Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File 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 an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Croston Hall

I'd like to add a picture to the Croston Hall article and have found a few online [1][2][3]. Could these images reasonably be uploaded under a {{PD-UK}} or {{PD-US}} lisence, or would further enquiries need to be made to determine if those lisences are applicable? Failing that, I should be OK with a claim of fair use as this is a demolished builing. Small-town hero (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• If we don't know the author, then probably Template:PD-UK applies, being that all three of these images (this one is probably the best, balancing it in Photoshop) are more than 70 years old. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • For PD-UK-Unknown (which is what it's called at Common) to apply, you really ought to be able to show reasonable enquiry, should you be questioned at a later date. An email / a few google searches may not go amiss, and will also provide some useful background information. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've sent an email asking for any further information regarding the image singled out by Hammersoft. Regarding the Commons license, how could it be determined whether or not the image was "made available to the public" before 1939 if the author is unknown? Small-town hero (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Civil War era photos

Have all Civil War era photos now entered Public Domain? Have found photo taken in 1864 that I'd like to use in article. It is on Federal Government web-site, but it's unclear wheather it was actually take by/for the Federal Government. Also, there's nothing that shows that photo was published before 1923. Finally, rule that allows photos to pass to Public Domain ~70 years after authors death can't be calculated because photographer is unknown. Image could definitely be use under Fair Use rule since person in photo is dead; however, that would prevent its use in other articles. Is there specific rule (or generally accepted rule-of-thumb) that covers when old photos pass into Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything created before 1889 (in the US at least) is definitively in the public domain now even it it was never published. Works by unknown authors that has never been published lapse into public domain 120 years after it was created [4]. Also if a work by an unknown/pseudonymous author has been published the rule is whichever is shorter of 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation. So a photo from 1864 should be safe. --Sherool (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent--thanks!--Orygun (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we use an image of a video game from a game news site?

This image of an unreleased video game was added by a new, well-meaning user who seems to have run afoul of our policies or our markup in anything he's tried to do. It'd be nice if he could catch a break. Can we use it? --Kizor 10:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• For one, this is a Commons issue as the image is located there. There's nothing we can do about here on Wikipedia. For two, Commons does not permit copyrighted material, which this blatantly is. For three, if it were here, it should be deleted as the software is not yet published, and therefore fails WP:NFCC #4. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The first two are fixable problems. But NFCC #4 is that "Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia," so could it count that this particular content has been published and publicly displayed, even though its subject has not? --Kizor 15:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, the image should not be on commons, it's clearly non-free. But as for NFCC#4, most game companies seed screenshot images of games in works to gaming press sites; that's "previously published" enough for our needs. Remember, its the image itself that is of concern, not the work behind it. (The alternate case would be if a user got a pre-release copy of a game well before release by illicit means, and published a screenshot from that and not through a gaming journalism website. That's a NFCC#4 there). --MASEM (t) 15:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • 'lo, Masem. Thanks, I saw the rules but didn't know our practices. Now that the image's been speedied, though, I need to ask if it can be used with the logo of the press site in the lower right corner before I go bug someone on Commons for a copy. --Kizor 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

General Image question

Hi,

I'm publishing a book (not a big corporate thing but just a few hundred copies) and I'm confused as to whether I can use certain images that I find on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that I can't use the Fair Use pictures but the rest of it is flummoxing me.

I'm assuming I can use pictures in the public domain but am unsure whether I need to make any acknowledgements. I am also very confused about pictures in the GNU Project - I read the Wikipedia page on this and some of the answers here and could not make head nor tail of them. Can someone tell me (in very simple terms as I'm a bear of very little brain) what I can and can't use and whether I need to make acknowledgements and, if so, who to?

Thank you very much and apologies for my complete ignorance and stupidity. Pantscat (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair Use depends on what you're planning on using it for. Public Domain you don't have to make any acknowledgments, but you probably should anyway, so you're not accused of plagiarism. By GNU project, I assume you mean images under GPL/GFDL -- yes, you can use them for any purpose, but if you use them, you will probably have to make the whole work under GPL/GFDL(it's a matter of some debate). The acknowledgements should be to the person who uploaded the image(unless the image description specifically says acknowledge someone else. You could tell us specifically which images you want to use, and while we can't give legal advice, we can point you in the right direction. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What does making a work under GPL/GFDL entail? Pantscat (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're the sole copyright holder, then you just have to say that you're putting it under GPL/GFDL. Include a like to it to people know the terms. If you're building on a GPL/GFDL work, you're obligated to put it under GPL/GFDL. It's even a matter of debate how GPL/GFDL might apply to a combination of text and pictures. Even though I've we've been using GFDL/GPL interchangeably, their not the same. Here's a link to a guide on specifics. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

