Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: Difference between revisions
Jackfifield (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
:I am starting on the assumption that giffgaff's logo is simply that text-based string. If that is the case, the logo fails the [[threshold of originality]] that is necessary for artwork to be copyrighted. (In this case, it consists of text in a font, and has no other artistic features). For that, we can assume it is free. |
:I am starting on the assumption that giffgaff's logo is simply that text-based string. If that is the case, the logo fails the [[threshold of originality]] that is necessary for artwork to be copyrighted. (In this case, it consists of text in a font, and has no other artistic features). For that, we can assume it is free. |
||
:That's only the logo. Now you have the actual sim card, and this is where things get iffy. If the card had no other decorations beyond the logo, a photo of it would definitely be fine to upload as a free image. But the decorations on that card front (the rounded squares, etc.) are edging past the threshold of originality (particularly that heart-shape they make). I'd almost argue that if you popped the sim card out and took a photo of that , where there are much fewer squares and thus less approaching original art, that would be treated as a free image while the larger card itself would be considered non-free. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
:That's only the logo. Now you have the actual sim card, and this is where things get iffy. If the card had no other decorations beyond the logo, a photo of it would definitely be fine to upload as a free image. But the decorations on that card front (the rounded squares, etc.) are edging past the threshold of originality (particularly that heart-shape they make). I'd almost argue that if you popped the sim card out and took a photo of that , where there are much fewer squares and thus less approaching original art, that would be treated as a free image while the larger card itself would be considered non-free. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
:: Is there not anyway that it could fall under Fair Use? I could try to obtain permission from giffgaff themselves, but it could be tricky as they have many different ways to try to contact them, none of which would probably get me to the right person --[[User:Jackfifield|jackfifield]] ([[User talk:Jackfifield|talk]]) 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:12, 5 July 2012
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.
If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]] . (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks! |
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Media copyright questions page. |
|
book reviews and copyright
All of the images uploaded and put on this page have been tagged as own works, which they probably are not (if they are works of the author--Ilyich--in question). I'm not terribly sure what happens next...Do I nominate for deletion? Re-tag? Any help is appreciated. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 12:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to be right so I've notified the commons user problems page because the images are hosted there. A deletion request has been started here if you want to comment. ww2censor (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks for the help and directions :) Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Use of my images on another website
I just discovered that an image I created (File:Man Utd vs Bayern Munich 1999-05-26.svg) is currently being used on another website (see here). I released that image for use under a CC-BY-SA licence, but I don't seem to have received credit on that website. Is there anything I can do about this? – PeeJay 12:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- You might want to file an abuse report at ImageShack where the file used in the forum is being hosted. Apart from that, I dare say this is a typical copy & paste copyright violation that you might find in hundreds of forums. De728631 (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Um, isn't the whole point of Wikimedia that images you release are freely available for anyone to re-use? Surely you confirmed that at the time of upload? As it's free the subsequent user doesn't have to credit you in any way.Afterbrunel (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Re-use, with attribution. No attribution is a copyvio if the license requires attribution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Um, isn't the whole point of Wikimedia that images you release are freely available for anyone to re-use? Surely you confirmed that at the time of upload? As it's free the subsequent user doesn't have to credit you in any way.Afterbrunel (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
File:Polanski-still-signed.jpg
Hi this claim of public domain seems to be very weak to me - is this sort of claim correct as per copyright law - simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S.Youreallycan 20:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand the claim at all. I'd presume that was still copyrighted. Secretlondon (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't either - I am no longer contributing to Commons,or nominating anything for deletion there - would you do it? I will ask the uploader, User:Wikiwatcher1 to comment here - I also note the user is doing a fair bit of similar uploads - Wikiwatcher1 file uploads - like File:Glenn_Ford_-_signed.jpg - heres another one found on ebay? how does he know this picture found on ebay was "was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice."? Youreallycan 17:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- A link to film still is included on most of the images that relate to it. The article includes U.S. copyright and public domain issues with numerous cites. I'll try to answer any specific questions if they're presented. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- (1)So please answer my above question - heres another one found on ebay? how does he know this picture found on ebay was "was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice."? - Youreallycan 16:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- (2) - This non-U.S. work was published 1923 or later, but is in the public domain in the United States because it was simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the U.S. and in its source country and is in the public domain in the U.S. as a U.S. work (no copyright registered, or not renewed). - how do you verify this? - Youreallycan 16:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have nominated this image in Commons for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which of the three linked images are you asking about? One photo at a time is best. