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

1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
5. Hit Publish changes.
6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.

How to ask a question

1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
4. 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)

Indian Navy Ship Emblems

I was wondering if I could upload some images from the Indian Navy website. Specifically, emblems for ships/their classes. For example This image for the Sukanya Class. There is information regarding the US government media. However I am not sure if the same copyright can be used to upload images from other governments. Please also let me know which copyright status to use (The closest I think is "image from a website") - However, as it is a government organisation, I think it is acceptable to use. Thanks in advance. LogicDictates (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LogicDictates (talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The official website of the Indian Navy is possibly the worst official government website I have ever seen. It does not include any copyright notice or disclaimer, so I can't tell what approach the Indian legislature has taken to copyright in this case. On the premise that it's the same as the UK (a not unreasonable assumption as it could be a fairly old piece of legislation) photographs taken by members of the Navy would not be in the public domain unless specifically licensed as such. I note also the existence of the unofficial Indian Navy website] which claims to have the copyright of everything on its pages. While I can't see this being strictly true, it is another barrier to claiming that the images are in the public domain. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Most Indian government websites are pathetic, to put it mildly. From your response, it looks like I cannot use the images. Its a shame. According to Chapter 5, Section 28, I have to wait 60 years! Its a stupid law as far as I'm concerned. Also mentioned here. I'm sure Bharat-Rakshak has not gotten permission either (for any government images they might have). So I cant put those images up here, eh? Correct me if I'm wrong. LogicDictates (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If an image can only be obtained from the Indian Navy and there is no possibility of a free version, then you could upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) under a non-free content rationale if you meet all the criteria. The ship logos would appear to fall into this category, as even if you took a photo of them, they would still be copyright to the Indian Navy. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian copyright act 1957 (as amended) s17(d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein; (sourced from your link, thanks). There should perhaps be a note on guidelines either here or at Commons that most Commonwealth or ex Commonwealth countries are likely to have copyright legislation that resembles either current or past UK, and include a component that resembles Crown Copyright. I would presume that the US stance (that otherwise copyright work produced by a Government employee for their employer is PD) is at heart a philosophical one - "of the American people, by the American people, for the American people." Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's only really Palau which has completely public domain government works on the U.S. model. Commonwealth countries (apart from New Zealand) tend to have very restrictive government copyrights on the Crown Copyright model, other countries release some government works to the public domain, but usually not the sort of works we would want to include on WP. The relevant note discussing this is at Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works. Physchim62 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for advising me. Much appreciated! I have made my first upload here (See the Badge on the right column). Thanks again. LogicDictates (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to state that the author/creator is the Indian Government, citing the section of the Copyright Act of India that I quoted above, and you need to add a fair use rationale, as requested in the template now attached to the image. The FUR is that it is not possible to obtain a free version of the image, and the image substantially enhances the article. Actually referring to the image in the article would help - do you know why the Indian Navy uses that particular emblem, or indeed why it uses emblems at all. If you don't add this information, the image may still be deleted.

I just noticed something on File:GSLV2.jpg. The rationale used here is "The Right to Information Act allows all Indian civilians access to works published by the Indian government and can be used under the fair use criteria." Is this true? If so the Army and Navy and other images from government websites can be used "freely". Could someone please verify? Thanks. LogicDictates (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you give the correct link for the file, so it can be looked at thanks. I believe the uploader is mistaken, and you also are mistaken, but in a different manner. "Fair use" and "free" are not the same. I have already explained that you can use the image on en:wiki under a fair use rationale, as it is impossible to obtain a version of the image that is not copyright. The file uploader, using his own logic, should have added a FUR to the image.

I think however the uploader is mistaken as to the intent of the Right to Information Act. A copy in English is available here (a copy in Hindi is also available). The Act, like the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives citizens the right to request information from the Indian authorities (how much is spent maintaining roads in Kolkota) - information being defined as "any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"(s2(f), and 2(j)(iv) covers obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;. It is clear that the Act applies only to information. Information is not copyrightable and nothing in the Right to Information Act suggests anywhere that it supercedes the Copyright act I quoted in previous posts. The act in fact makes no reference to "copyright", "fair use" or indeed anything to do with publishing the information obtained under a RTI request (the UK Act specifies that information so obtained can be published by the recipient or indeed anyone).