File:MISC27x.jpg

Hey, could somebody help me out with a situation? I deleted an image that somebody scanned, and they got it as a gift (a christmas card given to them or something), and now the uploader is petitioning the deletion. Could you see the thread on my talk page on User talk:Killiondude#Deletion of photo MISC27x.jpg? I consider myself somewhat knowledgable about image copyright stuff, but now I'm second guessing myself. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

For a former curator for a scientific library User:Puzhok seems surprisingly confused about copyright law. In that capacity Puzhok should know that a work is copyrighted simply by being created; there is no need to claim copyright; a newly created work is in the public domain only if the creator has explicitly released it into the public domain. Puzhok also seems to confuse fair use with public domain; they are not the same. It is possible that the use of the photo on Allan Sandage may have been fair use, but Wikipedia policy WP:NFCC#1 effectively forbids a fair use image of a living person. —teb728 t c 01:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of Photos / Diagrams From Canadian Medical Journal 1946

Hello. I'd like to use some diagrams and photographs contained in this article: Bilateral Frontal Lobe Leucotomy in the Treatment of Mental Disease. It was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 1946. The article is hosted by the NCBI. Would American or Canadian copyright law apply?

On this site it states:

Copyright comes into existence automatically, at the time the work was created, and, in the case of most works, it continues until the end of the calendar year in which the author of the work dies (regardless of whether the author has sold or assigned the copyright in the work or not), and continues for an additional period of 50 years. There are some notable exceptions to this rule however. One such exception relates to photographs, which are protected by copyright from the time the photograph was taken, up until the end of the calendar year in which the photograph was taken, and for an additional period of 50 years (that is, the termination date of copyright protection for photographs is linked to the date the photograph was taken, and not the date of the photographer's death).

Is it possible that the copyright on these images may have expired? The authors of the article have not yet been dead fifty years. Would they have held the copyright or would that have been held by the journal?

On the assumption that these photographs and diagrams are under copyright what is the likelihood of the relevant authority granting a release? Is contacting them (presumably the journal itself?) a worthwhile exercise or am I better off searching elsewhere for appropriate images.

Thank you. Freekra (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, could anyone enlighten me on the copyright of the photograph at this location? Freekra (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Any work first published in a foreign country before 1978 with a proper copyright notice receives the same copyright term in the United States as works published in the United States during those years. A work first published in 1946 would receive a 95-year copyright term in the U.S.A. (thru 2041). The major exception: works that were in the public domain in their home countries as of January 1, 1996. If the photographs in the article were taken before 1946, they would have been in the public domain in Canada on that date. But if the photos were taken in 1946, the year that article was published, they were not in the public domain in Canada on that date. So, first you would need to know if that issue of the CMAJ had a copyright notice (your link is to only the article, not to the issue as a whole). Then you would need to know when the photos were taken. If the work was published in Canada without a proper copyright notice, the Ninth Circuit (where the Wikipedia Foundation is headquartered) considers the work as unpublished for U.S. copyright purposes. Which means that the work could be treated as being in the public domain only if (1) the author(s) had been dead more than 70 years; and (2) the work was published before 1923. Neither of those is true for that journal article. To sum up: Your only hope for public domain status is if the journal was published with a proper copyright notice, but the photos were taken before 1946. Or maybe you could get the CMAJ to sign a release. — Walloon (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain Walloon. Much appreciated. Freekra (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nokia tune

The piece the ringtone is derived from is PD, but the tune, is the trademark of Nokia. Trademarks are intellectual property if I remember correctly, does that mean I cannot use the actual ringtone from a cell phone, but use a piano version? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 19:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is public domain you could use it, but not as a trademark sound for a phone brand because it would be too similar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

So for a piano version I made from the PD score I can release it freely (dual-license GFDL and CC-BY-SA)? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded, but in the public domain. File:Nokia tune - piano.ogg. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between trademarks and copyrights. The tune itself is in the public domain - i.e. nobody owns a copyright on it - therefore you can use it almost any way you wish, including commercially. The only thing you can't do is use it as a distinguishing audible representation of a competing commercial or non-profit enterprise, because Nokia owns a trademark on the sound. -- Hux (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I get a bit confused when it comes to trademarks. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 06:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Chuch Bulliten - Please Help Me Choose a License

Fellow Users of the Wikipedia:

I wish to upload a scanned copy of a bulliten from my local church to help illustrate a particular article on the site.

