I must admit that I don't subscribe to this "post both sides to prove there isn't a copyright mark on either" school and would prefer to take the uploader's word at face value unless there is something to create suspicion. The dates provided by Hirtle as applicable here as they are on Commons, so proof of publication is required and I think this file falls into that misconception that date of creation = date of publication. As the description says it's from a private collection I suspect it's never been published and therefore {{PD-Pre1978}} isn't likely to be applicable without more information. A word with the uploader to see if it was published as well as tagging for deletion won't hurt. NtheP (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The 'published' ones I usually upload from EBay are usually accepted as PD at commons if they have a date stamp when received by the newspapers. I think commons has consensus that when a TV network gives an image to a paper to (hopefully) have them print that is 'dissemination of copies to the public' Which is the legal definition of publication. They also rarely put copyright marks on either side nor registered them. I did find that most from movie studios and live theatre did mark copyright on images to the same newspapers. TV probably didn't worry because a 1/2 weekly show that may not have a future with re-runs is not like a movie/play that has a longer production life. I will leave a note on the uploader talk page and see if they can provide more info.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
. The uploader confirmed no notice on the back.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Permission for use only on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Permission must include use for all purposes, including commercial re-use.--ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
i see. but even if its not listed as free work\ i dont understand this very well, sorry
WP:NFCC says that you can't use a non-free image if you can create a free alternative, even when none of them has been created. The problems is that sometimes taking a photo of a celebrity is very difficult? What can I do instead to create one? Perhaps drawing a picture? Czech is Cyrillized (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this was discussed at commons. If a drawing is made almost exactly from one image then it would violate copyright of that image. Making an 'artists conception' from numerous images shouldn't violate copyright.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Yiannis Poulakas
Dear Wikipedia
I tried to upload in my article about the painter and stage designer Yiannis Poulakas his photo (File: Ioannis Poulakas 1937.jpg) without success. I suppose because none of the preset of you categories about copyrights includes my case.
This photograph of the artist, is a family heirloom that has come into my possession from my father as the painter is my great grandfather. Also nowhere in the photo there is the name of the photographer or his studio and the date of the shooting. Testimonials of my father led me to the conclusion that must be created between 1935 and 1939.
What should I do in order to publicize this photo in my article in wikipedia?M.poulakis (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You could see whether you own the copyright on the picture. Normally the unknown photographer owns copyright, but the situation may be different in Greece, where I assume the photo was taken. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK under Greek law the copyright does pass to heirs for the duration of the copyright (75 years pma), therefore assuming you are the heir you can release the photo into the public domain. You might want to consider uploading the image to Commons where there is a specific licence template (PD-heir) that cover this situation. NtheP (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Threshold of originality templates
See Template talk:PD-signature and Template talk:PD-ineligible, where we are discussing whether the threshold of originality licensing templates should either match {{PD-signature}} in requiring an check of the country of origin to see if it complies to the PD standards of that country or not, or match {{PD-ineligible}} in not caring if the country of origin's rules of the threshold of originality (or special copyright protections) is met or not, only using the US standard, and whether the template should be so named to indicate that only the US standard has been checked. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
screen shots for illustrating video game article
I update the article for War of the Roses video game War of the Roses
I am in touch with the publisher of the game, they want me to use images from the game. It is unclear to me how to attribute this in the copyright section for uploading images. Or do I need to get a specific form of words in a specific format from the publisher?
To be clear the publisher would like me to illustrate the article with screenshots I have taken of their game.
If they are willing to release the images under a free license, then you'll want them to send an email to the OTRS, as outlined over at WP:CONSENT to affirm that. Otherwise, if they are just going to be non-free licenses, you can just include them but they have to fall within our non-free content policy. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Is the material on the website Listal.com free to use?
No. The only mention made of reuse of content is in the Terms of Service where it states "We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be shared publicly, you agree to allow anyone to view and share your Content." That is not anything near an acceptable wording to be compatible with a Creative Commons licence and frankly the vast majority of images on there look like copyvios. NtheP (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Free Content
Are there any websites with free images of celebrities to use?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question. Anyways, which translations of the bible are Wikipedia articles allowed to quote? It's unlikely that we'll be able to use the NIV for the bible quotes in the article, because they require us add a very long copyright notice at the top of the article. The ESV requires adding "ESV" at the end of the quotation for non-commercial works, and explicit permission for commercial works. I'm not sure, but Wikipedia might fall into that second category. The ASV is published in 1901 and it's the most modern one I know that's in public domain. However, the English used in the ASV is sometimes old and difficult to understand.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Bible Gateway states the following concerning NIV quotations:
Copyright Information:The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
The publication of that copyright notice is required ONLY if any of the three provisos exist. No Wikipedia article I have ever seen comes close to any of those exception clauses, nor should any article. I appreciate talk astute sensitivity to the issue. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
You could always use the New English Translation or Open English Bible translations if you're really concerned about it; but I don't think any of the brief biblical quotations given in Wikipedia articles will come close to being long enough to cause a copyright concern. – Quadell(talk) 12:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
@Quadell: However, right below that paragraph Afaprof01 quoted says this:
This seems to say that any work that contains material from the NIV needs that copyright notice.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
On the one hand, that's not really how "fair use" works in the U.S. If a "fair use" defense protects a reuser from a claim of copyright infringement, it has nothing to do with whether the reuser followed the rules set out by the copyright holder. What Zondervan (the copyright holder) is saying is "We will agree that this is fair use, and won't sue, so long as you follow this restriction." But even if they don't agree, it's not really up to them. Fair use is determined by a judge.