So no, I don't think it makes any difference here. Upload the images to en:wikipedia with a proper non free content rationale, and you should have no trouble. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I meant free as in educational use (so it would fall under fair usage policy), which is why I used the quotes. I too seemed baffled by the FUR the user has utilised. You can see several images (s)he has uploaded in the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle article. If you further go through images the user has uploaded, a majority of them use the sentence I quoted above. The user is "Johnxxx9". I have used what I believe to be a proper rationale for images that I have uploaded - clearly stating that the "Image can only be obtained from the <Indian organisation> and there is no possibility of a free version". --LogicDictates (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the FUR and license on on File:GSLV2.jpg. I don't think there's a problem with him using it - I would anticipate that one would have to be authorised personnel to stand where the photographer was standing, making a free version unlikely, and it was published in a newsletter, so was fairly clearly intended as a promotional image. Also I have dropped him a note referring to this discussion. I couldn't see many other images he had uploaded - they mostly seemed to be emblems for the Indian metro system. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of material for family History book self published

Dear Sir /Madam

I acknowledge a previous response about copyright and use of material from Wikipedia. However having read further your copyright information I wanted to confirm that I have infact referenced the material correctly, which i have NOT gained permission to use at this stage. Referencing samples, as follows for this work:

Sample: According to Kinealy the Great Famine was a period of mass starvation, disease, and emigration in Ireland between 1845 and 1852 during which the islands population dropped by 20-25 percent .

Endnotes are:

- Kinealy (1995), xvi-ii Great Famine (Ireland)#Emigration

- Christine Kinealy, The Great Calamity, Gill & Macmillan (1994) Great_Famine_(Ireland)#Emigration.

I do apologise for any inconvenience and appreciate your response Regards

Noella —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.151.65 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think you have. If you want to quote or paraphrase Christine Kinealy, you need to reference her books, not a Wikipedia article that quotes/paraphrases her. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Answer this question for the millionth time, please

I made a picture from another picture that is in the public domain. Is it right for me to say that the resultant picture is "entirely my own work - I created it, own all the rights to it, and have not used anyone else's work in making it" despite the fact that someone originally created the original now in the public domain? If not, what do I say when choosing licensing options?

If it matters, the original picture was a blank map and my derivative picture is that map with some places marked. Blue Rasberry 05:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, certainly it is courtesy to say what you based it off, but if the image is PD you can say it is your own work. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually NativeForeigner is inaccurate. A derivative image "must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality" otherwise the new image inherits the copyright of the source work. So if you are just adding some placenames to a public domain map, it cannot be considered as giving you a new copyright. We require a source for each uploaded image so we can check the copyright status, so the original image source must be given and would not just be a courtesy. ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it was badly phrased. Marking new sites on a map, which I presumed to be historic in some context (bad assumption) can generally be seen as creativity (from what I've seen), and in regards to copyright law outside of wikipedia you do not need to give a source. However, in the context of wikipedia you need to in order to verify copyright concerns. Sorry for the badly phrased answer, and thanks for the new answer ww2censor. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 16:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG

We ave had a hard time finding a free image for the Peter James Bethune article. The guy is now in jailin Japan so there will likely not be a new one made available anytime soon. File:PeterBethune with Earthrace.JPG was released by the Earthrace Foundation (his boat) with a mention on the webpage "The following images may be used by media, individuals, schools and other organisations free-of-charge." Someone mentioned that it does not detail if commercial or dirrivitive works are acceptable though. So I was considering a FUR for it but noticed that the website says it is high resolution. Any assistance on that bit of the FUR and if it is needed would be appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria with a completed fair-use rationale, it might be kept but one of the criteria is the image must be of low resolution. Generally fair use images are 300px on the maximum dimension and reducing it is easily done offline, then the image uploaded over the existing one. I'll do it right now for you. ww2censor (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I feel that it adds significantly but if anyone wants to disagree it won;t hurt my feelings.Cptnono (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Leonor Rivera image