The contents of the item are an outline of a Chrismon service held at my church.

Now, churches, at least my church, are 501c3 religious organizations in the USA, and may or may not be actually incorporated, despite holding mortgages and loans, etc.

I feel I have implied permission from the church to upload this document. The bulliten states that the church's copyright is "granted under License #992533", and nothing else. There are no trademark symbols, no registered symbols, nothing else. This is where the issue lies. You see, I'm the only editor of Wikipedia in my church, so asking for expressed permission to upload a document would be pointless. Therefore, I didn't ask anyone directly for permission. I did tell my father, who is a deacon, that I wanted to do so, and he approved, so that may count. You see, my church is Protestant Southern Baptist. We don't have any hierarchy outside of the pastor, deacons, and minisers of youth, music, etc. Deacons considered part of the clergy, but the entire membership votes on resolutions and meetings, like budgets. I am a member of this church, and by this interpretation of Baptist doctrine, I myself hold a lawful claim to the church's published materials, as a member of its congregation. I am also an usher, and as stated, my father is a deacon, and thus amongst the clerics.

I didn't ask anyone for permission to upload the bulliten, so I can't use the Copyrighted With Permission claim. HOWEVER, I still feel liable to upload the document on implied grounds, as anyone who could hold copyright on the bulliten, including the pastor, who saw the bulliten, would be absolutely fine with it. I am extremely close friends with many of the older church members, particularly the elders/senior citizens, choir, the clergy, and the pastor, all of whom would approve and enjoy the use of this item online. I know for a fact the pastor would, as the pastor is a good friend of mine, for example. I am certain and I am sure of their universal approval.

The bulliten was a special issue on November 29th, 2009 (that's today as of writing), distributed to cover the Chrismon service. It included a list of various items considered to be Chrismon items, something which would benefit the article as a source. It is a portion of it, being the interior third fold (to the right) of the item. Its purpose is for article citation and further illustration of what is considered a Chrismon item.

As stated, though, I only have the implied permission of the church. I know for a fact that they would say yes if I called anyone up and asked, but it's late in the evening and everyone is at home. It would be socially awkward to call someone up on a copyright query on something that no one really cares to attribute (no one takes copyright seriously in my church), so that is out of the option.

Does implied permission with certainty that they would approve count as permission given, and if so, what license would that bear on the image? If it applies as some other form of copyright, could you direct me as such, to the license I need? Does it even need a copyright?

Here is a recap on reasons for approval and notes for a license decision:

1. This is a Protestant Southern Baptist church bulliten outlining a Chrismon service.
2. The distributors do not have any concern or care about copyright and would not really understand why I need to ask for permission to upload it online. They would be okay with it.
3. I am extremely close friends with the church clergy and anyone whou could possibly hold copyright, including deacons, the pastor, the ministers, and some of the general congregation.
4. All church members and potential holders, knowing me as a close friend, would universally approve of this item being on Wikipedia.
   1. I am certain of the following statement because I know these potential holders very closely.
5. The distributed item is an outline of a service and does not contain any possible copyright information that would demand direct attribution.
6. The document does not contain any registered or trademark symbols, nor any attribution to businesses or holders of any work used. Its only copyright reference is the bulliten being "granted under License #992533".
7. I have implied permission to uplaod this document, as I am certain that any possible copyright holder would approve this on the spot.
8. All potential holders would enjoy their work on Wikipedia and feel grateful to help the Faith online.
9. All potential holders would consider uploading the document a positive move relating to the Christian faith and would fully support it.
10. The Baptist doctrine encourages sharing of religion regardless of method, and nothing incorporated under said doctrine demands attribution for sharing the Christian faith.
11. I am the only user on Wikipedia and the only man who can upload this item.

Please help me with this issue.

