Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2016/March

Draft:The_Others_(2013_Film)

Hello,

I just received an email from Wikipedia about my picture / poster "The Others" It is my poster, my picture, my movie. Draft:The_Others_(2013_Film)

They asked me to write down these informations ... I want ... but where?

So difficult to find.

Please give me the link

Copyright - Picture - Owner - Written by Jérôme Dolbert

Short Film - In her thirties, Vanessa is an executive assistant, and organizes a dinner party in a restaurant with her favorite co-worker Michelle, in order to introduce their respective husbands. The friendships of two couples are tested, but the dinner quickly becomes a nightmare. Copyright - Picture - Owner - Written by Jérôme Dolbert

I toke this picture, made it - Avril 2013 - USA - Los Angeles

Thank you for your reply,

Best, Jerome Dolbert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDOLBERT (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the image File:The Others.jpg which you had in the draft article mentioned. So, are you telling us that you took all 5 photos in this film poster and are the copyright holder of those photos as well as that you created the design of the poster and own its copyright? If not, then you are not the author nor copyright holder of the image. If you the copyright holder then you should release it under a free licence by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. As it is now it is a non-free image and according to the ninth requirement of our non-free policy we do not allow such images to be used in draft articles, so until then, unless the image is verified as freely licenced, it will be deleted at least until the draft becomes a mainspace article. ww2censor (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sam Loyd lipreading puzzle

I'd like to use this image: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Figure-75-660x438.jpg to illustrate a wikipedia piece on lipreading. It appears to be out of copyright, but (1) can I use it and (2) how to cite it? Thanks, Ruth‎ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuthBCCampbell (talk • contribs) 09:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruth, unfortunately you only gave a direct url to the image and not the page it appears on so we cannot immediately determine its copyright status. However, I found where it came from: Cyclopedia of Puzzels by Sam Loyd which was published in the US in 1914 (see page 190 http://www.mathpuzzle.com/loyd/cop190-191.html). So it is in the public domain in the US and you should upload it to the commons using the licence template {{PD-1923}} and use it anywhere you like. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

please Wikipedia Admin help me,

my name is GodsTime Promise, Gospel music minister from Nigeria I want to have musical artist page on Wikipedia, please how can I do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obinna promise (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Obinna promise. Please read WP:42 and WP:Your first article. If you understand these instructions and think the topic meets our notability requirements, proceed to WP:Articles for creation. (I am not an admin as this issue hardly needs admin attention.) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong Emblem on the page

The image used on the page Boys'_High_School_&_College_(Allahabad,_Uttar_Pradesh) as Emblem is not correct. As the school Emblem has been redesigned. It can be seen on the official site of the school as well http://www.boyshighschool.com/index.php/emblem.

The correct image is

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharad shared (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've uploaded the image locally as fair use - it does look like it may be copyrighted to me.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Question about copyright

I'm researching and writing a book on merchant vessels sunk by U boat in world War 1. As part of this I'm hoping to use pictures of some of the ships and also vessels such as hospital ships, to illustrate various points. I've seen some pictures on Wikipedia as well as sites such as U-boat.net that have pictures I can use.

Some pictures have copyright info below them but most don't, can I ask what my legal position is on this. Do I need to credit where I found a picture or write to those that have copyright info on them.

It's such a worry, can you help or advise me please?

Best Wishes John McLelland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.242.193 (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about U-boat.net. About Wikipedia images, they generally contain copyright information on the file page, such as the terms you need to comply to reuse them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

For wikipedia content you should refer to Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Images and other media and for the commons refer to c:Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. For general internet content you may need to refer to the website's webmaster for better details and even consult with an intellectual property lawyer because we cannot give you any legal advise. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wish to add unknown Sculpture signed Houdon

Can i Upload Image of Item ( day of Purchase) when i became owner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbrocante (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Superbrocante: I am not sure what object you are talking about, but generally speaking for sculptures you'd need permission from the creator of the sculpture as well because the sculpture's copyright applies to photographies thereof. Assuming you took the image of the sculpture, that is.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Superbrocante. If the sculpture is by Jean-Antoine Houdon, he died in 1828, so his work is not copyrighted. On the other hand, your sculpture is almost certainly a reproduction, and photos of the original sculptures are far more encyclopedia worthy. If your sculpture is an original, you have hit the jackpot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

photo problem

when i download a topic on wikipedia from "download as pdf " why can not i find the attached photos of the topic in the pdf file ? i think photos are very important — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.205.71.188 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this is more of a technical problem. Generally, the photos should be included in the PDF version of an article. I just took Skyway Monte Bianco and tried the "download as PDF" option. The result contained all three images from the right edge of the website and the panorama photo at the bottom. What I did notice though is that images from infoboxes (and the entire infobox as such) apparently are not exported to the PDF file. At least for Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi I only got the group photo but not the portrait from the infobox when I created a PDF export. De728631 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Pictures for a Wikibooks Project

Alright folks I have had an issue with some of the images I uploaded recently.