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have added a one and two - could you please answer below my questions so as to keep it clear -there is no rush - if you want to answer one now and one later, no problem or both later. Youreallycan 17:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which of the three linked images are you asking about? One photo at a time is best. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Now that the Polanski image is tagged for deletion, discussion about it will resume on its deletion page. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's fair enough - can you answer question 1 please - Youreallycan 17:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Now that the Polanski image is tagged for deletion, discussion about it will resume on its deletion page. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- - link to the commons discussion regarding the Polanski image - Youreallycan 17:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you examine the original upload along with the reverse side shown, you'll see that there is no copyright notice. In addition, it's printed in English, not German, her home country, and appears to be an original photo. The source of the photo describes it: "EDITH PEINEMANN - GERMAN VIOLINIST, VIOLIN SOLOIST 1960's PUBLICITY PHOTO." Her bio notes that she performed many times in the U.S. during the 1960s. Using the duck test seems reasonable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- The duck test is absolutely not applicable to copyright claims - , this may be the issue with your desired contributions - are you applying duck test as a reason/verification for your uploads, as in .. it seems without copyright and looks un-copyrighted/public domain, so it is? Youreallycan 19:28, 29 June 2012 (UT::
- I only used it here since the original publicity photo showed the full front and back and without a copyright notice. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- The duck test is absolutely not applicable to copyright claims - , this may be the issue with your desired contributions - are you applying duck test as a reason/verification for your uploads, as in .. it seems without copyright and looks un-copyrighted/public domain, so it is? Youreallycan 19:28, 29 June 2012 (UT::
- If you examine the original upload along with the reverse side shown, you'll see that there is no copyright notice. In addition, it's printed in English, not German, her home country, and appears to be an original photo. The source of the photo describes it: "EDITH PEINEMANN - GERMAN VIOLINIST, VIOLIN SOLOIST 1960's PUBLICITY PHOTO." Her bio notes that she performed many times in the U.S. during the 1960s. Using the duck test seems reasonable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the Edith picture may have been taken elsewhere outside U.S., and the photographer must have given the photo to U.S. agency after 30 days of first publication. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Using scans of pictures in very old books
I mostly edit articles relating to the period between 1830 and 1890. One picture is worth a thousand words, and there are a lot of useful images out there in long-since out-of-copyright books that I would like to use. I can't find where in the labyrinth of wikipedia help pages that this is allowed or disallowed. If it is allowed, the wikimedia declaration looks scary and doesn't seem to allow this.Afterbrunel (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you are certain the books are out of copyright, you are free to scan in the images within the book (working on the presumption that images are also out of copyright) and upload them as free images at Commons, as long as you, the scanner/duplicator, are giving them as a free license to WP. You can look through Commons:Copyright_tags to see which tag best applies as a old PD work (eg for US works before 1923, "PD-US"). The upload form field should be self-explanatory there. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Rules around images where the owner of the copyright has given permission to use
I have created a page about a living person. He has an image for which he has the copyright and he has specifically requested that I use this image in the article. He has given me permission to use the image.
What do I need to do to satisfy copyright rules and upload it onto the page?
Please can you reply to my "talk" page
Thanks Karendawes Karendawes (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- We need a lot more freedom, than giving you permission to use the image. An acceptable license to grant is the CC-BY-SA-3.0, and the procedure to follow is in WP:PERMIT, as this person will have to prove that they do grant permission in writing, and also provide some sort of proof that they own the copyright, eg if it is apicture of themselves that someone else took. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Copying images from books with expired copyrights in Google Books
A diagram of Benjamin Franklin's heating stove appears on page 50 of John Pickering Putnam's The Open Fire-place in All Ages (1880). I would like to copy that image, add it to Wikipedia's image files, and add it to Wikipedia's article about the Franklin stove.
Can I copy from Google Books an image that appeared in a book with expired U.S. copyright, use it to create a Wikipedia image file, and then post it in a Wikipedia article?
Cwkmail (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, assuming the book was first published in the US. Faithful scans of public domain works are also public domain. Tag the image with {{PD-1923}} and upload to Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
question on copyright law.
I have a picture copied from an old library book published in the 1920's of Fred T. Perris who has been dead since 1917. I can't get through the welter of Wikipedia regulations to determine whether or not it is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiljensen (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Which image are you talking about? All images uploaded here and on the commons should have a copyright tag attached to them showing its copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Using a file on the Dutch wikipedia
Can I use [this file] on the Dutch Wikipedia? On this page: International Invitational Hockey Tournament Londen 2012. I really don't how to act with logo's.