Thank you, and regards: --TurtleShroom! :) NOODY BRANCH! ^{Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food.} - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 01:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A basic question first, for what purpose would you use the scanned image in the article? As a reference? – ukexpat (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

TurtleShroom: Without being able to see the scan in question it's difficult to provide advice. It might be that the image is comprised only of simple text and symbols that, together, do not constitute an original creative work. If so, then the scan would be in the public domain by default and you could use it however you wish. If, on the other hand, the scan does contain what the law would consider to be original creative work then it is copyrighted by default and owned by the church, in which case you would have to obtain a free use release from someone in the church who is legally authorized to do so (see WP:COPYREQ for details on how to make such a request). Hope this helps! -- Hux (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair-use

Hi there, can someone explain this to me? Thank you!!! --Kozuch (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Read this and before proceeding further, please ask yourself two simple question "What is a copyrighted file?" & "Can I reuse it here on WP without the written permission by the publisher?". Other than that, I'm proceeding to tag all your uploaded images with it, Wikipedia doesn't want to be sued because of some irresponsible uploading by any individual editors. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 08:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but it still seems to me like you are largely ignoring Fair-use possibility. I dont undestand the difference between my images and File:Windows_7.png for example. Does the Windows screenshot have a permission? Does providing source URL solve the problem for you??? --Kozuch (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft are not (primarily) in the business of selling pretty pictures. The artist producing these cutaways is. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well if I try to create a derivative myself of the disputed file, is it okay then? I have seen files being deleted, because the were derivatives of non-free content.--Kozuch (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Any derivative of a copyrighted work inherits the copyright status of that work, so anything you created would have a same issues. Black Kite 13:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So how can be these images ([5], [6]) replacable when I can not create a similar one? How do I asses what is a derivative and what is not??? What if I create an image that is similar by 90% to the original image? Is that a derivative? What about similarity by 50%? Where is the border??? I would really like to replace this file... but like this it just seems to me it is not possible. --Kozuch (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• By definition, a derivative work could mean any work that's derived from an original work not done by you, so it's still considered as such even if it bears 90%, 50% or 10% similarity, period. Kapish? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually that should be capisce, just FYI. – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Duke Kahanamoku 1920.jpg

I was going to move File:Duke Kahanamoku 1920.jpg to commons when I decided to take a look at the original source.[7] On Wikipedia, the uploader altered the image (cropped it) and tagged it as public domain. However, the source specifically states that it is "Copyright Regents of the University of California, UCLA Library" and is licensed as a "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License". The photograph was originally published by the Los Angeles Times in 1920, but these images are now stored in the Los Angeles Times photographic archive at the UCLA Library, where they are copyrighted and licensed for noncommercial use. Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

However, images published in 1920 are PD because of age, regardless of what UCLA may want to say. Someone who faithfully digitises a PD printed image doesn't have copyright over the digital image. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what a can of worms. The original is a b&w glass negative. A faithful digitized image would necessarily entail adjustments to display correctly. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Images and Copyright Tags

I am really new to Wikipedia and I received messages that my images had copyright problems. I probably did not include the information properly, and just want to know how and WHERE to insert the information. (What code to I put in, Where does it go... under the Information section of the file description?) In general, I am very confused. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieskim0202 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's consider this edit for a start. You've put in a copyright tag, but in such a place that it's smashed the information box. It should have been placed after the last closing double curly bracket, so change the first line from

{{Information{{cc-by-sa-3.0|Attribution details}}

to

{{Information

and at the end of the information there is a

}}

so place the

{{cc-by-sa-3.0|Attribution details}}

after that, on a new line. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

All your uploads look rather like commercial images that came from a website. Did you actually make the original images or did you just copy them from a website? And even if you made them for the company, do you have their permission to release them under the free licence you added? ww2censor (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I do have permission, but I realize now that I probably should have used the GNU copyright license. How do I go about changing the images I want to use to the GNU license? And how can I delete images that are either not being used, similar, or duplicates? I cannot find a delete option anywhere. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieskim0202 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To add a copyright tag to an image, follow the instructions at the top of the page. To delete an image, see Template:db-self. You cannot delete the image yourself, but you can tag it with that template, and an administrator will delete it. That said, you are uploading images that come from a already published source. You either need to log into the webpage superfabric.com, and add a licensing notice stating the images are released under the GFDL, or you need to e-mail a consent form to our e-mail response team (see WP:CONSENT and WP:PERMISSION). As we have no evidence these files were ever licensed freely, and since anyone can edit wikipedia, we need further verification of permission. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! However, I cannot make further changes at the moment until I get the correct, authorized personell to log into our website (which might take a few days). Should I tag these images for deletion in the meantime, or will I be able to re-upload these images under the correct license after they've been deleted by an administrator? I mainly don't want to lose any text while I'm waiting to confirm these copyright issues with my superiors.