Could someone please kindly check the copyright of this circa 1880s image of Leonor Rivera. It's probably better to use an actual photograph in the article instead of the sketch, which is already in use in another article (Maria Clara). - AnakngAraw (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a follow-up on this. Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't have a book that we look these things up in you know. Why don't you try asking the owner of the site what info he has on the origins of the photographs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I know photo's maker but have been unable to contact him for copyright information

The original photograph, which I own and which I uploaded as 1st Peace Pilgrimage, 1962.jpg, has the maker's name stamped on the back: Richard A. Brown, 253 Forrest Ave., Fairfax, California. It was taken in 1962.

I have been unable to locate the maker. What can I do if attributing this photo to him is not enough?

Thank you.

Jessica Reynolds Renshaw Jessica Reynolds Renshaw (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much you can do. If you could email him he could send an email to WP:OTRS giving permission to the image. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

See here. Was the image ever published (were copies sold, or was the image printed in a book or newspaper)? If so, do you know when. If it was published when it was taken, it is probably PD now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Want to use my photo and release it into public domain.

My photo of my father, Dr. Earle L. Reynolds.jpg, was deleted. I want to upload this photo again for use in the Wikipedia article, Earle L. Reynolds, and release the photo into the public domain.

Jessica Reynolds Renshaw Jessica Reynolds Renshaw (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you took the photograph yourself, you should be able to upload it to Commons and license it CC-BY-SA 3.0, which permits all usage.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Old Trafford model.jpg

I took this photo of a model of Old Trafford by artist Peter Oldfield-Edwards on 30 March 2010. However, I'm not sure what licence to apply to the image. Is copyright retained by the creator of the artistic work being photographed, or does it belong to me as the photographer? – PeeJay 13:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, interesting. You're in the UK, yes, as is the model? Jenkins is a brilliant resource for UK copyright, as it's got all the amendments in. s17(3) covers making copies of artistic works, and states In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work. So copyright belongs with the model maker, and you cannot license it. The exception is if it falls under s62(2)b) sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place of in premises open to the public. in which case copyright is not infringed by taking a photo, or by the issue to the public of copies, or the communication to the public, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright So if the model is on permanent display somewhere, and you took a photo, you can license the photo as public domain. If you took the picture while the model was in the artists back-shop, he has to license the image. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I assume that, since the model was on display in the Manchester United F.C. museum at Old Trafford (which I had to pay £2.75 to enter!), I can license the image as public domain. Thank you, Elen. – PeeJay 22:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the licence to {{PD-because}} and paraphrased the reason you gave. I hope I have worded it correctly, but I would appreciate someone examining what I have written to make sure everything is ship-shape. – PeeJay 22:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Open to the public includes open to the public for a fee, and I believe the museum display is as permanent as anything is these days, so you should have no problem. The text makes sense to me, so hopefully it should to anyone else. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We normaly use Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama for such things but yes the UK is pretty liberal in this area.©Geni 00:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more liberal than most here (possibly one of the only areas where it is!!!) I wasn't sure that just putting Freedom of Panorama on would be enough, given that the photo wouldn't be covered by Freedom of Panorama in most countries (including the US).Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy rights of your articles & photos published about the town Kodaikanal, India.

Madam/Sir, I own a holiday resort in the town of Kodaikanal,India. I have registered and want to host a website called www.kodaikanalhotel.com I have a question about the copy rights from your your website wikipedia; I would like to possibly take some informations or articles or photos which is been published about Kodaikanal in your wikipedia website and add it on to my website www.kodaikanalhotel.com. Is there any legal issues preventing me from your side in doing so?!!! Please advice me on this matter.

