because I cannot read Arabic (and it looks like that image doesn't even have a copyright tag in the first place). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] photographer's name for file:James_Thackara.jpg

Herllo, I really sorry to come back to you who were so nice about placing the right tag for permission use the photo of James Thackara. I cannot recall how I entered the photo and hence cannot enter it the photographer's name. The photographer's name is Gervase Poulden. He does not wish to be credited unless he has to and then by his initials GGP.He would however like to stipulate that the author's name "James Thackara 2009" goes under the photo when it is used Thanks for your help if you can put this in. Lumenlitt (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I updated the attribution as: cc-by-sa-3.0|James Thackara 2009. See the history of File:James Thackara.jpg to see what changes have been made. Hopefully your email will confirm what you have said. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading Non-Free Image For Use In Test Article In Userspace

Is is OK to use a non free image (a book cover) to work on an article I'm currently working on in my sandbox? Eventually, it will be placed in the mainspace, but for now the only place the image will be used will be in my userspace. --Michaelkourlas (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For a short time you should be able to get away with it, but for no more than a week. Otherwise you would use a different bu free place holder image to fill the space. So it is not really OK, but the image will not be deleted immediately. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• I go after such fair use violations in userspace, but am considerably more lenient when it comes to work in the userspace where it is obvious it is an article in development. If the page just got created, or has been so in the last few days, I tend to leave it alone. If it's gathering cobwebs, I'll usually comment out the image rather than remove it outright. Your mileage with different editors may vary. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Doubt

How can I get the copyright tag? I have got the pics I uploaded at a couple of websites, I have given the sources, and yet I don't know how I get the copyright tag. Thanks for the help. Grenzer22 (talk) Grenzer22

None of the three image you uploaded are clearly identifiable as being freely licenced. You found them on copyright websites and while the images themselves may not have had a copyright notice that does not mean they are not copyright to someone. You cannot just give an image a copyright tag unless you know it exact status. You may have to do more research to find out who took the photos and what their status is. Two of these people are dead so it might be possible to use them under a fair-use claim so long as each image complies with all 10 of the non-free content criteria. ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At the very top of this page, we have "How to add a copyright tag to an existing image". Please read that, and if you have specific questions about doing it, please ask. Thanks! Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Source info for image?

Do we know anything about the source of this image? File:India_CG3.jpg I am wondering, because I'd like to know exactly what the image shows and where it came from. I have queried the user User:Vastu, who added the file to the Chandragupta Maurya article in 2006, but he hasn't made an edit since July 2009, so I don't know whether or how quickly he'll respond. I am not used to working with images. I see that there is a "public domain" template in the image file. I wonder whether that file has information, somewhere, on the source of the image. I am suspicious as to whether the image really is public domain. The colors seem a bit too vibrant to come from a historic painting whose copyright has expired. Furthermore, I am no expert, but the painting is not in a recognizable historic Indian painting style, at least not one that I recognize. It looks much more to me like a 20th-century illustration, which might not be in the public domain. Can anyone enlighten me? I'd appreciate a response to my user page, if possible. Thank you. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] About Copyright law for Images

Hello I am pretty new to Wikipedia and I was just learning how to add value to the website. I was browsing through the Article Sultan Kosen and found that the image was missing. So, I thought to upload the best image. And I found a good image from a Mongolian Website which I do not know the language and so I have uploaded the Image.

My Question is How to know the Copyright laws for different language websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdavidson98 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to the article for us. It would be helpful to point us at the web site from which you obtained the image. Language issues are usually overcome-able, if desperate one can use Google Translate (though I'm not convinced that such translations would stand up in a court). The country from which the image was obtained is probably just as important, or maybe more important, than the language, to start researching the issue of the copyright. (OT: I note the caption does not match the image, except in the unlikely event that Roker has become a red telephone booth. While plausible in fiction, I think we're talking a factual subject here.) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that copyrighted photos of living persons are expressly prohibited except in extreme cases, as they are nearly always replaceable by free content. This would qualify for that image if you simply took it from a random website. --MASEM (t) 06:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

Two images File:Garrow'_Law_title_screenshot.jpg and File:Department_S_title_screenshot.jpg are up for deletion by an editor I have upset. I followed the guidelines for TV infoboxes that request an image for infoboxes. Needs ajudication. Incidently the first image is not mine, but the rationale is.REVUpminster (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just these two images, TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) has been on quite a spree.