Images can be undeleted by administrators as easily as they are deleted. So if the images end up being deleted, and you get permission, you can kindly ask the deleting admin to undelete the image, or go to Template:ImageUndeleteRequest. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So if in the case I have to undelete images, I just provide the information mentioned above and then should be good to go? Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieskim0202 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Another question, however: take Gore-Tex as an example. I am unsure what legal documnetation on their website gives permission to put information on Wikipedia. Where is this consent expressed? I do not see anything that mentions their images are released under the GFDL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julieskim0202 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Uploading image to Wikipedia page

Hello Wikipedia,

RE: File:Paper Bag Records Record Label Logo.jpg

I would like to upload the above image to the Paper Bag Records Wikipedia page, so that it is viewable in the text box (in the upper right hand corner of the page) that contains the information that describes the Founded, Genre, Origin, Location etc.

When I click on 'Upload File' under the toolbox options, I receive a message that reads that I must be an auto-confirmed or confirmed user, despite being logged on.

Also, I had previously been editing the page with a different user name, (same as the Wikipedia page name) however, received a warning/request to change the user name. Since the new user name has been requested and approved, I have been unable to log in - which, for continued editing purposes, is a second account was created.

I have been successful at uploading the image to the WikiMedia page, however, I am not certain as to how to link the WikiMedia file to the Wikipedia page, if even necessary  ?

Please assist on how to upload the image in the desired area on the page. Please respond to my talk page.

Thank you.

Beaudanal (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To become a "confirmed" user may mean you waiting a day or so, possibly making a few more edits (see WP:AUTOCONFIRM). Then you should be able to upload.

If by WikiMedia you mean WikiMedia Commons, don't worry. No special method is necessary to use the file in Wikipedia.

To add the image to the article Paper Bag Records is not difficult, once the image has been uploaded. Edit the page; you will notice that the article begins with a {{Infobox record label}} template. Inside that there is already an |image= field, which is empty, but wrong. Change it to |image_name=, and add your image name after that, thus:

|image_name=Paper Bag Records Record Label Logo.jpg

preview it, and if it shows as red text there's something wrong; if your image shows correctly, go for the "Save page" button. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't upload copyrighted logos to Commons, they should be uploaded to Wikipedia with an appropriate non-free use rationale, see WP:LOGO. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations

Do we have an SOP for the copyright status of media produced by the Commonwealth of Nations organization itself? I can't seem to find any specific criteria on either their website, Wikipedia, or Commons. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing this recently, but they certainly claim copyright over their website [8] (for commercial use at least). Which would unfortunately be indicative of other publications I guess. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles with quotations (concerning spoken-word articles)

According to the third pointer of the article choice guidelines, "spoken word audio clips of Wikipedia articles that incorporate copyrighted text pose legal problems (since the resulting audio file cannot be licensed under the GFDL)" and should thus be avoided. The article I'm looking to narrate has a few (two or three) block quotations. Would this be considered "copyrighted text" that would make the article unfit for this project by WP rules? Ink Runner (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Without seeing the articles in question,) presumably. Unless each piece of text in question has been explicitly licensed by its author - or if it is public domain for a valid reason (age, implicit release by US Fed Gov, etc), then it remains problematic for the licensing of the resulting audio file. -Seidenstud (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin template for PD-US but not-free-in-source-country images?

File:AlbertaHomesteadMap1918 t13-14 r7-9 map33a.png and several similar images were published in Canada in 1918 and are thus PD in the USA, but (as far as I know) are still copyrighted in Canada, so they're tagged with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Do we have a template that says "This image was published in Canada and is still copyrighted in that country", with a link to a source discussing Canadian copyright law? Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The short answer would be no, but you're welcome to leave it in the text of the file description. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright of image of art work

Christie's website has an image I'd like to use in a (new) article on Andrew Bloxham. It's at http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5077408.

At http://www.christies.com/about/help/terms/, Christie's claims copyright of all images on its website.