On the other hand, I think it makes sense to have a source footnote whenever an NIV verse is quoted that says it comes from an NIV translation, and includes that notice verbatim. I mean, why not? It's brief. It's not the "title or copyright page or opening screen", but it would be prominent, and the NIV's notice is merely advisory anyway. – Quadell(talk) 13:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the page it appears that use of the NIV on the internet is prhibited by the licence holder in any event and the above notices only relate to printed material- "These Scriptures are copyrighted by the Biblica, Inc.™ and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or reposting on the Internet is prohibited." So to avoid any take down notices etc I'd just avoid using the NIV altogether. NtheP (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. What versions can we use then? Is it better just to use the American Standard Version (now PD) or the Open English Bible?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Any version that is PD, like ASV, or licenced under a CC licence, like Open English, is to be preferred. Actually given the NFCC#1 "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available", a PD or CC version is mandatory unless you're dealing with something like comparisons between versions. Which of the free versions you use is personal choice. NtheP (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
As a note, NFC policy does not cover text, but the intent is right that given the age of the Bible where a large number of versions are available as PD/free license, there is almost never a need to cite a copyright-held work unless it is specifically to illustrate differences in translation/writing between versions. This more falls under US fair use law than anything else. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, you're right. That's the approach that most aligns with Wikipedia's core values. – Quadell(talk) 11:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Before we start changing articles to eliminate NIV quotes, please let's postpone a few days. I am in contact with Biblica (NIV copyright holder) in Colorado Springs, USA, for their first-hand interpretation. It will be early week of 1 July when I have have answer to post here. Meanwhile, for existing citations and brief quotes, please let's not overreact until we receive Biblica's interpretation as to how their policy applies to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Technically we're probably fine under US Fair USe to use brief cited quotes from any of the "non free" versions (NIV, for example). I would simply encourage using the free versions if the context is version-agnotistic, and that we can point to WikiSource's various full-texts of the free versions of the Bible (over here [2]). But no, Afaprof01 is right that no one should be on any campaign to rid WP of existing copyrighted-quoted Bible texts that otherwise meet our citation policy; a much more detailed discussion should be had at the Bible Wikiproject to encourage swapping when it is possible. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why we're fine under Wikimedia's policies to use the NIV's translation except in those rare cases where we're actually commentating on NIV's translations. We don't use fair use photos of living people or existing buildings; we shouldn't be using fair use translations of works that we can use with free translations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Unlike many non-free-image issues, this really isn't a legal issue; it's a policy issue. I agree that it's better to use a free translation when it serves the same purpose, and if I were creating an article or adding a Bible quote to an article, I would definitely use a free translation. But I think Masem's right that we should take it slow to avoid the sort of destructive edit wars that these quasi-religious disagreements (or, in this case, full-religious disagreements) often cause. Would an RFC be the way to go? – Quadell(talk) 11:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
An RfC on whether or not Wikipedia articles should be allowed to use non-free translations in certain situations would be a good idea. However, I'm not sure where is the best place to start the RfC.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that it's not a copyright issue. As the case over Twelve Monkeys said, it's the amount of the original work used, not the percentage of the new work it makes up. We could end up using a large, large chunk of the NIV. And I can't imagine if the NIV sued the Encyclopedia Britannica for quoting the NIV to the tune of thousands of verses that a judge would waive that off as fair use, instead of telling EB they should have licensed it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
NIV Quotations. Official Position of Copyright Owner
In a 29 May 2013 phone call, Brett Davis, copyrights manager at headquarters for Biblica, Inc., said Biblica encourages Wikipedia editors to quote from NIV. They are very familiar with what we do. Besides the ≤25% rule, they request two things:
(1) In the text, every citation that quotes from the NIV should include the letters NIV in the Chapter:Verse citation [e.g., John 3:16 (NIV)], and
(2) The fair use copyright statement need appear only once somewhere in the article, preferably in the References, Works Cited, or whatever the article calls it:
A template named NIVC (for "NIV Copyright") now exists. The editor of articles quoting one or more times from the New International Version of the Bible (NIV) should enter {{NIVC}}—ALL CAPS within "curly"/"squiggly" brackets. That template call will generate the necessary verbiage as a reference at the end of the article—provided that there is a {{Reflist}} there.
I don't know where else we need to publish this notice within Wikipedia. I explained to Mr. Davis that we couldn't immediately add the copyright notice to all articles that quote from the NIV, and he understands that. Afaprof01 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Lined through by author based on subsequent issues raised below. Afaprof01 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
How does this resolve the NFC policy issues? There are other copyright holders who've taken similar positions with regard to their IP, and we generally find such permissions/licences insufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
That statement is clearly not acceptable. Nothing is allowed on Wikipedia simply "with permission". It must either qualify as fair use, or be licensed with a compatible license (e.g. GFDL / CC-BY-SA), or be in the public domain. These requirements help ensure that third parties who wish to use Wikipedia content will be free to do so. Your boilerplate suggests that Wikipedia has permission but that other people do not. If that is the intention, then that boilerplate is not acceptable here. If that is not the intention, then it should be clarified and made consistent with one of the categories of use that I just mentioned. Dragons flight (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Copyright status of 1915 work possibly modified
this book was published by R. Shamasastry in 1915 and it is already in public domain as you can see here on wikisource.
(1) Is the book cover image is also in public domain and hence free to upload on commons?
(2) One user said that book cover may not be original. It is just doubt but assuming that image is from reprint edition, can the new publisher modify original work and claim copyright of modified version? In this case, can that publisher claim copyright of new image on public domain work? neo (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
To answer your first question, if that is the original book cover as published in 1915, then it is in the public domain, and you may upload it to Commons. On the other hand, if the image is newer than that (from a reprint), then it may be copyrighted. To answer your second question, if I took a book in the public domain and changed the drawings and republished it, I would hold the copyright to any modifications I made to the images. So therefore, if you copied my modified drawings I could sue you for copyright infringement. (But if you copied the original PD book, without my modifications, then you wouldn't be violating my copyright at all. – Quadell(talk) 18:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not the 1915 book cover. I found the image source: it's from a mural c. 1930 in India House, the seat of the Indian High Commission in London. See this article: 75 years of India Housep2p3. How it got to be an image file isn't findable; it was on Wikipedia some years back as the now-defunct India_CG3.jpg, and was asked about then [3] - with no elucidation. It was deleted from Wikimedia Commons in 2009 [4] for failure to identify source. This archived page about the art of India House [5] shows that it's the Northern Quadrant depicting the Emperor Ashoka - so it's the wrong guy for illustrating the Arthashastra anyway (Kautilya was mentor to his grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Quadell and Gordonofcartoon. this is bit high resolution of image I am talking about. Are you sure it is there on India House site page? I am seeing different image under 'Northern quadrant' heading. neo (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
They're two parts of the same quadrant, which shows Ashoka's daughter going to India (the India House image) and Ashoka reading scripture (the book cover). The monk at the far right of the India House image is the one at the far left of the book cover one. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Image of Sam Abal (former Acting Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea)
I'm working on a Wikipedia article for Sam Abal, and one thing that is missing is an image of him.
The image credit in the caption says, " Dave Hunt / AAP via AP, file," presuming that Dave Hunt took the picture and sent it to the Associated Press (AP) and then the Australian Associated Press (AAP) got it from there.
I'm trying to figure out what copyright license this would have before I upload it. (Special:Upload) Buspirtraz (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Licensing from a commercial source like AP is hopeless; they sell licensing on a per-use basis, whereas Wikipedia demands permission for reuse by anyone for anything. —teb728tc 05:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The image caption is "Haider Al-Abadi, chairman of the Iraqi parliament's treasury committee, in Washington, April 18, 2013. (photo by Office of the Iraqi Commercial Attache, Embassy of the Republic of Iraq in the United States)".