1. When I am searching images with the tbs=sur:fmc added on the url bar how sure am I that the the material is free for use?
2. Can I upload pictures from social media like Instagram from people I follow since they are open to me?
3. For instance if I want to use this picture how should I credit the author?

Sorry for so many questions but I have a deadline for tomorrow so any swift reply would be much appreciated.Srepanis (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

1. It tells you that someone, somewhere, tagged it as being free, but you can't be sure unless you check the source and you're convinced that the material is legitimately offered as free.

2. No, unless they're explicitly offered under a free license.

3. In a way that follows the terms of the license offered. It may also depend where and how you use it. For example, for an unmodified reproduction on a website, a possible credit line could be: "Drone and Moon, photo by Don McCullough, licensed under CC-BY 2.0". If you upload the photo to Commons, you format the informations with the available templates.

-- Asclepias (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers! Srepanis (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

upload of public state form (such as a change of name form for the state of Michigan

is this allowed? Can I upload publicly accessible forms for changes of name and the like from states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rraspberry(023) (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but that depends on the complexity of the form and its design. Provide a link and someone will look at it. ww2censor (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding Image

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfriday365 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Mrfriday365: Greetings. You need to give copyright information about the file - and if the photo was not made by you, evidence that you have rights to use it here & freely reuse it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• The one you attempted to upload? Details? Which, where, when, what happened? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  File:Matt Schrier in Accra, Ghana.jpeg Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer if he told himself, please. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh Dear... This should be so easy. @Matt Schrier. I'll leave aside the point, that Wikipedia is not here for you or anyone else to serve as a soapbox. Where your coming from is clear enough though – so lets get down to satisfying your issue about adding an image. As you are photographer, create an account on our sister project Wikimedia Commons'. Then it will be available to all our projects. Use the Wikimedia Upload Wizard here:[1]. I can take it that you understand copyright. A suitable license would be {{CC BY-SA 4.0}} (just cut and past that in) providing you pressed the shutter yourself when it was taken. If not, we have an OTRS system where you can request the photographer ( the guy that pressed the shutter – even if it was under your direction) emailing us with her/his permission to use image. The editors on Wikimedia Commons are more used to these grey-area issues. You no doubt have lots of other issues going round and round in your mind at present. Focus on the Wikimedia/Wikipedia protocol for satisfying this one. Does that help Matt? --Aspro (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way. Have you already posted the image that you would like to be used, else where on the Web? If so, link here to that image and we will look at it. Remember, some image post manipulation software (example Photoshop) can remove the EXIF data. We need that in place. As a photographer, you will know what that means and know how to keep it attached to the original image – as it came- straight off the camera. We are not psychic, we can only go by the evidence you give us. If you create a user account today or tomorrow on Wikimedia Commons and then report back here giving your user account name. We can add that user name to our watch list Then if you upload an image, one of us may be around to smooth out any problems. No promises – we are voluntary.--Aspro (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Screenshots of Wikipedia.com Article

Greetings! If I want to use a screenshot of a Wikipedia article in a book I'm writing, who would I contact at Wikipedia for permission? This isn't about the content used in the article (I understand that there may be permission and copyright issues there), but rather the overall website look and design, and I've been assuming that I'd need to contact Wikipedia for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boboswrench (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, For questions to, and permissions from, the Wikimedia Foundation, you can start from this page. The question is in part about the content of the article that is shown in the screenshot. There is a difference between the licensing of the text and of other content of the article. The page about reuse should answer that part. For the rest, the use of the Wikipedia logo is governed by this policy. The rest of the page design looks simple enough. The MediaWiki software is under the GPL, but that may not be necessary for your question. Please contact the Wikimedia Foundation for official answers or permission requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

File:No18.jpg

The above image is a photograph taken in 1916. According to the file description it was uploaded on 19 September 2014, 19:35:20, and the source is given as "own work". This is the licence shown, under Creative Commons. The information does not seem to me to add up, but perhaps someone can tell me how to make sense of it? Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Iffy. The uploader would have to be a supercentenarian for this to work - not impossible, but unlikely. The filename is vague. They have uploaded more old-looking photographies on that topic on Commons. commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Foxhunter22 is concerning, but I don't know if these uploads there are similar to this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  I've asked them on their talk page here. Maybe they can clear it up.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  Hi there. I am FoxHunter who uploaded the images of Nelson Pillar in 1916. I have also included other photos.