Thank you, Eoosterhof (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Legally you could use it under fair use on an appropriate article, but you will have to check with nl wikipedia policies that we here do not know. I can't find an interwikilink from WP:fair use. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use does not give the policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- See m:Non-free content: Dutch Wikipedia does not allow fair use files. In order to use the file on Dutch Wikipedia, you need to obtain permission from the copyright holder, see WP:CONSENT. Note that nl:Special:Listfiles contains almost no files, so it seems that Dutch Wikipedia has the same image licensing requirements as Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Was this image incorrectly tagged?
Hey there. I ran across File:Georgia Salpa.jpg today which is being used in Georgia Salpa. Its description page on Commons says it is licensed under CC-BY-SA, yet the summary says that it was previously published in Life Magazine. Can both be true, or was the image incorrectly tagged? Thanks for your input. Braincricket (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Momo has to be the actual photographer, and have retained his rights, and be willing to license this photo under one of our acceptable licenses. With all due good faith, I am skeptical about this, based on my lifelong experience with both professional photographers and magazine publishers. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this logo copyrightable?
See the logo at myrunnings.com. It is primarily text, does the circle around the R make this copyrightable? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd play it safe and call it non-free - the curved parts leading to the circle take it outside of simple text and shapes. Still usable for a logo of that company, just need to mark it as such. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, will do. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Fred T. Perris.jpg
This picture is being held up from being included on the appropriate Wikipedia page because I could not supply its origin. I have learned that the original of this photograph is now in the possession of the Perris Valley Museum Historical Archives, located in Perris, California. It was created in San Diego about 1880. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiljensen (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Passport Photo of Srinivasa Ramanujan
There's a disagreement at Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Lede_Image concerning whether an image is a potential copyright violation. The image under discussion is a 1917 passport photo of the article's subject. There's also a discussion going on here concerning the same matter (but only one other person there weighed in). It would be helpful if someone knowledgeable could help us determine whether the image is usable. Justin W Smith (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note that the "old" image (the one at issue) was removed by another editor on Talk:Srinivasa_Ramanujan#Lede_Image because of the concern. Justin W Smith (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- The image under question is not the 1917 passport photo; it is an image used on a 1962 Indian stamp. There is a side issue whether a 1937 photograph of the 1917 passport (with embossing) is just a copy of the 1917 image, but the "good" image is not the passport photo and is not even a photograph. Glrx (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Celebrities at the Atelier Versace Show: M.I.A.
I want to upload an image of Maya Arulpragasam to the "M.I.A. artist" article. Versace released an image of the artist at the event on their Facebook page. I believe the picture is promotional and therefore could be used. The link to the set of images is here https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151889974760176.873378.260751060175&type=1
Is it OK to use this image of Maya Arulprgasam from the Versace Facebook page? The reason I want to use this particular image is because I want to put it in the fashion section of her article and it showcases this fashion because she is wearing Versace clothing. Any additional information would be helpful as this is my first time considering uploading and using an image in an article. Thanks. Headphones99 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
How do I upload an image that contains a company's logo, but is not *only* of the company's logo.
Hi, I wanted to upload an image for the Wikipedia page, giffgaff. The image can be found here: http://ubuntuone.com/12eMppCgByaAbzEwnMwW14
It is an image of the phone company's sim card, as the one that is currently included in the article is out of date, and does not have the current design. The only problem is that I do not know which license to choose whilst uploading. The image of the sim card that is included in the article at the moment is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0, but surely due to the inclusion of giffgaff's logo, this is not the case?
Thanks for any help --Jackfifield (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am starting on the assumption that giffgaff's logo is simply that text-based string. If that is the case, the logo fails the threshold of originality that is necessary for artwork to be copyrighted. (In this case, it consists of text in a font, and has no other artistic features). For that, we can assume it is free.
- That's only the logo. Now you have the actual sim card, and this is where things get iffy. If the card had no other decorations beyond the logo, a photo of it would definitely be fine to upload as a free image. But the decorations on that card front (the rounded squares, etc.) are edging past the threshold of originality (particularly that heart-shape they make). I'd almost argue that if you popped the sim card out and took a photo of that , where there are much fewer squares and thus less approaching original art, that would be treated as a free image while the larger card itself would be considered non-free. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is there not anyway that it could fall under Fair Use? I could try to obtain permission from giffgaff themselves, but it could be tricky as they have many different ways to try to contact them, none of which would probably get me to the right person --jackfifield (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)