I'm just trying to figure out the copyright license for that image. (Special:Upload) Buspirtraz (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Al-Monitor had specific permission from the Office of the Iraqi Commercial Attache for that one use. Wikipedia requires general permission for reuse by anyone for anything. If you want to try asking the Office of the Iraqi Commercial Attache for such permission, see WP:COPYREQ for the license required, how to ask for it, and how to transmit the permission to Wikipedia. —teb728tc 05:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Family photo, unsure of how to respond to copyright form
I am trying to upload a photo of a family member to insert into his Wikipedia page, however I am unsure as to how I should fill out the copyright form during the process of uploading. It is simply a family photo, with unknown author, source, or other relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyp3r.phone (talk • contribs) 2013-07-06T07:22:21
The photographer has to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. If the photographer can't be identified, then the image can't be uploaded until the copyright has expired, which normally happens 120 years after the photo was taken. --Stefan2 (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In the U.S. photographs taken after 1988 are copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the photographer. 70.134.227.22 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
"Their images which are from the US Govt are in the public domain, as are all photos from pre-1923. They have also granted free use to non-profit organizations for some historic photos (so Wikipedia)"
Accordingly, the Bettmann arcve has been "opened:"
"Only images from the Bettmann Archive will be donated. Images must be available through the Corbis website (http://pro.corbis.com)"
I gather if I wish to use Corbis Images from the Bettmann archive (particularly pre 1945 images) to illustrate a Wikipedia article, I can do so, or is there some other consideration I must look into. For example, it looks to me I can simply use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_historic_image (Non-free historic_image template).
SteamWiki (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
The public domain images can be used here or commons. Please find the reason they are public domain. Those that are only free for non-profit use are not suitable for Wikipedia, as content here is free for all uses including commercial. Non-free historic_image template is not for everything, the image has to satisfy all the non free use criteria. WP:NFCC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your speedy reply, I should be OK for fair use since persons depicted are deceased, (no free substitute with my camera, what a rush it would be if there was) are in a specific historic situation etc and from the Bettmann archive was one of the stipulations in the Corbis no-profit guidlines. If I can find a reason for public domain, I shall do that, since some of the photos are of a very old origins, pre-1945.SteamWiki (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Question about charts prepared by private entities
I'm aware that when a corporate logo is nothing more than "simple geometric shapes and/or text", it is considered not to meet the Threshold of originality that would keep it off Commons. But what about published charts based on research by private (if publicly-traded) entities? For example, the very simple charts in this J.P. Morgan report. I've thought one or more might be useful for financial-related articles. My first guess is that copyright is an insurmountable obstacle, but then I wondered if the same threshold might apply. Anyone know? Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
There are (at least) two grounds for U.S. copyright in the chart. The visual presentation (which you've identified—correctly in my opinion—as being uncreative and thus not copyrightable), and the collection of data. If editorial judgment is used to choose the data being displayed (irrespective of how easy or difficult it was to do so), there may be originality in that process, and therefore a copyright. One might make a very weak case that the metrics graphed in that report were chosen from the set of all possible financial indices, and that the choice constitutes creativity. In practice, I think they'd be seen as ordinary analyses and presentation techniques not rising to any level of creativity. Note that law in other countries may recognize the difficulty of generating the content as a factor in its copyrightability. See also Feist v. Rural. TheFeds 18:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, TheFeds (and apologies for the delay!). Sounds like it's not a slam dunk but at least worth at least a try. I'll check out the decision you've linked, and I'll be interested to see how it goes. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if this is the wrong place, but I'm not sure where to bring this up as the image is clearly Free, but I'm not sure it's as Free as we are listing it to be.
This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years.
but the given author (Keir Hardie) died in 1915 which is only 97 years ago (not the 100+ claimed). However, it is not guaranteed to be Hardie's own work, in which case it might qualify for PD as an unknown author's work more than 100 years old? I'm far from an expert with this though so all advice is welcomed. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I've re-tagged it as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, since it appears to unambiguously fit that description. I also removed the author field, since we're not sure if Hardie himself created it.
If others would care to weigh in, there's a case to be made for tagging it {{PD-anon-1923}} instead—especially if we can pin down the date, agree that it's from Scotland and agree that any Hardie supporter could have printed it (absent specific evidence of authorship). Alternatively, we can tag it with {{PD-UK-unknown}} and keep the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, if we agree that a reasonable effort has failed to locate the author. (All I've done is perform an Internet search for the work in which this was already republished—with no hits.) TheFeds 00:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for continuing with this, I'd basically forgotten about it! From memory I think I tried to find the book it was in too, but failed. I don't recall trying to find a specific author though. Thryduulf (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
PD-Anon-1923 would definitely apply as the last election Hardie fought was in 1910 (when he was re-elected for Merthyr Tydfil for the last time) and this looks much earlier. I'm not sure about PD-UK-unknown as it's not necessarily an artistic work. Under UK election law (IIRC) either the candidate or their agent have to approve the posters which would make them the publisher but not the author of the work. NtheP (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Question: Why does {{PD-UK-unknown}} state that it has to be an artistic work? According to this chart, there are two rules: one for photos taken before 1 June 1957, and one rule for all other works. Of course, the chart might contain some error. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
No idea, perhaps the template should be amended? In this case is an election poster a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work though? Perhaps all of them except musical :-) NtheP (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure either—but since it incorporates a photograph, there's at least a plausible reason to consider artistry. TheFeds 05:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Tagging an image
I am unsure how to tag an image - the options all seem rather complex. It is an original artwork logo for a non-profit UK organization. It can be quoted freely in links, for instance, but obviously abuse (such as using it for a different organization) would be a breach of UK copyright, which does not need specific registration. I have complete authority to upload the image for the wiki page. How should it be tagged?
With greatest appreciation for advice.
Sincerely
Parzivalamfortas
wiki page: Exit_(Right-to-Die_Organization)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs) 12:45, 7 July 2013
You claim to be the author of the image File:Exit (Scotland UK) weblogo.gif. Did you actually design it and own the copyright? If not, as a logo for an organisation, it is a non-free image especially in the UK where the threshold of originality is quite low. Logos may be used in the infobox of an organisation's article for which we use the template {{Non-free use rationale logo}}, that must be completed in full (look at the template link for more info and the full layout), and is used together with the copyright tag {{non-free logo}}. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I struggled with the infobox but managed to add this in preview:
| Use = Infobox
| Purpose = An identifying logo of Exit (Right-to-Die Organization) to identify Exit or act as a hyperlink to Exit's website at www.euthanasia.cc or at http://exiteuthanasia.wordpress.com/
| Source = Original graphic design made for Exit, submitted to Wiki with permission of Exit
| Owner = Exit
| Website = www.euthanasia.cc
and so on, and was trying to get the layout right. Someone else (who probably knows wiki layouts better than I do, edited it before I saved, so the extra info was lost. I am confused on the data that needs to be entered. I have full authority to use the image - what else do I need to enter? Thanks!