Thank you

Raj A. sukumar. please view my resort website: www.lillysvalley.com. My E-mail address is: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj a. sukumar (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is created under a license that puts it in the public domain - anyone is free to use it for any purpose. So you can use content from Wikipedia on your website, but correctly should credit Wikipedia as the source. If the Wikipedia text contains quotes from another source, you should ensure that you can use the quotes on your site - most countries have a fair use policy, but it will be up to you to check. Images on Commons or on Wikipedia that are licenced under a free use license (CC-BY-SA 3.0) can be used by anyone for any use, including commercial use, but you should credit the creator of the photo on your site. Some images on Wikipedia are not free to use - you will see this when you go to the page for the image. In this case, you may not take the image from Wikipedia, but should go back to the creator of the image and ask for permission. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Where do I find the answers to my questions from yesterday?

This is the gol-darnd hardest website for getting around that I've ever used in my life! Write questions here, you say, and then they disappear into cyberspace. Every part of this website was designed by a committee of geniuses who don't know how to communicate with normal people in real English.

I've had to teach myself how to use every part of it and the first human feedback I finally received was blasting me for a tiny inconvenience I caused out of ignorance. The feedback was titled DAAAMN JESSICA, DAAAAAMN, which is also the first thing I've read on here which wasn't in code, even though I wish it were. (Thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia, Manath). I've had to guess and experiment my way along the uploading of images and assigning tags, only to have photos deleted because no one had time to answer a question--at least not helpfully. (Believe me, your provided explanations are so hard to figure out and make sense of, they are little short of garbage.) Okay, I finally found this place to ask questions and asked a perfectly reasonable one, "What can I do other than attribute a photo to its maker if I can't locate the maker (nearly 50 years after he took the photo)?" The answer was, "Email him." HELLO! NOT HELPFUL!

Oh, well, I had found out that if one writes something here, when I click on "SAVE" the answers to my other questions will appear. I didn't know how else to get to them so I wrote this letter, which I know I will regret after I "save" it. Hint to others lost in this labyrinth: "Save" in the Wikipedia context means "Send" but NOT, as one might assume, "Posted on Wikipedia." "Immediately becomes visible to everyone" is code for "immediately becomes visible to one or more editors, NOT to the general public." "Move" is what means post on Wikipedia. Go figure. Just think "Alice in Wonderland" and you'll be halfway to understanding how this thing works--because, surprisingly, it does work. It's just like Masonic rituals or scoring tennis, it's unnecessarily complex to let in only the elite.

Hopefully anonymous but believe me, I represent a frustrated multitude out there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica Reynolds Renshaw (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean #Want to use my photo and release it into public domain. and #I know photo's maker but have been unable to contact him for copyright information post which are less then one screen up this page. You can always find your posts by looking at your contributions, by clicking the "my contributions" which is at the top right of every page once you are logged in.

In reply to your first question it was already answered but you misinterpreted the reply. In fact the reply was that If you could email him you should do so (that is helpful), otherwise there is little you can to to verify the copyright or get permission to use it. That is a rather simple, but perhaps a bit frustrating if you are not familiar with the maze that copyright entails. ww2censor (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang Jessica, daaang. Don't go on a rant or anything. MANATH The Mage Singer (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of a UK picture from 1947?

Hi, I would like to know the copyright status of a picture from the end of WWII.

• Diagram showing the effects of strategic bombing on German morale, resistance, and countermeasures. In 1945, published 1947

I hope it can be used using:

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

However, someone pointed out the following:

If I've interpreted the National Archives collection catalogue correctly[1], and I'm not an expert, that image wasn't released until 1974. Publication in the form of the heros and Villains exercise would be more recent than that.

I'm not sure that is a correct interpretation, e.g. looking at the glossary (top menu) explaining the terms. It could simply mean that that year they desided that the item should be retained, i.e. they would keep storing it past 30 years instead of destroying it.