The general practice has been to apply the standards of logos for TV series title-cards, on the similar grounds that (i) they help users identify that they have come to the right page; (ii) they show the image the programme makers have crafted to stand for the whole show, information which does add something material and significant to the understanding that article readers get about the subject. Additionally also (iii) the copyright taking, per the U.S. four-factor test, is relatively slight, since such images are deliberately crafted with the intention that they will be memorable, and be widely used by third parties as identifiers for the shows.

For all those basic reasons, it is long-established that we are quite content that such title cards pass the standards of WP:NFCC and of U.S. Fair use. Perhaps wording could be altered in the examples section NFC to make this clearer; but there can be no doubt that it is the longstanding interpretation of WP:NFCC.

Speedy deletions, in the face of long-term customary usage, are not appropriate. Jheald (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As User:Jheald will attest, I'm very keen to remove anything that fails even one of the criteria of WP:NFCC, but even I can't see anything wrong with these. It is a long-standing consensus that a single non-free image to illustrate the subject of an article (as long, of course, as it is not replaceable with a free image) is allowed. Black Kite 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of this convention, and the "purpose" fields were not adequate, and did not describe this. Things are fine now. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Artwork commissioned by the US federal government

Ammodramus asked my opinion about a photo s/he has ready to upload, but I'm not sure of the answer. Ammodramus visited the post office in Minden, Nebraska, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places partially because of a mural inside the building that was commissed by the federal government in the 1930s as part of the WPA. I get the impression that this contract made the painter an employee of the federal government (thus making the mural PD) while making the mural, but I'm not entirely sure. Moreover, I don't see a copyright notice on the mural; if it's not PD-USGov, is it PD-no notice? You can find details about the mural in this document; its final page is a non-free photograph that I was looking at when I said that there's no notice. You won't find any photos of this mural here, because (I believe that) Ammodramus is waiting for advice before uploading anything. Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:AwabiCastel2008.JPG and File:AwabiCastel.jpg

I have received a message regarding my first two images, which were named File:AwabiCastel2008.JPG and File:AwabiCastel.jpg . Honestly, I'm not yet too familirised with Wikipedia. However, I wanna declare that I have written the article named "Al Awabi" by myself, and I have uploded the two photos of its Castle from a friend who is happy with posting his photos.

So my Q here is how can I fix this problem with "information on its copyright status" of the tow photos, so I don't have the problem again ?

I would love to know the answer. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AwabiWriter (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your friend should follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to release the images for use on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ???

I have uploaded a map onto The Salvation Army Australian Eastern Territory page, it was a blank map, that I updated with the info myself. It is now tagged with a copyright issue notice. Can I get a bit of help verifying that it is not in breach of any copyright laws... --Parradudes (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to tell us what permission you are giving people to reuse it; select one from WP:TAGS and copy and paste it onto the file description page. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request to use "approved" Jonas Salk portrait as non-free image

This question has been posted to User talk:Infrogmation but the answer is still undecided, so I'm asking here also.