You appear to have tried to add the information required for the image to the article and not to the image itself. The above advise refers to the image file and I have now done it for you. However, the image sources do not show the actual file you uploaded. Why? Nowhere did I find the uploaded image on the websites mentioned. That needs to be resolved. When the image is added to the article it should be the image used in the infobox for the organisation which should be this one {{Infobox non-profit}}. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The amount of hassle required just to add an image for which I have full authorization is wearing me down a bit. I see your point - the image on the two websites is a version that does not include the tagline but recognisable. Would it be better if you have that image without the tagline? Can it not just be linked direct from the URL? If the wiki page is producing so many problems what if the image with the tagline is added at somewhere at the end of the websites quoted? Clearly it is not Exit's wish to use the logo in exactly the same format everywhere. I don't have a lot of time to spend on it just now, but do want to make sure it is not removed in the meantime. Parzivalamfortas (talk) 11:49, 8 July 2013
Indeed, sometimes dealing with the complexities of copyright can seem a hassle but we have to err on the side of caution when there is a potential, however slight, that we could be sued for a copyright violations. You say you have authorisation for uploading the image. Who gave that permission? If that is the case you have to get the copyright holder to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Without verified freely licenced permission, the image is clearly non-free but we do accept them in limited circumstances and yes you do have to jump through the hoops of our stringent non-free policy which a non-free image must comply with. Also the image does need a proper source link to the image; a generic domain name, where we cannot see the image, is not good enough. If you are able to get the actual image you uploaded onto a webpage for one of the organisation's sites with a freely licenced copyright tag, we can then use that link as the source, with or without the tagline but a link directly to the image will not show any licence for us to confirm it is freely licenced. We will try to help you as best we can but, unfortunately, the onus is on you as the uploader to comply and that may seen onerous at times. You may also find it useful to read my image copyright information page which sets out many of the issues you are having. Don't give up. BTW, I fixed the redlink template, for use in the article, I gave you above: it is {{Infobox non-profit}}. ww2censor (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice and assistance with the info box. An official email is on its way to Wiki at permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
I must point out that the name of the article was changed by another editor from "Exit" to "Exit (Right-to-Die Organization)" which is at odds with Exit's clearly defined nomenclature (the phrase right-to-die is philosophically untenable as one cannot have a 'right' to something that happens anyway.) I hope this can be changed back. Other organisations in the field are not burdened with an unwanted 'definition' after their name in an article title. There have been other changes made by wiki editors that probably do not reflect Exit's position very well, but the priority is to get the article into a viable form before going over minor details Parzivalamfortas (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2013
I'm happy we are able to help you get your head around the copyright issues. BTW, the OTRS team who deal with permissions are often backlogged, so don't assume the image will get an OTRS ticket applied quickly. Regarding the organisation's article title, Exit is used in the title of all sorts of articles so Exit itself is a disambiguation page and the orgnaisation's title cannot usurp it, so if the current additional unique definition is not appropriate, you can always get it changed to reflect the organisation's position more accurately. We don't get involved in actual article content on this page but be careful as I suspect you have some involvement and therefore may have a conflict of interest. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Screen shots of open source software
Around 1997 Apple released the source code to the SK8 project under an open source license. They retain copyright on the original source, but allow free modification and distribution of the original and modified versions. What sort of rule would apply to screen snaps taken from such a project? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Free nature of the underlying code for software does not directly apply to the screenshots of the software; the software may use copyrighted art assets, it may be in a OS that has copyrighted assets, etc. The license will usually specific what nature of copyright the screenshots have. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No such luck in this case - and it's abandon ware from 1997. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding uploading
Sir
I uploaded 4 non-free images in indian soap opera. But the other user is editing and remove my uploads constantly. can i post images in other related aricle and change my summary. will it lead to copyright infringement?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manavatha (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Manavatha, The use of non-free content is very restricted on Wikipedia. (See WP:NFCC for the detailed policy) Among the restrictions:
“Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” None of your photos significantly increase reader understanding. Indeed it is very difficult for a non-free gallery to significantly increase reader understanding, which is why non-free galleries are almost never allowed.
“Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.” You were trying to use seven non-free photos where none was needed.
“Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.” This means that a photo of living person is almost never acceptable to show what the person looks like, for a free photo could almost certainly be created.
Sorry, but I can’t imagine any use of these non-free photos, for they could be replaced by free equivalents. —teb728tc 04:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC) For example, File:"Giaa Manek.jpg".jpg could be replaced with File:Jiaa manek.jpg. —teb728tc 04:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Can this image on Russian Wikipedia be moved to commons to add to En.Wiki article?
The creator of Permyak Salty Ears (it's a sculpture!) tried to include an image, but it's in Russian Wikipedia here. Could someone with the combination of Russian language and copyright knowledge check whether it can be moved to Commons to include it in the En.wiki article? Thanks. PamD 11:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no freedom of panorama in Russia, so the photograph is a derivative work that requires the permission of the copyright holder of the original sculpture. This means it cannot be uploaded to Commons, nor, indeed, do I think it should be on the Russian Wikipedia either. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 12:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what Russian Wikipedia requires in order to keep the image, but I have tagged it with ru:Template:FoP-Russia so that the Russians at least are aware of the situation. The image isn't permitted on Commons and would have to satisfy WP:NFCC in order to be used here. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Interestingly, three images have now been added to the article, by the original author. The image in the Russian wikipedia appears to be the same as the first one. PamD 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes you can. You will have to license your image with one of the CC-BY-SA licenses, or the GFDL or both, and credit AI2 Jeff Dahl and Quibik. You can see there is already an AR and CS version available.
BLACKBOY135
Please can an expert review the edits of BLACKBOY135 (talk·contribs), he has already been warned about adding copyrighted images to articles and I fear that all of the images he has added violate copyright. GiantSnowman 11:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I have reverted all his edits, what's the process for mass-deleting his images from commons? GiantSnowman 11:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Already been done. He's also blocked there for a week; if he continues again after that, a short notice at their admin noticeboard usually does the trick. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, I've never edited over there so have little-to-no idea how it operates, may have to change that... GiantSnowman 11:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
What about Government created work purchased in a copy by me?