Anyone with experience with the UK national archives that could assist with the copyright status of the image, please? --Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You should read the full citation. AIR 48 are US Bombing survey reports. The image was created by or for the US military, and is therefore PD. The other dates show that the report was covered by the UK Official Secrets Act and sealed for 30 years, being released to the public in 1974, but I can't see how the UK government can ever have held a copyright in it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

W.E. Retana

Can someone please kindly let me know the copyright status for this photo of Wenceslao "Wenchesco" Retana? Thanks. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Which photo - there are a dozen on the page? Also, why don't you try asking the webmaster - I note at the bottom of the page that he invites communication, and may be interested in contributing to a Wikipedia article. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Last photo at the bottom of the article. - AnakngAraw (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask the webmaster?? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

How to Upload Logo for Curling Championship

I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and I want to upload an image for the following page: 2010 World Mixed Doubles Curling Championship. The image is located at this website, and the main site is located here. How would I upload this image to the curling championship page without breaking any rules? Thanks in advance. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Guidance is at WP:LOGO. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Interpol image

Image is located at [2]. Wanted to see what copyright protection would apply. Please leave a talkback on my userpage. Thanks! avs5221 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For context: [3] avs5221 (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to suggest this is a freely licenced image. Besides which you you should likely wait until an acceptable article has been written based on this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ronald2010/Silviu Ionescu deletion discussion. Fair-use cannot be claimed because the subject is alive and apparently living in Roumania. ww2censor (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

image policy

Hello,

I want to upload some images to Wiki, to help understand the work of different artists. I OWN the rights of these images. Can I put them on wiki ?

I have the same problem with content, I would like to add information to some articles on artists, I OWN the material, but it's been deleted... What can I do to give the public the possibility to enjoy all my content, the result of MY researches... ?

Mariecisa

I think I see what the problem is. You are Sphinx Art (or whatever??) In which case, you have a number of alternatives

• You can follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT
• You can indicate on the Sphinx website if an image is licensed under a public domain license
• In the case of Albrecht Adam's paintings, as he died in 1862, you can't own the rights to them, so digital images of his paintings will be public domain. I've altered the licensing information on File:Albrecht soldiers resting.jpg accordingly - if you alter any others that fall into this category, you should stop having problems with the images.

As for articles, as long as you have some reliable sources, there should be no problem with articles. If you are using your own website as a source, you need to state on the article talkpage that it is your website - as long as you're not advertising your art gallery, just writing articles about artists, you shouldn't fall foul of the conflict of interest rules, but you may be challenged as to sources. If you want to use the same text in Wikipedia as is on your website, you need to follow the steps at WP:CONSENT to indicate that you are releasing the content to Wikipedia on a free license. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Photographs for use in article George Brain

I have 3 photos that I would like to upload for use in this article. The first one is a photo that I inherited as a personal family photograph taken by my parents File:George W Brain with grandson Stephen circa 1964.jpg The second and third photos are photos that once again I inherited as orginals but am unsure of their origin. File:Billy Hughes and George W Brain.jpg The third photo was orginally in a newspaper (unknown)and I would feel is a historical fair use image. File:Hats off to Billy Hughes.jpg

File:The Motherland Calls.jpg

Can I get a third opinion on the copyright status of File:The Motherland Calls.jpg, see its recent page history and User talk:Russavia#File:The Motherland Calls.jpg.
Thanks, Amalthea 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Article 21 of the Russian Federation. Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights covers Free Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable, if it is used for commercial purposes.