However, given that this is a faithful reproduction of a drawing by an artist who died in 1830 (i.e. more than 70 years ago), can they actually claim the copyright on the image? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you're OK. Upload as PD, since it qualifies for that out of age. See http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/16/protecting-the-public-domain-and-sharing-our-cultural-heritage/ for further reading. -Seidenstud (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Upload to commons and use PD-art would my advice: {{PD-art|PD-old-100}} I think, to give the relevant disclaimers/info. That's based on the assumption it's a photograph, of course. If we know it's a scan, we can go further, but that seems unlikely. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Albanian prisoners in Belgrade.jpg

File:Albanian prisoners in Belgrade.jpg I am not sure that that picture is in public domain. For that picture author is not known, as sender of picture wrote there.--SLAK (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Same applies to File:Serbian Army in Luma 1912.jpg --SLAK (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

These images are held on Commons. You should really raise your concerns there; I think commons:Commons talk:Licensing is a fair choice. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this question must have been answered before, but I've been unable to find the answer.

I'm very familiar with the various forms of Creative Commons licence. I notice many of the photos displayed on Wikipedia are noted on Wikimedia as being under a CC licence, which requires attribution.

What bothers me is that although the image is correctly attributed in Wikimedia commons, it's not attributed on Wikipedia itself. Most users of Wikipedia would not understand the relationship or go and check the Wikimedia image, leaving the photographer without proper attribution as required under the license. Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisawriter (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If the image is held on commons, but used on Wikipedia, then viewing the image page from Wikipedia actually shows you the commons description page. Whatever licensing, attribution etc. that it carries on commons will also apply to Wikipedia; the two cannot differ unless Wikipedia also holds an image of the same name. In these two cases, WP does not hold similarly-named images; you can tell this when viewing the image from Wikipedia in the following two ways: (i) it shows a "create this page" tab at the top, instead of the normal "edit this page" tab; (b) beneath the image itself, but before all textual information, there is a box containing the text "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below.". I note that a thread now exists at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#File:Albanian prisoners in Belgrade.jpg; and since the images are held there, and not on Wikipedia, it's best discussed on Commons. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to terminate the deletion of my image

This is the link of my image: File:Discuss sc.jpg there were some template about deletion.

I did what the template told me to do to make the graphic not to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerY (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

image upload

Dear Sir

I have uploaded an image of Professor Raj Vir Singh Yadav on Wikipedia. I recieved a message from Wikiepedia saying that the image may be deleted within seven days. This image is sole property of the Raj Vir Singh Yadav Foundation and his family. I intend to upload more images in order to complete this article.

Please guide me in this regard. Thanks very much.

Regards Raj Kumar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj231975 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• According to the image summary, it was taken off the website which owns it and it says here: "This image is a sole property of The Raj Vir Singh Yadav Foundation (the Foundation), New Delhi, India. All copyrights reserved to the Foundation". Meaning, we cannot use this image because they are the sole owner and if anyone uses it without their permission, is liable to be sued for infringement of copyright laws. Another thing, please do not claim that you are the owner of the image, it makes you look really bad in such cases above. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 07:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If The Raj Vir Singh Yadav Foundation has given its consent to use the image(s), it must follow the process set out at WP:IOWN to complete the release. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Images from the Provincial Archives of Alberta

Apparently, the Provincial Archives of Alberta are wanting to charge usage fees for PAA images that are on Wikipedia. I recieved an email about some images they saw on Wikipedia, here is a snippet of it:

Please note even though images are in the public domain the original is held at the Provincial Archives of Alberta. Therefore we can reserve the right to charge usage fee for them, which we do at a price of $20.00 per image. You have not been granted this permission to publish these images and we request that you remove them.

What do we do? I have asked for which ones specifically. I don't think this makes sense. Public domain and usage fee don't somehow mix. Please know that most images from the PAA on Wikipedia are from their online website, where they have scans/digitalized versions of these such images. I'd appreciate any input you guys could give me. Thank you. Connormah (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

'Course it doesn't make sense. But there it is. Not the first time it's happened. I care to give a personal opinion: It's their loss. Kill the images. I thought Alberta was a nice, pretty place. Now I think: Remind me never to visit Alberta (note the pendulum swing in opinion: it's meant solely to demonstrate my point). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We've emailed them about this and are waiting to hear back. I don't think we're ready to kill the images yet. Most images are very important to the articles that they are included in. Connormah (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The image that Adobe uses for the Birth of Venus by Botticelli is copyrighted by the Bettman Archive. The painting is not copyrighted but their image if it is. so...if you took the picture or know who did take the image of the picture, then that person has a claim, and not PAA, If they took the image, then they can charge for it. The picture is not copyrighted. BUT!! They admitted that the images are in the public domain ( their boo boo...).