Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:39, 12 January 2009 (Archiving 3 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Ukrainian photos from WWII

I have a question about some photos taking in the modern-day Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union) during World War II. They were taken by Soviet military photographers, and I'm not sure when they were first published. The place that I would scan them from is a book, Hitler versus Stalin: The Second World War on the Eastern Front in Photographs by John and Ljubica Erickson, published in 2001. It credits the images to the "Rodina Archive in Moscow and the Leonid Pitersky Collection in St. Petersburg." With that information, can someone help me pick out an appropriate tag to upload them? I haven't uploaded any of them yet; I don't want them to get deleted while searching for the right tag. Any help would be appreciated, and while I'll gladly try to help if I need to provide more information, I'm not sure if I can. – Joe Nutter 20:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If {{PD-Russia-2008}} doesn't apply (which you'll need to determine for each individual image), then you would need to use a non-free tag, like {{non-free fair use in|Article name}} and an appropriate rationale. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it would apply - it was taken in 1944, and the license mentions if they died before 1942. I also don't think I could apply anything fair use to it, because they're mostly pictures of tanks driving across the countryside, wrecked trucks, and guns going off. They aren't non-replaceable, I just would like them while I'm trying to get the article on the battle they were taken in up the assessment ladder with only maps and no pictures. – Joe Nutter 17:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
{{PD-Ukraine}} is another possibility. Does the book indicate by what right it used the photos? If an image is neither public domain nor licensed under a free license, and it doesn’t conform to WP:NFCC, we can’t use it. —teb728 t c 18:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would qualify for that. The creator is unknown, or at least not said in my source, and I'm not sure when it was first published. Do you know what should be done about uncertainty regarding the first date of publication? – Joe Nutter 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
If an image is neither public domain nor licensed under a free license, and it doesn’t conform to WP:NFCC, we can’t use it.
I'm not sure. It might qualify for the {{PD-Ukraine}}, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know what should be done when we are unsure about when it was first published? – Joe Nutter 15:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic image upload question

Hi, Perhaps a basic question, but I´d appreciate some help. I recently uploaded the image File:Andreas Öberg.jpg but haven't been able to provide information to prevent deletion in 7 days (see template). What should I do? Or on which page/URL do I find help? (I have tried to locate this info but I am not so sure I am on the right track...) Thank you, Dafos (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the Flickr image is copyright according to that page. If you have been given a licence directly from the copyright holder they will have to provide the appropriate confirmation to us. The instructions are at WP:CONSENT. He must understand that a Wikipedia only use is no good for us. ww2censor (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. No, I haven't been given a licence directly from the copyright holder (Flickr). In an email Andreas Öberg says that he is allowed to use this image. Just to make sure that I understand, a licence given from Flickr, is this the only way to prevent deletion and by using the email text on the WP:CONSENT page? (I haven´t contacted Flickr before so I don't know how easy this will be.) Or is there another way? Thanks again, Dafos (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Baalbek-GenPix.jpg

I have a question about this image- it has a {{pd-self}}, but then it says "Copyright (C) 2006 Capt JV Benjamin (14 MARATHA LI)". ??? SpencerT♦C 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The uploader's username is basically the same as JV Benjamin, so I think it's safe to assume that the uploader is the copyright holder. And as the tag says, the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain (if applicable, if not rights are given for any use to any party). Seems like everything is in order.-Andrew c [talk] 22:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

US National Archives photo

The last image of the website [1], I had see that it was US National Archives photo. Is it in public domain or GNU free license? If so, which copyright I should use? Aquitania (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but it seems very likely to be a work of the US Navy. It is identified as a National Archives photo taken by Robert Hurst. Most of the other Robert Hurst photographs claim more clearly that such works were official photos taken by the Navy. It's difficult to say with absolute conviction, but I would believe the photo to be a work of the federal gov't and therefore appropriately tagged by {{PD-USGov}}. -Seidenstud (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Cover to a discontinued bootleg of a demo tape

Hey,

I recently uploaded the file File:Bowel of Chiley.jpg and I don'tknow which is the licence.

It is a demo tape by band Mr. Bungle and it was released without any permission on bootleg by Playhouse Productions, on 1991.