Last week, [File:Jonas_Salk1.jpg] was removed from the Commons as it was originally taken by a well-known photographer, although not realized when uploaded. However, I think it would be worth considering whether using the image as non-free would be OK. Note that the photographer's estate spokesperson gave their OK, in the deletion discussion, to use it, so long as it was not PD and was attributed. The use of the image on Jonas Salk as a lead portrait image would obviously help everyone, including the copyright owners. I also just came across this notice on acurator.com, the website of the photographer:

"We were able to locate this image of Jonas Salk. The client originally requesting it had found it on Wikipedia, regrettably marked as being in the public domain. Wikipedia decided to take the image down even though I would have liked them to just make sure it was properly attributed and keep it on the Jonas Salk page. One of Dr. Salk's sons got in touch; also a doctor, even he felt the injection shot was a little discomfiting. Dr. Jonas Salk, 1956 © Yousuf Karsh" [4]

As Creative Commons "permits free use, including commercial use" and permits "any derivative creator or redistributor," that won't do. The copyright holder said they want it used only in the Jonas Salk article and with attribution. I feel that because it is the only portrait of Salk available, and would be valuable to the lead, that its use as a pre-approved non-free image should be acceptable. You can see the photo in question at the link above. Anyone in favor? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We have free images of the subject, and so we should not be using non-free images in the article infobox. I'm afraid non-free is non-free, regardless of whether Wikipedia has permission to use it or not. J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to play with words, but when the owner of an image tells WP they can "freely" use an image on a particular article, wouldn't that make it an exception to "non-free" limitations? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a goal of producing reusable content. So when Wikipedia talks about “free content,” it means content that is reusable by anyone for anything. So an image that can be used only on Wikipedia for one article is not free at all. As for exceptions, Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, which allows Wikipedia to use any non-free content, says explicitly that any non-free content “must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.” —teb728 t c 07:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] help :S

hi, im completely new to wikipedia so i am a bit unsure. how do i find whats needed to keep the pictures up i posted. where do i find you the copyright information you need?? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom darkness (talk • contribs) 08:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All images need source information (i.e. where you got it from) and an “image copyright tag” from WP:ICT or one of its subpages. For free content (i.e. that which is licensed for reuse by anyone for anything) the tag indicates what license allows Wikipedia to use it. For non-free content it is a non-free tag from WP:ICT/FU. Non-free content also requires a non-free use rationale, explaining how the use conforms to Wikipedia’s restrictive non-free content criteria.

Using File:PhysicalRTR.jpg as an example, is it a game cover? If so the tag would be {{non-free game cover}}, and you could use {{video game cover fur}} for the use rationale (which also provides the source). However there is a serious problem: For it is a non-free image that is not used in any article, which violates the policy WP:NFCC#7. If it were used in an article presumably it would be in Mystery Case Files: Return to Ravenhearst. But there is already a non-free image (is it a title card?) being used for identification of that article. WP:NFCC#3a allows only one non-free image to be used for identification of an article without a strong explanation of why showing a second image is necessary for reader understanding. So I'm sorry to say this image can't stay (unless it replaces the other image in the article.) —teb728 t c 10:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright of an image of a painting given to me by a deceased artist

A painting by an artist featured on Wikipedia was given to me by the artist in 1985. The artist, now deceased, painted the picture in 1944.

At the same time, he gave me a photograph of himself, together with an unknown person, taken by an unknown person in a village High St in the late 1950s or early 1960s.

I wish to upload scans of the painting and photograph. What is the copyright situation? Tomintoul (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In the vast majority of imaginable circumstances, it is probable that the painting is still copyright by the artist, and that you will need to seek permission before using it; I have no experience as to who may be able to help you there, copyright is inherited like any other possession, maybe an executor of the artist's will? For the photograph, mmm. Probably the same. Someone else may be able to comment further. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

An unpublished photo is almost certainly unusable, as copyright restriction on these are more rather than less restrictive. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works) Under U.S. law, if the image was created before 1978 and not published prior to that year, it is covered under current standard copyright duration, which means that in the absence of a known photographer it is protected until 95 years after the date it was first published or 120 years after it was created. Presuming it was never published, we will likely be dust before it's free for use. :/ (Or at least I will. I will not speculate about anybody else's longevity. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If the article about him, if there is one, discusses his style or subject matter, or otherwise covers his artwork, then uploading as a "fair-use" non-free image should be acceptable. Possessing a piece of art does not transfer any copyrights to the art, however. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe: the non-free content criteria require that there be no free equivalent (e.g. a work by the same author that is out of copyright, that serves the same illustrative purpose), and that the inclusion is important in context. TheFeds 16:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Permission to use photo