Obviously they are Old Photos so not my "Own Work". However about 2 Years ago, I got around it OR so I thought, by using Snagit Application and resizing the images or working on the images as my "Own Work". That seemed to be OK with wikipedia althought from time to time the rules have changed and a lot of my so-called "Own Work" has been removed. Hope this helps. Foxhunter22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunter22 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of this uploader's images are unlikely their own work, so their claim, for the older images are false. Maybe the 1960s are their own but one can't be sure. Nelson's Pillar was destroyed in 1965 so any intact images would mean he is around 70, certainly a possibility but unlikely. File:No18.jpg and File:No12.jpg are from this Flickr album of the National Library of Ireland. File:No8.jpg is a Lawrence Collection image also found on Flickr. File:NelsonP2.jpg appears to come from this blog webpage and says it was loose in a purchased book, so we don't know the author or if it was even published. File:Nels15.jpg looks like a poor copy of File:Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Sackville Street ^ O'Connell Bridge, Dublin, Ireland, ca. 1899.jpg. Without checking every upload it looks like this uploader claims everything is their own work, even an illustration from 1660! I think the rest of this uploader's images need more information and closer scrutiny. ww2censor (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Foxhunter22: The reason you "got around it OR so I thought" was because no one reviewed your uploads until now. We take copyright status very seriously and this is possibly one of those cases where your lack of knowledge has been hidden until now when a spotlight has been pointed at your uploads. Well when you find images on the internet, or elsewhere, and modify them just a bit, or not at all, they are derivative works and YOU do not acquire a new copyright. The copyright remains the same as the original but you claim everything is your own work. It appears you never actually provide a source for where the image came from especially as shown by the links I gave above for 5 images. Having a source would mean we could determine their copyright status because they are, by your own admission, not your own photos. If you could please provide the sources, then we can see which images can be kept, along with any that are identified as freely licenced. Copyright is a complex issue and maybe you just don't understand it well enough yet. BTW, I only see one of your image uploads here on the enwiki, all your other uploads are on the commons and really any further discussion should take place there. ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Well thanks for the Information especially surrounding Copywrite. It is true , most if not all of my other uploads are in the 'Commons' Section. That last imate I uploaded , I took a snagit image from Youtube of Éamonn Mac Thomáis and uploaded that for the profile image. It has since been removed. So yes I understand it is a very complex issue. Most of my "Own Work" was just trying to make the Wikipage more interesting !! Whether I plan to upload any more images in the future, well I doubt it ! It is a complex issue and any other Photos I upload I will check the copywrite and the source and do it that way. Kind Regards. Foxhunter22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxhunter22 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Adding a note here that I am going to raise discussions (probably deletion discussions) of this image and similar ones on Commons. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsure whether image is public domain or not

I recently made an article on pilot Mary Barr and have been looking for a copyright-free image I could use of her. Because she worked from 1974 onward with the US Forest Service, making her a government employee, i've been looking for an image of her taken during this time period as a part of official business, as such a government work would be automatically public domain. In that regard, one of the sources I found for the article from a newspaper piece, found here, has two photos of Barr. The top one is very clearly taken by the newspaper itself not long before article publication and, indeed, it says below it that it belongs to columnist Woody Morgan. The second photo, however, has no copyright marks on it. In addition, the description to the right of it says it was taken in 1975, a year after she joined the Forest Service. I am pretty much 100% certain that this is a official government photo of her at the time, which is also why the paper didn't have to put any copyright statements under or next to it. But how do I make certain? What are my options right now? Silverseren^C 01:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an answer yet, but that second photo appears to have been exhibited at the Smithsonian based on this page [2]. But that doesn't necessarily make it PD. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It being most definitely in a plane though from the wider framing (and that it was exhibited at the Smithsonian) does make me a bit more certain. But i'll keep looking as well. Silverseren^C 02:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

More, apparently the photo is in the possession of the San Diego Air and Space Museum, and there's three possible images based on this archive they have at Flickr. [3]. The three are tagged without any copyright info, and if you go to their user page on Flickr "The San Diego Air & Space Museum is participating in The Commons on Flickr to further the Museum’s educational mission and increase public access to its collection of photographs. The Museum’s images that are part of The Commons are marked “no known copyright restrictions,” indicating that the Museum is unaware of any current copyright restrictions on the works so designated, either because the term of copyright may have expired without being renewed or because no evidence has been found that copyright restrictions apply." So this would be a reasonable assertion that these are in the PD, as long as you link to the SDASM's account information. --MASEM (t) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: You're awesome. So, which do you think would be better, the first or second one? The first seems to have better center framing and lighting, though the second has her in her pilot uniform. Silverseren^C 02:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

In their collection? I would upload both (they can go to commons), and probably the first one as an infobox image and the second one later in the article. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The SDAS Museum has those copies of the three photographs, which it used in one of its exhibits in 1981, after which they were stored in a box. See box 6 in this list. Items for the exhibit were collected from various sources. The actual sources of each item are not listed. Either the Museum didn't keep notes about the sources, or it did keep notes but doesn't mention them in this list. Without knowing the original sources of the three photographs, their creators, the history of their publications, we can't tell their copyright status. We can't hide behind the fact that the Museum uploaded them to flickr. The wording of the full text of the disclaimer leaves the impression that they didn't really try to find the copyright status. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Public domain? Or too complex?