This is a questions regarding this image, that is marked for deletion. File:Devgad Taluka Map.jpg
This has been uploaded by me, but does not seem to fit into any existing copyright categories. This is a government map created by the Land Survey Department, Devgad Taluka, Sindhudurg District, Government of Maharashtra, India. The uploader, that is me, has purchased a copy of this map from the said department by paying requisite fees. There is no explicit embargo or restriction placed by the department of the usage of the map. Hence, the uploader, who owns the copy of the map, may be deemed to be the copyright holder, is what my view is. I have written this in the summary page, but does not seem to have helped and the image is marked for deletion. Please advice and guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OmkarSapre (talk • contribs)
Buying a copy of the map does not mean you own the copyright, the copyright remains with the Land Survey Department. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
MilborneOne is right. The copyright remains with the Land Survey Department, and there is no indication that they have released this map under a free license. The text of government records from India is in the public domain (cf. {{PD-India}}), but that does not apply to graphics and images. Therefore we need to delete File:Devgad_Taluka_Map.jpg as a copyright infringement per our criteria for speedy deletion. De728631 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
publicity still and fair use
creating an article on an American entertainer with career spanning 6 decades
uncertain as to Wiki image use restrictions for:
- publicity stills
- theatrical posters, programs
all images currently being considered are from the entertainer's personal collection to be used with written permission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheiapresbytatos (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like the entertainer is still alive, in which case fair use is not justified. We may also question whether the subject owns the copyright of the photos, posters or programs. Normally they would not. However if they do own the copyright and are prepared to grant a free license for all uses, not just Wikipedia then we can use them. Another possibility is that some of these were published prior to 1978 in the US without a copyright notice, on the front or back, or registered with the copyright office, then they would be public domain and we could freely use them here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Mixing of 2 medications, Trazadone & Quitipene
I would like to know if mixing the two med together will it show up as Valium, or Diazepam. Or if any are as Bendoiziopene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.106.5 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This image has a questionable provenance. As far as I can tell it was transferred from de.wikipedia by a user MARK. MARK has been banned but I cannot tell why (certainly does not instill confidence in copyright status of image). The original message said that the file was from http://le.cos.free.fr/delta%20force.htm That site is not run by DoD so I am not sure why this image was claimed to be in the public domain. Is this the proper venue to file a complaint/bug/whatever about the copyright status of an image? If not please let me know where I should direct future queries.
If this image were on Wikipedia, I would recommend listing it at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. But since the image is hosted on Commons, I nominated it for deletion there. – Quadell(talk) 11:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up: It was confirmed on Commons that this image originally came from www.defenselink.mil. – Quadell(talk) 12:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to find a suitable image of the subject to upload, but I'm unsure of publication. In fact, they were created long before the subject's death. What do you think? [6][7][8] --George Ho (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Any photograph first published in China (including Taiwan) has its copyright protected for 50 years after "the public release of the work", or 50 years after the death of the photographer, whichever is earlier. If there are any photos that you can be sure were publicly released before 1962, then these will be free from copyright in China -- just upload them to Commons and tag them {{PD-China}}. Since he died in 1960, certainly many official photos would be publicly released during his lifetime. – Quadell(talk) 11:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Late renewal
I would like to use cover images of the magazine Fantastic Novels in that article, so I checked the copyright renewals per the instructions here. The first five issues (1940 and 1941) were renewed, but I found nothing under the individual year renewals for the second series (1948-1951) (e.g. this page would show a renewal if one existed).
However, a search in the post-1977 database finds what appear to be mass renewals, in 1990, of multiple titles, including Fantastic Novels. Can I ignore these as invalid? Or do they actually count as renewals?
You are right that before 1978, a copyright renewal was only valid if it was made during the calendar year of the year of publication plus 28 years. The 1990 renewal you link to seem to be specific stories by specific authors, and I'm not sure if these have any validity or not, but they don't even claim to cover the magazine covers. You can safely upload a cover from 1948 to Commons and tag it {{PD-US-not renewed}}. – Quadell(talk) 12:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The artist died in 1980, copyright in Chile is authors life+70. Would this work be still under copyright? FOP in Chile doesn't cover artworks that are installed indoors, this being an indoor mural wouldn't be covered under it. We have quite a few images located at Commons for this mural. What is the consensus of this still being under copyright? — raekyt 15:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Chilean copyright law allows photographs of "those artistic works that adorn squares, avenues and public places on a permanent basis". I don't know if the lobby of the Casa del Arte in the University of Concepción counts as a "public place" according the Chilean law. If so, then there is no problem. If not, then the work is certainly still protected by copyright. – Quadell(talk) 11:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
According to Commons deletion records for it the law is for outdoor displays, NOT indoor, indoors have been deleted in the past. — raekyt 11:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm quoting the actual Chilean law (as translated into English), which does not mention an indoor/outdoor distinction, at least not directly. It mentions "public places". – Quadell(talk) 12:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Also what defines a public space, it's in a building at the University of Concepción, which is a "private-law corporation" according to it's wiki page... — raekyt 03:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't know how Chilean law defines "public places". – Quadell(talk) 11:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Official crest of highschool
I had uploaded te crest of my highschool some years back; to be used on a number of articles. But there have always been problems regarding the authour, etc. I want to know how I can get (and prove to wikimedia) from the official website of the school, so that there won't be any hassle in the future. I know that webmaster@officialwebsite's permission can be proven to wiki. How I do this??? Please help.
Are you referring to File:DharmarajaCollege crest.jpg? Even if not, a high school crest would probably be used the same way. So far as providing the author, it's enough to simply saying that the crest design is the intellectual property of the high school. There's no need to get the high school to officially verify through e-mail that the crest is accurate. – Quadell(talk) 16:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is the file I was referring to. Thanks a lot.. Gihaned (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this gallery of copyrighted images acceptable under fair use?
Please see the gallery in Gamestar (Australia). I removed it, but the article creator got very upset and assures me that this is an allowable use of these images. I think this gallery runs afoul of WP:Galleries, WP:NFR, and WP:NFCC (in particular #3), despite the fact that the magazine has been defunct since 18 years, as the article creator argues on his talk page. Any advice will be appreciated. --Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not. One cover is reasonable for identification, but any more requires significant discussion about each cover on its own - which I certainly don't see happening for a short-lived, national video game magazine. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
WIKIPEDIA USERS PLEASE HELP the article Delia Matache, please help me and Delia managers ,we need your help
Hello, i am Consiliul (Vlad Mateescu), actually i am director for Romanian dubbing, so, my purpose is to create strong articles for those celebrities who dub characters from animation in Romanina.
Now is Delia turn, i search for help everywhere on WIKIPEDIA, i consider this is hilarious because nobody wants to help me to find A PHOTO GOOD FOR DELIA'S PAGE, yes, yesterday, someone upload a photo, but Wikipedia, like always do, delete the photo.
Because, you told me, that you can help me, PLEASE, try to review my article, Romanian managers from Delia, put me to do this thing, but all my photos are deleted by Wikipedia.
Yes, you are my only hope, we want also, to create a BOOK:DELIA, with discography from Delia etc. , but because nobody wants to help me with a photo, I consider this a sweet dream, so,if you can help me with some materials for a book, but NOW, the photo is important, A PHOTO THAT WILL BE NEVER DELETED!