The sculpture is in Volgograd (?) therefore copyright is not infringed by taking a photograph, or by its use in the Wikipedia article. The author needs to upload it with the right license though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But does not Russian law only apply to Commons? It has been my understanding of numerous discussions around the place, that on enwp, only US law applies to such things. Therefore, it is possible for the uploader to release the photo into the public domain in the US, but in Russia it is not possible to do so? --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 12:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see where your coming from. Your understanding is slightly wonky. All images on Commons must be licensed under a free license - the image must be in the public domain all over the world, or you must hold the copyright and be willing to license it for free reuse all over the world. The English Wikipedia will accept images that are not free either in the US or elsewhere in the world, under a rationale of fair use. This is a more strict requirement that the US legal definition of Fair Use. However, if the image is copyright in its own country, it should not (except in rare circumstances) be uploaded as free to en:wiki. See note to Amalthea below about my opinion on the actual status of the image.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd sure say that "the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the reproduction" in File:The Motherland Calls.jpg, so it requires the consent of the author of the sculpture. Amalthea 12:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree. I don't believe the photographer violated the Russian code, as the photo was not taken for commercial purposes. This prevents the image being a technical copyvio. However, the photographer cannot grant a free license to the photo, because of the restriction in the Russian code regarding commercial reuse. The correct thing (my opinion) would be to tag the photograph {{Non-free 3D art}} and explain in the FUR that while use of the image on Wikipedia does not contravene the Russian code (we not being a commercial venture), the image is not released and may not be reused as that has the potential to contravene the Russian legislation.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't precise enough: release into PD (or any free license enwiki accepts) by the author of the photograph would require consent of the author of the sculpture. Fair use is certainly possible here, that's what it used to be marked as.
Base of the question is, I believe, whether the Russian law's view on copyright status of the statue and derivative works has any impact on the copyright status of the derivative work in the US. Amalthea 13:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries - don't think I was particularly precise either. The photographer has to have been in Volgograd to take the picture, therefore it was taken under Russian law. In Russian law, she was only allowed to take a picture for non-commercial use. Therefore, that's the only title she has, therefore that's the only title she can release. In US law, the image wouldn't be PD anyway, as US Freedom of Panorama doesn't cover fine arts, only architecture, so it's not reasonable to suppose that the picture could be uploaded PD on that basis either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the fair use claim and rationale to the file page. Amalthea 09:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony J Lumsden and associated images

The above is a new article of an architect, which appears to be written by the son of the subject. The article writer has uploaded numerous images with the rationale that the owner has released them.

There's a few things I am unsure about. Firstly, even if there is a close family relation between the uploader and the copyright owner, do we still need OTRS permission? (It seems a bit heavy handed to me, but I guess would be by the letter of the law). The other query is that the images are of buildings the architect has designed, but how do we confirm that he himself took the images? (I believe that the photographer, if not the architect, would still hold the copyright).

I don't want to be over the top about this, but I have limited experience with images, and the author does appear to be contributing in good faith. Quantpole (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

We still need an OTRS ticket because the article creator could be anyone, in all honesty - how would you tell just from his Wikipedia account. With the images, you will have to explain that the copyright holder has to release them - if the pictures were taken by a professional photographer for the architect, as work for hire, the architect will hold the copyright and can release. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

But note that "work for hire" means that either the photographer must have been employed (as in working for, and paid a salary by) the architect, or have executed a written copyright transfer. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would expect the architect to know whether or not he owned the copyright on the photos - at least in this case we have the prospect of making enquiries of the horse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

soccer images-royalty free or editorial

Do I have the permission to reuse soccer images from wikipedia to use as illustrations inside my soccer textbook I am in the process of writing? If not is there a way you can assist me to get soccer images without violating any copyright?

If you click on an image, it will take you through to a page that tells you how that image is licenced. If the license indicates that the image is free, and can be reused for any purpose, then you can use it. If not, not. If you cannot get the image that you want on a free license, I suggest you contact the copyright holder and enquire about licensing the content for your book. If no suitable images are to be found on Wikipedia, a commercial image gallery might have what you want. A fee is usually payable in such cases. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Electoral college 2012 map

I have changed Gage's old map for the 2012 elections. It added up to 539 electors - the 1 too much is probably in Minnesota. I told Gage two months ago but he hasn't changed it. In my changes I have also moved one elector from Arizona to Texas, per 2009 Polidata projection. Problem is, what license applies, what format applies (Gage had svg, I have png), and what else do I have to care of before I can upload the picture and put it to the 2012 presidential election page? Ambi Valent (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not upload a .png. SVGs are made to be user editable, and for this sort of graphic, is far preferable for exactly this reason. If all you are doing is changing numbers, someone could do that with a text editor with a fairly basic understanding of computer coding. Or download the free program Inkscape to edit SVGs visually. Or ask someone at WP:GL to assist you. With that out of the way, since the image is tagged as being "public domain", there are no licensing requirements regarding "attributions" or "sharealike" so that aspect is flexible. That said, I'd recommend using the "It is a derivative work of a file from Commons" option on the upload form at the Commons, just so you are citing sources and giving credit to the author, and sticking with Public Domain.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Determining "anonymous" status for copyright purposes