Is this public domain, or is it too complex? If it's PD, how do I license it (i.e PD-text, etc.)? Thanks. Seattle (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd use {{PD-text}} when you upload it to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Blackstar (Front Cover).png

Is this image eligible for copyright in the U.S.? The artwork is copyrightable in the UK due to low threshold. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It would likely be PD in the US only due to the simple star shapes. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Magazine photo without renewal

If a magazine copyright was not renewed, would that apply to the photographs in the magazine? See https://www.flickr.com/photos/vieilles_annonces/3731459746 with Natalia Tanner at left. This site indicates that no copyright renewals were sought for any Jet magazine issues. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that this issue is missing from the Google Books scans,[4] so we can't see the context of the photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-free screenshots for illustration purposes

Hello! So, I was planning on using the Non-free web screenshot form for an image I took in the Yandex Maps street view in order to illustrate a topic for the transportation section of a city's article which I couldn't have otherwise shown, however I'm not using it for critical commentary for the website itself, this would be to use the image for something unrelated. Is that possible? Thanks! Please ping me, as I likely won't find this place again very easily and I don't want to add it to my watchlist. Coderenius (☎) 21:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Coderenius: As long as there is a free alternative, i.e. someone (not necessarily you) some day could come up with a freely licensed solution, we can't use any non-free images. Your description above makes it look though like there is an option that someone else could draw a transport plan or take a photograph of the facility in question, so commentary aside, I'm afraid you can't use any Yandex screenshots anyway. De728631 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@De728631: I understand. Thank you! Coderenius (☎) 22:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Uploading photo for addition to biography

Hello,

I'm trying add a photo to my biography of Dr. Jonathan Rosand and was hoping to use the one available on his lab's website:

http://www.strokegenomics.org/team/

Would this be a violation of Wikipedia's policies? The photo isn't copyrighted, but I understand from Wikipedia's policies on media that most images available on the internet are not considered permissible for upload.

Thank you! Nhv2001 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Nhv2001, any recently made photos and other creative works are automatically copyrighted even without an explicit notice, so you can't use this one. Only if there was a disclaimer that the images on that website could be used under a free licence you would be able to upload it here. De728631 (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually the image is most likely copyright to the photographer and not to the organisation unless the contract also involved transfer of the copyright. Besides which it looks like you might be Neil Vaishnav from the same team which means that you have a conflict of interest. The copyright holder can verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oath Keepers video

I'm currently looking for more sources for Oath Keepers and I've come across this Youtube video. It hasn't been taken down by Fox and it's been around for almost 7 years, but it looks like a copyright violation to me. Is it? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hardball is an NBC program and they own the copyright, not the people interviewed and even so the YouTube video has standard YouTube licence which does not specifically allow commercial or derivative uses, so using it here would be a copyvio. ww2censor (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Just figured I'd ask the more experienced editors over here. Thanks. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 23:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

How to add copyright?

Hi, a warning has been provided to me that File:Lapring Language.jpg ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lapring_Language.jpg) will be removed if appropriate copyright isnt declared soon. I am a new user and dont have idea about it! Can You please help me? I would be glad to get ur help as soon as u can!

This image as well as the corresponding article have been deleted as obvious and blatant hoaxes. If you can produce reliable scientific evidence such as links to articles from academic journals about this language and culture or a link to any university's project I might consider restoring the article. But the image itself was neither professional nor of a sufficient quality to be educationally useful in a Wikimedia project. De728631 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

morgueFile license

What do people think about this license? It seems fine, except for the stand-alone part may preclude it from being usable here... thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 03:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The "stand-alone" basis appears to be in opposition to the commercial use allowed. Maybe email them to clarify and ask them to use a precise Creative Commons licence we understand instead of an ambiguous custom licence. ww2censor (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The prohibition on identical reproduction appears to be a basic policy of their site, and a term of their legal agreement with the original authors, so they're not likely to change it. However, the authors are identified and it is possible to contact an author directly to negotiate different licensing terms. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)