The original is very hard to find. Which licence applies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvareo (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact it is a cover of a musical release would seem, at first glance, to allow it to be used under the criteria found at the policy on Fair Use. However there are several issues at play. First, in general, articles on demos and/or bootlegs are not allowed per the "Albums, singles and songs" guidelines for notability. If this demo/bootleg can not meet the General notability guideline and the subject specific notability guideline than no article would exist about the recording and that would disallow a fair use claim.
If you can not use a claim of fair use the second (and third) issue would be if the image featured on the cover was a free image or not and, if so, who did the layout and design of the cover. In other words you currently state the image is taken from a website and that the "author" is "Unknown" so that would automatically raise a red flag as a possible copyvio unless it was established that it was Public domain. Because the website that you took this from gives no indication of the copyright status it is doubtful, from looking at the site, there would be any legit claim of ownership to this, or any of the images on the site, if they were to "give permission" for it's use. And even if the image featured on the cover were established as "free" it would not mean the layout of the cover would also be free. This image aside for a moment, there are numerous "royalty free" and "stock images" that can be used in layout and design work, however the resulting derivative work may not be free. And as for finding images on the internet freely obtained does not mean free to republish. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Even though the distribution of the music itself may have been a copyright violation, someone (presumably Playhouse Productions) still owns the copyright to the album cover, which is all we're concerned about in this case. I would say treat it as any other album cover. Use {{Non-free album cover}}. As usual, it would need a fair use rationale, and {{Album cover fur}} should suffice. That said, I noticed that "Bowel of Chiley" does not seem to have an article, and I question if it is notable enough on its own to have one. So make sure that use of this image in another article is not decorative which would be a violation of WP:FUC.
By the way, I hope you don't mind that I wikified the file name in your post, for ease of reference. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was posting when you did this so I did not see it right away. We basically said the same thing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What would the acceptability and copyright status of mug shots taken by local and state police departments and distributed to the public and press be? I'm spacifically talking about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jeffrey_Epstein_mug_shot.jpg? I recieved a message on my "Talk" page disputing the copyright, and thus having it at Wikipedia. But look, it *WAS* distributed free of charge to the press and anyone who asked the Palm Beach cops for it. Proxy User (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, distribution, not matter how widespread and free of charge, does not make a piece of media free or in the public domain. Also, while works by the US federal government are automatically in the public domain, works of state and local governments are usually not (with a number of exceptions). So, most non-federal mugshots, should be tagged with {{Non-free mugshot}} with an appropriate fair use rationale.
However, Florida is one of the handful of states whose works (most of them, anyway) are automatically PD. So, this image can be tagged as PD. However, being PD, it may as well be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, where there happens to be a template ({{PD-FLGov}}) for Florida government works. I'll go ahead and movie it to commons. -Seidenstud (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
As a follow-up, I have been bold and restored template:PD-FLGov (here on en). I have mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#template:PD-FLGov -Seidenstud (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

foto of Anti-Lynch Petition presented by the Southern Negro Youth Congress to U.S. Sen. Glen Taylor in 1947

It was removed from the Gwendolyn Midlo Hall Wikipedia page over copyright issues. It is in the public domain because it is 61 years old or if there is any question about that, I, Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, hold the copyright because it was given to me in 1947 because I am in the picture and it has been in my possession ever since. It has also been published on line on the website blackpast.org under Southern Negro Youth Congress. Please help me get it back up. Much thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghall1929 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually 61 years is not old enough for an unpublished photo in the US to be in the public domain. The copyright, unless it was assigned to you by the author of the photo, does not run out until 75 years after the death of the author. See: Wikipedia:Public domain#Current standard copyright duration in U.S. law. You claim the copyright was given to you. How? Being in the photo or having it in your possession does not give you the copyright to a photo, unless it was a "work for hire", in which case you would own the copyright and therefore have the right to release the image into the public domain yourself, or the copyright was specifically assigned to you. You need to show that you are actually the copyright holder and then you can put in into PD so that it can be used on Wikipedia. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Harsco logo.gif

Is the rationale in the File:Harsco logo.gif sufficient?--Kiyarrlls-talk 01:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a bunch of fair-use rationale templates available that are used quite often. Your rationale looked fine, but I replaced it with the standard template:logo fur, thinking that editors were objecting to yours. I have mixed feelings about the use of fur templates, but in the case of very non-controversial files (e.g., a corporate logo in an infobox about the corp), they work well, and you might want to familiarize yourself with them for future use. -Seidenstud (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Integer Partition Table.png

I received the following message:

Thanks for uploading File:Integer Partition Table.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