P:S : I know is hard, my apologises for disruppting your work, if it is too much, we pay, how you want for a complete Delia Matache page in English.
A new day, and please, don't do, like everybody from here, they always read my messages, and they never respond, because I am knew, and I do mistakes, but when I try to search help, suddenly, I am a bad people. I want only to help, please help me, help us. --Consiliul (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I understand you want a good photograph of Delia Matache to be used in her Wikipedia article. Wikipedia can only accept free photos of living celebrities. (Non-free photos of living celebrities will be deleted from Wikipedia, and nearly all celebrity images you find online will be non-free.) If the photographer is willing to release the photo under a free license, such as the Creative Commons attribution license, then the photo is free.
Finding free photos of celebrities is very difficult. I searched a few places online where I sometimes find free photos of celebrities, but didn't find any of Delia Matache. It may be that none exist. Even so, we can't use a non-free image of Delia Matache on Wikipedia.
One option is you could find a good photo on flickr and contact the photographer, and request that they license the photo under a free license. For instance, [9] or [10] seem to be taken by individual amateur photographers, and it's possible they would be willing to license the photos under a free license so they can be used on Wikipedia. If you're interested in trying this, follow the steps at Wikipedia:Requesting free content#Making requests from Flickr users.
Lastly, if you want someone to look over the article itself (not the images, but the prose), it's best to list it at Wikipedia:Peer review. All the best, – Quadell(talk) 14:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Survivors
File:Survivors Dogs.jpg has been uploaded to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons under the public domain, even though as a book cover of a novel published less than a year ago, it is completely non-free. I remain and will indefinitely remain a complete and total Luddite when it comes to adding images to Wikipedia, which means that I need someone who has a little know-how to help me through. I would probably just use, like File:Eragon book cover.png as a starting point and retag from there, but what really concerns me is that the file is also listed at the Commons, which I'm pretty sure is a big no-no for non-free images.
Also, like the absentminded professor I truly am, I'll probably forget about this within a span of hours, so anyone who helps should probably use talkback. öBrambleberryofRiverClan 21:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
All this user's uploads on Commons (including this one) have either been tagged for speedy deletion as out and out copyvios or listed for deletion as PD status being unclear. NtheP (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Over to the left side of the main Wikipedia page, there's a list of links, once which is "Toolbox", and within that you should find "Upload File", which is a wizard aimed to help you upload images including the issues around non-free ones (eg noting copyright owners, etc.) It should be pretty direct and better than trying to work from an existing example. --MASEM (t) 21:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Request for review of PUI closure
I nominated File:Scott Martin.png for PUI (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 July 13) last week, on the grounds that the uploader freely admits they did not create the work, and furthermore that they have no proof of licence. On Commons, this would be cause for deletion under the precautionary principle. We require that all media which are not uploaded by their creators have some form of explicit licence statement - for instance OTRS, a licence tag on the source page, etc. This has none of that, but it was speedy kept (twice) on the grounds of "assume good faith". This to me seems bogus - one cannot assume good faith with copyright, one must be able to prove they have the rights to release. It's the law.
My question here is how does AGF interact with copyright on wikipedia, and would others say the closure was correct? -mattbuck (Talk) 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see WP:AGF as particularly relevant. Wikipedia routinely accepts material on the basis that the person submitting it is telling the truth regarding copyright status. As indeed does Commons when e.g. material is uploaded from Flikr. Given that the acceptance of such material is entirely normal, I can see no reason whatsoever to treat this as a special case. Of course, if Mattbuck is arguing that Wikipedia/Commons should be more strict regarding such matters in general, he might get some support. That would require a proper proposal though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
What we aim for is a paper trail. So that we can say "to the best of our knowledge, this is free, here are some documents to back that up". We can never prove copyright completely, but we can demand explicit releases from authors. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
We have a paper trail. We have an assurance from the uploader as to the copyright status of the file. Which is all that we ever ask for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yo, was it just too hard for you to notify me of this discussion? And having been rebuffed both at the original PUF and on IRC (*rolleyes*) and on Prodego's talk page, could you possibly forum shop this any more? — Scott•talk 14:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have the opportunity to use some old images from a 13 year old limited publication book. I have the permission of the publishers/copyright holders and i have the permission of the compilers of the images.
How do I demonstrate my permissions to whoever needs to know within Wiki Commons?
You'll need to follow the instructions over at WP:CONSENT that has the copyright owners give appropriate permission to use these in a free license model via the OTRS. (Basically they'll have to send an email to affirm this). There's further instructions there for how then to tag appropriately. --MASEM (t) 13:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) See Commons:OTRS. You need to forward to the OTRS team the emails you've been sent with the permissions, and then they will check to make sure the permissions are okay and broad enough -- in particular that you've been given a release that allows re-use and/or adaptation by anyone in the world for any purpose, not just use on Wikipedia.
If you upload your image to Commons, choosing the licence that the copyright holders have approved, you can tag it with {{subst:OP}} to indicate "OTRS pending". They can be a bit short of people, so it can take a couple of days, but then everything ought to go through okay after that. Jheald (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much, very helpful. Richard Avery (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a disagreement over a non-free image being used at Zou Bisou Bisou (regarding whether or not the image meets fair-use criteria). If anyone has any feedback or suggestions, we would appreciate your comments at Talk:Zou Bisou Bisou#Non-free image. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I was updating the page on the Becky! email client and thought an image of the program screen might be nice, but the upload guidelines state that I cannot upload a screen capture of a computer screen that I did on my computer. Am I understanding that properly? I've edited pages in the past, but I have no experience with use of graphics on Wikipedia. Thank you for your clarification.