Would like to request permission to use ticket #2008071210006748 for an article about knitting on Examiner.com. Thank you. examiner.com/x-23677-Providence-Knitting-Examiner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatterson (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

First, see Wikipedia:REUSE#Images_and_other_media. Then go to the image page, and look for the licensing information. If it is a free license, such as the GFDL, or one of the Creative Commons licenses, you are welcome to use the image, without explicit permission, as long as follow the terms of the license (which is often attributing the author/source, and noting the free licensing). Hope this helps. Keep in mind, we cannot offer you legal advice, so you should consult your attorney if you have more specific questions about whether your reuse is legal. Good luck. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] tagging photos

Can anyone tell me where to go to tag a photo on my blackberry curve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.235.125 (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what sort of thing you are asking. For example, are you asking about a photo you you took of you blackberry or one you took with it or what? And are you asking about a tag to put on Wikipedia or one to put on the blackberry or what? —teb728 t c 11:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proper license for image from US government website that's older than the government agency?

File:ExperimentalMinePA.jpg is taken from this webpage operated by NIOSH, a part of the CDC. As the photo was taken in 1910, it can't have been a work of NIOSH (formed 1970) or of the CDC (formed 1942). Since the page doesn't say anything about publication information, should we simply assume that it falls under PD-US? Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clear from the description that the image is (under U.S. law) the work of the United States Bureau of Mines, so PD-USGov and probably PD-US as well. Physchim62 (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the description on the page that I linked? I couldn't find anything on that page to that effect; if I missed it, please say that :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I figure it would be a "public use" type of image from the United States Department of the Interior. "PD-USGov-Interior". The reason I think that is because the National Energy Technology Laboratory page says, "1910: The U.S. Dept. of Interior (Bureau of Mines) established the Pittsburgh Experiment Station in Bruceton, Pennsylvania." Well, that's the Experimental Mine they're talking about, and that image is dated 1910, and the image was found on those government web sites associated with Interior - Mines - CDC - NIOSH. The U.S. Department of the Interior was established in 1849, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines was established in 1910. The main agency, of course, being the Interior. So, I would say that's the logical source of the image. Leepaxton (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain status in question

Do we know anything about the source of this image? File:India_CG3.jpg I am wondering, because I'd like to know exactly what the image shows and where it came from. I have queried the user User:Vastu, who added the file to the Chandragupta Maurya article in 2006, but he hasn't made an edit since July 2009, so I don't know whether or how quickly he'll respond. I am not used to working with images. I see that there is a "public domain" template in the image file. I wonder whether that file has information, somewhere, on the source of the image. I am suspicious as to whether the image really is public domain. The colors seem a bit too vibrant to come from a historic painting whose copyright has expired. Furthermore, I am no expert, but the painting is not in a recognizable historic Indian painting style, at least not one that I recognize. It looks much more to me like a 20th-century illustration, which might not be in the public domain. Wouldn't it be easy enough to paste a public-domain template into a file if a user wanted to protect it from deletion even if the user could not prove that the image is public domain? My apologies for asking this question twice, but no one responded to this question the first time, and I think that it is a serious question that involves some risk to Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a tag to the image that requests a source. If none is supplied the image will be deleted. (If the user returns later to explain the source of the image it could be undeleted.) All images require a source so that their copyright status can be verified. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bates image status

Is this photo of Barbara Bates in public domain? I can't figure out in the internet. Brand[t] 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can’t think of any reason to suspect that it would be public domain. Most stuff you find on the internet is not public domain. Some categories of things that are public domain include: really old stuff (like stuff published before 1923), stuff created by the US federal government (but not stuff created by state governments or stuff acquired by the federal government), and stuff where the creator has explicitly given up his copyright. —teb728 t c 01:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Konysheva Natta portrait 2009.jpg