I'm having trouble understanding the Wikipedia software and I'm not a patent lawyer, so I probably don't fully understand the copyright language. I suppose that my first question should be whether or not there is a user manual for understanding the terminology and how to use the Wikipedia software. I keep trying to tag my files and they seem to be tagged correctly from my view, but they keep coming back as untagged or as an orphanbot. Any help would be appreciated. The file in question is a table that I generated. The values and methods used to generate the table are supported by a new reference that I will include with the reupload of this file. I provided a reference with the last upload, which I found on the internet, but the new reference will be better.--JNLII (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:ICTIC. If you are the sole creator of the content, you need to decide how you want to distribute your content. After that, you need to simply add, for example, {{PD-self}} (or what ever license you choose) to the image page. Also, when you upload the file, there is a drop down menus box titled "licensing" which allows you to choose your license (and if you choose a license from the drop down menu, it will automatically add the tag to your image when you upload it). Let me repeat that. On the upload page, you have the option to choose the license you want. You must have been leaving it blank every single time you uploaded it, or we have some strange glitch in our software ;) Finally, if you are uploading free images, please consider uploading them directly to Wikimedia Commons as all free images are eventually moved there anyway. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. I'd be glad to try and help you.-Andrew c [talk] 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I tried it again. I noticed that if I remember that I need to add something and then return to the upload page, my license selection goes back to none selected, so this may be my problem. This time, I made certain to include in the textbox a line that says

and I selected as a license "Own work released to public domain". The file was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, so I reloaded it in the same place. I also added a short description for references, but the textbook citation will have to wait until I get home, where I have the book.--JNLII (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Colossal Cave Adventure Screenshot (Freeware, 1970s)

Some time ago I managed to track down a copy of the source code for Will Crowther's original Colossal Cave Adventure (the 1970s game that coined the magic words XYZZY and the infamous maze of twisty little passages). After some other people compiled that source code and released the exe files, I fired up the exe file in a Windows cmd window, adjusted the font and color scheme for aesthetic purposes, and then uploaded a screenshot. Yet the image has been tagged as non-free content and flagged for removal.

It's a text-only freeware program, there is no box cover art, and a screenshot of the interface is vital to explaining how a command-line parser-driven text game works.

I'm at a loss as to what to do... the software was freeware (so I don't see why it's been tagged as non-free), the screenshot is just text (and I'm not sure what to make of the request to reduce the file size -- if the text is still legible, then a reduced image wouldn't change the percentage of the program's content that's being reproduced, especially since I adjusted the typesize and color scheme on the Windows cmd utility myself, so it's not as if a larger image would reproduce more of the software's content). I could adjust the command line window's settings so that the typesize is really big, take a screenshot at that resolution, and then reduce the image, but that would be... well, that would be stupid. There is no box cover for this version, and even if there were, the box art would not actually show what the program interface is like.

I'm not experienced with Wikipedia templates, but I presume there is some way to keep the copyright-bots at bay, so if someone could add the appropriate templates, I'll be happy to fill out what I can.

Thank you for your time.

File:ADVENT_--_Will_Crowther's_original_version.png

Dennis G. Jerz (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to use the proper licence for this image. Try using {{Free screenshot}} that covers free software; you used a copyright software screenshot licence tag. ww2censor (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears the March 11, 1977 version of the FORTRAN source code does not have a copyright notice. The corresponding data file also does not have a copyright notice.[2] Material published or distributed in the U.S. before 1978 required a valid copyright notice or it is the public domain. The File:ADVENT -- Will Crowther's original version.png image is likely a quotation of public domain text.
Screen shots of utilitarian text from command line computer programs, such as a directory listing, do not merit copyright protection.(See File:PC-DOS 1.10 screenshot.png) If the program output from one computer vendor is similar to every other computer vendor of the era, there is no creativity. A book publisher or a movie producer can not claim a copyright for using the term "The End" at the end of a story.
The Wikipedia "Free Software" copyright tags assume the Richard Stallman definition of free software. Screen shots of textual output from computers from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s can be totally free as in public domain. We need a Free Screen shot license template for public domain software. – SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This photo

Resolved

Hi. I need help. User talk:GeoffBarrenger has asked for my help in uploading a photo for the Den Schliker article. Apparently the user and the subject are contacts. I need to know if this photo is acceptable as is (I don't know much about photo stuff on Wikipedia). If that picture isn't good, is there a way to use this picture from his biography page? Its essentially the same picture, but a different size. Would the later picture be okay to use as a "press release"? Please help, I have no clue how to go about this... Thanks! Killiondude (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming the subject is the holder of the copyright of the image (this is not always the case), it is nice that he is willing to release it under the GFDL 1.3 (per [3]). However, the releaser does not seem to understand what he is doing. Releasing the photo under the GFDL is allowing permission for re-use, re-distribution, and modification (as long as such actions are compliant with the terms of the license). To then specify as he does that the image may only be used on wikipedia.org, is a demand contrary to the permissions granted by the license.
In any case, I have emailed the subject, and will follow up here on this page after we have had a discussion. -Seidenstud (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your help in this matter. I really appreciate it. Killiondude (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The author and I have been in touch, and we have straightened out. The photo is at File:Den_Schliker.jpg and while it is still awaiting OTRS approval, I went ahead and added it to the article. -Seidenstud (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ships Nostalgia