david kirk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dskirk (talk • contribs) 18:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
(Note: this regards Becky!, a non-free e-mail client.) – Quadell(talk) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Redrawing diagrams
If I redraw a technical diagram, using essentially the same layout and labels, perhaps with minor changes, is the resulting image still governed by the copyright of the image I copied? I'd like to create a carbon exchange reservoir diagram but the sources give a diagram of their own that I really can't modify much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The presentation of a diagram is copyrightable; the facts portrayed are not. So it depends on how much the layout and labels are a necessary conseqence of the data and how much they result from creative choices of the artist. What would happen if you made your own diagram based on the data without regard to the original diagram? —teb728tc 03:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
That's more or less what I did; I combined data from two different sources and laid the diagram out a little differently. The result is here. Based on your comments I think it'll be fine. I have another question, which isn't related to copyright but which perhaps an image expert here can help with: I had to make several revisions of the file to fix various issues, and I found that although I could see on Commons that the underlying file was fixed, the file as it looked when embedded in an article still looked like an old version. I bypassed my cache repeatedly and tried it in two different browsers (IE and Chrome, Windows 7) to no avail. I eventually created another file with the right content and used that instead; that worked. Is MediaWiki doing some caching from Commons that I can't bypass? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah its probably a caching issue. The problem would normally go away in a day. There is also &action=purge that can cause a reload of the image in the cache. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Scan of old etching copied from UK website
Could you set my mind at rest over this, please? File:BictonByGendall.jpg (1825) was copied from this page on the UK-based Devon County Council website, by a (now resigned) user who was also based in the UK. It's OK, isn't it? Sweat of the brow doesn't apply, does it? TIA. —SMALLJIM 14:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, it's a commons image and it is old enough to be PD. ww2censor (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't link it well. Does that mean I must ask over there? Or am I actually asking a dumb newbie-type question to which the answer is obvious? —SMALLJIM 15:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! Those Commons:When to use... pages were exactly what I was hoping to find. Thanks for pointing me to them. —SMALLJIM 11:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Query about a possible composite image
G'day all, I have a query about File:Chetniks trampling the Nazi German flag.jpeg which may show signs of being composite (around the flag at the bottom). I'm not suggesting this was done by the uploading editor, it is apparently from the cover of a book, which may or may not be a WP:RS. Is there any indicators of alteration/photoshopping that anyone can see? Is it worth doing an RfC on something like this? What other approaches to address my concerns might be appropriate? Any advice gratefully appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. I have no idea if the image is altered or not, and I know that any such assertion would be original research. But I'd say it's all moot, since it's a non-free image used decoratively with no author specified. I have nominated it for deletion. – Quadell(talk) 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This diagram appears to be owned by NASA, but there are two other attributions, one to THEMIS, a mission coordinated by NASA, and Andreas Keiling, who appear to be affiliated with THEMIS. Is this non-free image a usable image on Wikipedia as it has, as far as I can tell, been produced as part of a project managed by a U.S. government entity? I, Jethrobotdrop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
This site has more detail. I doubt it is PD as Andreas Keiling doesn't seem to have created it while employed at NASA. Her email may not be hard to find if you wish to try that route for her to release it. (The name looks female but I could be wrong.)--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Use of a letter from a magazine editor to a public figure
Hi,
I am attempting to upload a PDF file I created of a letter addressed to George Halley, Couturier, by Diane Vreeland, Editor-in-Chief of "Vogue" magazine and dated 17 November 1969. I have permission from Mr. Halley to use this in reference to the entry I wish to create on him.
The letter is typewritten on "Vogue" letterhead as "THE CONDE NAST PUBLICATIONS INC. 470 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017" and signed by Ms. Vreeland now deceased. My question is this a permissible use as the recipient of the letter has provided permission, or must I seek additional permission and from whom? Does Conde Nast have rights here?
I am unsure as to how to upload the PDF file I created from scanning the original as it seems I must declare the copyright beforehand.
The text reads:
"Dear Mr. Halley,
I just want to tell you that the
greatest possible pleasure for all of
us is to see your clothes when they
come up to my office...
You are marvellously(sic) creative and your
clothes have such real grace and such
real femininity ... I think one is just
prettier than the next, and when I say
pretty I mean pretty - because so few
clothes that have dash and style ... as
yours have... have enough prettiness --
and you add just that wonderful
ingredient...
I'm not sure that copyright is really relevant to this. Wikipedia content is intended to be based on published reliable sources, and personal correspondence isn't normally considered to have been published - you almost certainly won't be able to cite it as a source anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As Andy says, since the letter has not been published, it's not something we can use as a source here anyway. A scan of the letter would certainly violate Vreeland's copyright as author, and/or possibly Conde Nast's as well, since it was written as part of her role as Vogue editor and thus may be deemed a work for hire with copyright held by her employer. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Armenian Revolutionary Federation logo
The logo of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (which is an active party in Armenia and Lebanon) was created in the 1890s. I wonder if their logo is in PD or not.
Here are at least 3 images from pre-1918 era that show the logo of the party:
You can see the logo here. It is uploaded using non-free rational. --Երևանցիtalk 04:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The versions of the logo that were created in the 1890s and published in Armenia (or predecessor/nearby states) would be {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, but new artistic renderings of the logo—unless there was no additional creative input in creating the new ones—would be copyrightable as of the dates of their creation. In this case, I'd say the new one is probably independently creative (compared to the three examples). TheFeds 06:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
That painting is in the public domain. Sometimes British museums try to claim copyright on scans of their art, but neither U.S. law nor Commons policy consider a scan to introduce a new copyright. Feel free to upload it to Commons, where we have lots of other paintings by the artist. Be sure to tag it {{PD-art-auto-1923|1851}}, and use {{Creator:J. M. W. Turner}} as the author. – Quadell(talk) 21:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
There a bit of discussion of British precedent in the article Bridgeman v. Corel (which is the oft-cited precedent in U.S. law); the implication is that it's unsettled law in the U.K. whether there can be a new copyright generated by making a direct photographic copy. However, Commons permits uploading it there (as a special case), irrespective of local law. TheFeds 04:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Pictures of Missing Children
Are photographs distributed to help find missing children in the public domain? The photographs in question are these and are distributed by the Mexican government. The only relevant information I could find on the website is a note saying "some rights reserved" at the bottom of the page. Can these images be used in Wikipedia? Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no standard answer, and we'd need more details to be sure. Who is the photographer/artist, and under what terms did they release the rights, and to whom? Mexican government works are copyrightable (expires 100 years after publication, according to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Mexico). Would the context be appropriate for a fair use image? TheFeds 19:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Very unlikely. The images of the children are mostly family snapshots so the image belongs to the family member who took them, and the other half of the image is a generated image which may belong to the Mexican government but unlike some countries that doesn't make them PD. NtheP (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I will look into WP:FAIRUSE. Ajaxfiore (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Punta della Dogana interior
I'm looking for (ideally a free-use) image of Punta della Dogana's interior, but it's an art gallery, so I'm having some trouble. Would freedom of panorama work indoors for this use? Two potential images are [11] and [12]. Thanks czar·· 00:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Punta della Dogana has been around for hundreds of years, so you don't have to worry about any architect's copyright. You just have to be careful not to reproduce any of the copyrighted art inside. In my opinion, the second photo you link above would be fine. It doesn't reproduce copyrighted art in a meaningful way. – Quadell(talk) 13:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I heard similarly at Commons' copyright village pump. If anyone else has input, please drop me a talkback. Thanks, again! czar·· 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The diagram mentioned above is reproduced verbatim from an image in the book: Dargie & Poellabauer: "Fundamentals of Wireless Sensor Networks, Theory and Practice, 2010, Wiley & Sons", ISBN: 978-0-470-99765-9
at page 186: Figure 7.15: "Forwarding strategies in location-based routing."