I uploaded the file which I made/took (produced) myself and I downloaded this file to Wikipedia. I want this uploaded file be used for the article in Wikipedia and I don't want any other usage of this file. What I should add in the file description in order to have this file in Wikipedia article. Andrey Kryuk —Preceding unsigned comment added by VArtC (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For living people we only accept freely licenced images which means that your limited permission for Wikipedia only is not acceptable to us. You might consider using one of these Creative Commons licences which are not as restrictive but allow other usage as well but with attribution. If you don't choose one of these the image will be deleted shortly. ww2censor (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problem: "I am the copyright owner, but another site hosts my text and photos"

I have been in conversation with Nick0Name (talk · contribs).

The conversation is here, but the essence is in this quotation:

the text/photos on the goldstar link , i own the copyright to. I gave them to goldstar to put on there site

The site apparently contains a few examples of Nick0Name's work, such as this entry about Lark.

The actual notice on the site says You’ll find biographys, press clips, promo photos and release art for use in magazines, fanzines etc. The photos are free to publish in magazines, fanzines and other printed or web-based media. - but Nick0Name says that he owns the copyright to the text and the picture.

Firstly, can we use the photo on Wikipedia (or even on Commons?)

Secondly, does this notice allow us to use the text on Wikipedia - and if we can, how do we prevent the 'bot from claiming that it is a copyvio?

Thirdly, if we couldn't use the photo and/or text, how could Nick0Name prove copyright ownership of the text?

Any answers would be welcome! I am mentioning this thread to Nick0Name - I think I've done as much as I can on this one, so if you want to advise him, could you respond here and leave a talkback on his talk page?

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] On an unrelated wiki, a member has uploaded some of my pictures (from WP) as his own

Forgive me if this is the wrong lplace to ask this - it's difficult to work my way around the copyright pages here... I have uploaded a large number of photographs to Wikipedia over the last few years; today I discovered that a user on an unrelated wiki, VirtualTourist.com, has uploaded several of my photos there, claiming them as his own work. This page shows "The Brook" and On the Bay Road, for example, which are in every way identical to File:Carisbrook.jpg and File:PortobelloNZ.jpg. I don't mind my photos appearing on the site - but they should, by the GFDL license they are under, be credited to Wikipedia and to me. What do I need to do to achieve this? Grutness...wha? 06:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfectly valid complaint to make at VirtualTourist.com, Inc. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have the same problem here where people steal images from elsewhere and claim them as their own. There is an abuse email on this page that you should probably follow up with. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Photos of copyrighted images

Hi, I've taken a photo of a commercial logo - see File:Emu_Export_Logo.jpg, but I'm now confused as to what copyright status it would have. Normally I label my photos with the Cc-by-sa-2.5 template. Any advice? If there's a problem, I'm happy to delete the photo. BoundaryRider (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• The copyright is in the logo, not your photo. This should be labelled using a fair-use criteria. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have added a fair use tag - but I would be grateful if someone could just check that I got it right! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• I added also {{non-free logo}} and {{non-free reduce}} tags to File:Emu_Export_Logo.jpg. —teb728 t c 08:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have downloaded, resized and re-uploaded the image. I trust the new version is sufficient? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] hi

[5]. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superaryan85 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed your link above. So, yes, what exactly is your question? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fairfield Lacrosse png

Hi, I have an email from the image owner granting permission to post this image Image:Fairfield Lacrosse.PNG. How do I go about reestablishing this deleted image? Thanks, Stagophile (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The instruction were clearly posted on your talk page in the image problem notice User_talk:Stagophile#Image_permission_problem_with_Image:Fairfield_Lacrosse.PNG, so just follow those by having the copyright owner email their permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org giving the image name and the image will be restored when the permission arrives. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)