I want to upload the image from [4], [5], and [6] but the website said that the image was from [7]. Is the image free? If so, are all of the images in Ships Nostalgia free and what copyright tag should I use? Aquitania (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they are all free and you would need to ask the uploaders for more details about their origins.Geni 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Australiabaseballfederation.jpg

I didn't upload this image, but I'm unsure what the dispute on it being non-free content is. It's a public logo used for the Australian Baseball Federation. Do we need written permission from the ABF? I can try and obtain some, I know a few people - JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 04:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do, is make a separate rationale for each article it's used in. It'll be pretty much exactly like the one already there, so just copy it. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with deletions of converted image files

WillT.Net created a bunch of images from gif or png formats to svg. At least some of the these were existing images on WP or Commons that had good fair use information, such as the gif that he replaced with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AHS_Eagles_Logo.svg He made claims that he had created some of these images himself, which were in some cases not true, but probably in good faith (meaning that he had converted them himself). As he replaced the previous fair use images with his, the originals became orphaned and were deleted by bots. Soon after I warned him [8] this would happen, after he put his image back on the American High School (Fremont, California) twice, and after several other editors had also givrn advice, he stopped posting. Now his converted images are being tagged for deletion. This will result in several articles tha had valid fair use logo images no longer having one. For American High School, the original gif is no longer available online and the Commons file is deleted. If there is any way that the editors who work in this arena can clean this up without simply deleting all the images, I think that would be good. If any deleted images with good fair use rationales can be revived or if their rationales can be added to the existing svg image files, perhaps they can be kept.--Hjal (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the case you cited of File:AHS_Eagles_Logo.svg, what is wrong with the fair use rationale there? It uses {{logo fur}}, which is pretty easy to apply to other files. -Seidenstud (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Allen Clarke (educationalist).jpg

A bot has flagged the fair use rationale of the above photo as inadequate. It looks fine to me though. Also how would a bot have the intelligence to know what I write anyway? It's all a bit wierd. Can anyone suggest how to handle this?Bletchley (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Status please

Could you please kindly inform me about the the copyright status for The Modern Home Physician, A New Encyclopedia of Medical Knowledge? This was edited by Robinson, Victor, Ph.C., M.D., published by WM. H. Wise & Company (New York), in 1939. Thanks. Happy 2009! - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. Anybody there? - AnakngAraw (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It depends on whether the copyright was registered or not. Check out this page which shows many different scenarios for US published books and others. You need to do some work, but neither GoogleBooks not Worldcat gives any indication; while google lists it there is not even a snippet view so most likely is still under copyright but we can't be sure. You could use the book as a source for edits but the text may not be a direct copy. ww2censor (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The picture I used was sent to me by the subject himself--there is no copyright. Is it useable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleobatra (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about the image File:Dennis.jpg which you then used in the Dennis O'Rear article, you have screwed up things. You uploaded the image with the same name as an existing image causing your image to overwrite the existing image and then be displayed in the other article. I have fixed that and removed your image from the Dennis O'Rear article for now. Just because someone gives you a photo of themselves does not mean they own the copyright but someone does, often the photographer. You need to find out if Dennis O'Rear owns the copyright or someone else and if he owns it, you need to get him to provide Wikipedia with a suitable licence we can use. He may even allow it to be in the public domain but that then means anyone can use it for any purpose. Check out WP:BCI before you proceed to upload it again and make sure to use a unique name for the file as well as providing an acceptable licence. If you mean the File:DJOREAR.jpg image you still need to find out who own the copyright per the above. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Plateau_move_blank400b.jpg

I am the copyright holder of the game Plateau. These images contain trademarked logos as well. I am fine with the images themselves being used/copied but I don't want to cloud the copyright/trademark of the game.

What copyright notice should I put with the images? Jwplwiki (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is a photograph of a board game (which it appears to be) and you are the photographer, you can choose to license the image however you want. Any of the free licenses (GFPL, CC-SA, etc) should be ok. Then you can also tag the image with Template:Trademark to make it clear regarding the logos and other material depicted within the free photograph. I'm not positive on this one, but I'm pretty sure.-Andrew c [talk] 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2009/January&oldid=263539574"