There is no mention of the original anywhere in the references.
If this is a slavish copy of the original then, unless the book's illustrations are freely licenced, it may be a copyright violation. However, if it is based on common information anyone could draw, or could have drawn, a picture based on that data without it being a direct or nearly direct copy and they could then freely licence that image. Looking deeper, it looks like the uploader also wrote this article http://archive.cone.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/people/ruehrup/georouting-chapter-draft.pdf, though 2 years after uploading this image and 3 years before the reference you mention, as some of the images are very similar. Who copied who? This and the upoader's other image may well be his own but as he has not been around since 2008 we are unlikely to get his input. Personally, based on my investigation, I'm inclined to WP:AGF. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Please do not cut and paste information from any source, including magazines, into Wikipedia. You may add information from a magazine so long as it is written in your own words and summarizes the information in the article, but be sure to specify the source your information comes from. – Quadell(talk) 18:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't to copy and paste, I know the rules. Miss Bono [zootalk] 18:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, great! I'm not really familiar enough with RSVP Magazine to know whether it counts as a reliable source or not, but the folks at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard are the experts in that area. Perhaps you could ask there? – Quadell(talk) 19:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for both: John Lennon and RSVP... Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Yearbook Copyrights
I made a post on the help desk page about this, and I was redirected here. I was wondering what the policy on posting photos of celebrities from yearbooks is. For the specific photo I want to use, there is no noted copyright in the book. I found the name of the company (Zepp Photo Centers) that took the photo, however, as far as I can tell, it no longer exists (the photograph was taken in 1977). Is the photo public domain? Judgmentalowl (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It all depends on the copyright status; a yearbook photo is fine as long as it's in the public domain. Copyright law doesn't care what kind of book you use, so the rules for yearbooks are the same as for books published by university presses. Please see the stipulations at Template:PD-US-no notice — despite what you were told at the Help Desk, anything published in the USA in 1977 or earlier without a copyright notice is in the public domain, unless it were first published in another country. Was Glass's yearbook published in 1977, or did they take the photo one year and publish it the next? And just to be sure, was it published in the USA? Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
From what I can infer from that file's logs on Commons, the immediate reason for its deletion was not a problem with policy, but apparently it was because a user considered that the information about its source ("77 Milestone") was unclear or insufficient to be easily understood and verified, and apparently you didn't take action to reply to the request for clarification. (The use of the template "PD-because" probably didn't help either, as it's a last resort template and its use is often a sign that the uploader couldn't find a specific template with a valid PD justification. The PD reason you wrote in the parameter of the template was valid, but normally that reason is expressed by the use of the specific template "PD-US-no notice".) So, this may have been a misunderstanding due to the ambiguity in the description page. However, before you can tell if the file is in the public domain, it would be better if you could tell for sure who the copyright owner was and if the photo was published in the yearbook with the agreement of the copyright owner. You say the photo was taken by Zepp Photo Centers and you also said in the description page that the author of the photo is Millford Mill High School. By the way, how did you find that it was taken by Zepp Photo? Were all the photos in the yearbook taken by this company specifically for publication in the yearbook? If there is no copyright notice, how can you be sure that the school is the author of the photo? Also, some people may see a problem if the absence of copyright notice cannot be independently verified. Above, you wrote: "For the specific photo I want to use, there is no noted copyright in the book". That is also ambiguous. Are you implying that some or all the other photos in the book have copyright notices or that there is no copyright notice at all for anything anywhere in the book? Anyway, if the above questions are clarified to your satisfaction, you could request the undeletion of the file, by explaining the situation either to the sysop who deleted it or in a formal undeletion request and you'll see what will be decided about it. If the file is undeleted, make sure you clarify the informations on the description page. Use by preference a specific PD template, such as PD-US-no notice (You can also add redundant information in the "permission" field, if necessary, for example "published without a copyright notice". Explain clearly in your own words the source of the image. For example, it could be something like: "Scanned by the uploader from a paper copy of 77 Milestone, the yearbook of Millford Mill High School, published in 1977". -- Asclepias (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no copyright information in the book, but there is a page that references Zepp Photo Centers. I think I was mistaken in thinking that it was the company that took the photos; after looking over the page with my dad we came to the conclusion that it was an add for a local business and not an acknowledgment of the company that took the photo. I'm sorry about creating confusion there. I also checked the 1975 and 1976 yearbooks, and they do not have copyright information. Also, having checked the other two books I found nothing about Zepp Photo Centers, so now I am pretty sure that I was mistaken in my original assumption. I have the yearbooks because my dad was in Ira Glass' graduating class, so my dad offered to contact some of his high school friends who worked on yearbook to see if anyone still knows the name of the company that took the photo. If that doesn't work, I can try calling the school, though I'm not sure if they would still have that information. Would that be necessary?
The photo was probably taken in 1976, but it was published in the yearbook in 1977. It was published in the United States, and there is no copyright information anywhere in the book. I'm sorry if I misunderstood the reason it was taken down, at the time I was pretty new to the editing side of Wikipedia. So correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've gotten from these two responses is that I just need to provide a better description of the source of the photo? Thank you for all the help Judgmentalowl (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
It really does sound as if this is PD-US-no notice. I don't think you'd need to call the school. And yes, I'd say that the only significant problem with the original description was that it didn't have a sufficient source description. Some time back, I uploaded an image that was scanned from a book in this same kind of situation; you may do well to start with its description page and simply change around the information so that it fits your book. Don't worry about the "A copy of this picture..." sentence; it's there because the image was published twice, and both books failed to include a copyright notice. Since the image presumably wasn't published anywhere except the yearbook, this sentence is completely unnecessary for your purposes. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright, thank you again for all the help! Judgmentalowl (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, one more question about this. The file was deleted from wikicommons, so should I simply reupload or should I request an undeletion? Which is more appropriate in this situation?Judgmentalowl (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
If it were me, I would reupload it with all source and licensing information clearly stated. – Quadell(talk) 12:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
A text-only book cover
This cover has only words and simple background and line. Should I upload it to Commons? --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
That depends on what exactly you want to upload to Commons. If you want to upload that particular image, then that could be problematic. That image might be eligible for a separate copyright by the photographer due to the lightning and background. On the other hand, if you crop out the background, then the reflection effect on the cover might be de minimis and thus the image might be in the public domain because the cover is ineligible for copyright protection. -- ToshioYamaguchi 17:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, if the reflection is not de minimis but the cover is ineligible for copyright protection (due to falling below the threshold for copyright protection), then this image cannot even be used as non-free content, because it would violate WP:NFCC#1. -- ToshioYamaguchi 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Resolved
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_CG3.jpg){kind=link}
_weblogo.gif){kind=link}