I'm always bothered by the side of copyright where you have to or seemingly have to prove a negative. Under Japanese copyright law (at least per Commons:Licensing#Japan) if a photograph is anonymous or pseudonymous, the copyright lasts for 50 years after the publication or the death of the author, whichever is the earlier. I would like to upload to Commons http://park.geocities.jp/matukinrei/fhoto/km.JPG (I am placing the link in this format because for some reason it doesn't work on my browser when I access it as a link, but does if it is copied and pasted into my address bar). I had the caption translated and it gives no information on the author. I have no way to further track down the origin. Given that there's a brick wall for further information from my perspective, this is "anonymous". But, is my inability to find anything about the photograph's provenance enough? Or do I need to know the origin of the photo and be able to point to something actually confirming its anonymous status? If the latter, copyright is rendered something of a blackhole, that inhibits use of creative works, which I know is the opposite of what copyright law was first proposed to do. Anyway, anyone have any advice?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I looked at the image, and it seems like it could be classified as a Historically Significant image, and be used under a free-use rationale, while having the Japanease copyright owner continue to hold the copyright. See Wikipedia:Upload and click on Historically Significant fair use image...if you scoll down the page to the "Licensing" drop down menu and click on "Historically Significant fair use" it should tell you more... Hope this helps! --Donatrip (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Donatrip. Really looking for interpretation of the copyright issue though. I am well familiar with fair use policy here and have fashioned many a FUR. I am really looking to upload this to Commons, if permissible. There's already a fair use image in the article in question, actually using a historically significant FUR and I'm trying to go to FA, where having a variety of images in important, and loading an article with FUs will not pass muster.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha well I tried :) Anyway, it seems like you could go ahead and publish it to Commons and see what happens. The worse thing that could happen is it gets taken down...and since you did think that it was okay to put it on their (because the author couldn't be found) no one will accuse you of vandalism--just that you made a mistake...so you really have nothing to lose. Another scenario (unlikely) is that the author of the picture sees it on Commons and gives you permission. And you always got to think of the best---that it stays on Commons just fine! You never know until you try! Lol--Donatrip (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously Donatrip, thank you very much for trying. I do plan to upload to the Commons, it's just that I'd rather be armed with a really good understanding of this issue and know whether this incarnation of anonymity is acceptable (←ooohhh alliteration). The thing is that I don't want to 'get away with it' because it's ambiguous; I want it to be a proper public domain upload. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kline Fogleman image

The image File:KFm-Family-descriptions3.jpg is listed as having "Permission granted Richard Kline 14 April 2010", however there is no evidence of this. I'm concerned that either no such permission has been granted, as there is no evidence, or the original author is using Wikipedia as a self-promotion tool. Either way the copyright status of this image is in doubt to my mind.

The image was created by a Richard Kline as is evidenced from here where it seems to have been taken from. However we have no evidence that it has been released freely, the blog post here indicates otherwise.

I have other concerns surrounding this image and the articles it's being used on, but they are out of scope of this noticeboard. Canterbury Tail talk 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The image is attributed to a different person than the uploader with evidence of permission, so it should be tagged as having no evidence of permission. I will do that now and the deletion notice gives links to what need to be done to verify the permission. ww2censor (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm never sure what to do with images and copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Juice Plus

The marketing director of Juice Plus has emailed OTRS (the ticket is here for those who can look), saying that they release this image under CC-BY-SA 3.0. As this contains a logo, is this possible? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I should probably link to the image: File:Juice Plus Orchard and Garden Blend.jpg Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me; if they own the logo, they can release it. Best to put questions like this on Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard or otrswiki:Café though. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If Juice Plus hired a designer to create a logo for them, chances are that the designer licensed the logo to Juice Plus to do what they want with it, as part of the contract, so they can release it if they so wish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

And this is just a low resolution product shot. Doesn't mean I can use the logo full scale for whatever I want (not to get into trademark infringement issues...)-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

100% Records

I want to upload our company logo for 100% records, we own the image and therefore obviously have permission to use it. I want to know the correct way to upload it so that i don't get the whole page blocked. How do i do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrecords (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to http://www.100-percent.co.uk then the "l00%" logo I see on the homepage is not copyrightable because it is comprised of simple graphics and text and would have the copyright tag {{PD-textlogo}} but of course its trademark use, if registered, is still vested in the company. However before doing that it would be appropriate if there were an article for the company, assuming it is notable enough, before uploading any images (see WP:WTAF). Also look at the conflict of interest page as it appears you are not an uninterested party. ww2censor (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ww2censor, note the .co.uk in the web address. This image almost certainly IS copyright under UK legislation. Jackrecords, you should follow the steps at WP:IOWN. Be aware that as the owner you can only upload it and license it on a free license (although that does not infringe your trademark rights). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

New article Pain in babies appears to have been imported from Citizendium. Is this allowed? Anthony (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a media related question, but I'll direct you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wanting to start an actor page with picture

I want to start a page for a Hollywood actor for which none exists thus far. I also want to use a photo of him, but am unsure in determining how I should go about it. So far this site has proven extremely difficult where creating a new page is concerned.

The photo is an autographed photo he himself sent me. It is more or less a promotional-type photo, or "head shot", as it were, with his name at the bottom in the white border. What category do I put this photo under when uploading it, and what else would I need to do to make sure the photo doesn't get rejected? Lvillealumni (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't upload it, unless there is a piece of text on the back of the photo that says that the copyright holder has given you the copyright. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, what photo would I be able to use for an actor without someone here getting bent out of shape? Can I crop his face from a screen cap from one of his movies? --Lvillealumni (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. Our content is licensed freely, and thus our images must be licensed freely (except in the rare cased that meet WP:NFC). For living people, we have to use free images if the purpose of the image is to simply identify what they look like. The reasoning behind this is it is always plausible that someone could take a picture of the individual and upload it here under a free license. You can also seek out free images, by contacting copyright holders of such images and asking if they'd consider relicensing their content freely (see WP:PERMISSION). So the short of it is, unless you have expressed, documented permission to upload a photo (and evidence it is licensed freely), or if you took the photo yourself, you can't upload it. Sorry if this is a bit restrictive, but we do take respecting the copyrights of others seriously, and our mission to be the free encyclopedia seriously. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Can I crop his face from a screen cap from one of his movies? --Lvillealumni (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, because the copyright belongs to the movie maker. Unless you have expressed, documented permission to upload a photo (and evidence it is licensed freely), or if you took the photo yourself, you can't upload it. Pirating a screencap does not count as taking a photo. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally answered your question, and I tried to explain why. So the short of it is, unless you have expressed, documented permission to upload a photo (and evidence it is licensed freely), or if you took the photo yourself, you can't upload it. I guess it can be confusing if you think taking a screenshop of a copyrighted work, such as a movie, constitutes "taking the photo yourself". I'm not going to get into accusations of pirating or anything like that. Yeah, on most webpages, such a use would be fine, and it fact might even be legal, under claims of "fair use". But on Wikipedia, we are more strict due to our preference for "free content". And if it's not clear. A screenshop of something you don't own is not considered "free", unless there is evidence the work was released under a free license. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pirating?!? Oh my god. Whatever. I should have known this would be more trouble than it's worth. Thank you for your time. (Bows and exits gracefully from the noble presence of the Gods of Wikipedia, and returns to his evil pirate ship filled with screencaps of actors that will be used to bring the downfall of society as we know it.) --Lvillealumni (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, screencapping and then publishing on the internet is pirating. Sorry if you don't like that, it happens to be covered by international law. As a serious project to be the world's largest free encyclopaedia, Wikipedia prefers content that is free wherever possible, and free-licensed pictures of living actors are available without needing to resort to screencaps. If you want to contribute to the project, one useful thing would be to trawl round the fan-forums for your actor, and see if anyone has some photos of him they would be prepared to upload on a free license.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)