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)

Image permission problem with Image:Palin nowhere.jpg

I was informed that there is a problem with the copyright on this, but as noted on that image page, an email has already been sent to you referring to Bob Weinstein's copyright ownership, and his full release of it under the listed license. Where is the problem? Duuude007 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Best I can tell the relivant OTRS ticket number is 2008091810048421 and the problem is the lack of an explict CC release.Geni 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a couple OTRS people to check that ticket and drop a message here. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an OTRS person I was describeing the ticket.Geni 15:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duuude007, for what I can see the discussion stalled before we received a clear Creative Commons license from the copyright holder. If you wish I can try to email him? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. Mayor Weinstein did say that he had already explicitly sent an email himself (because of that email reply to me referring to the need of explicit consent) from the kpu.net address. Did you receive that one? Please keep in mind that there are multiple images that this copyright applies to, as it was cropped for alternate article uses. There is also: Image:Nowhere 99901 (Crop2).jpg and Image:Palin Nowhere 99901.jpg in the commons, and because of this problem, they are also apparently being flagged for deletion. Please help assure that they also do not get deleted, while his copyright is being reconfirmed, thank you. Duuude007 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Duuude, Did Mayor Weinstein’s email license the images under a specific license, or did it grant general permission for use on Wikipedia? From what Geni and lucasbfr say, OTRS received an email, but it did not grant a specific CC license. (BTW, I don’t think multiple images are a problem as long as he licenses Image:Palin Nowhere 99901.jpg. The other images are derivative from that, right?) —teb728 t c 08:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I find no email from him (I checked with the email address you forwarded, and his name) on our records. I've sent him an email. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the OTRS number given above.Geni 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

we recived an email yes. We did not get a solid CC release.Geni 14:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, Duuude007 was talking about Mr Weinstein's email. As you can see I've sent an email using this OTRS ticket. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is also a fair use justification for this image. While it would be ideal to get a clear CC license, I believe the fair use justification allows the image to be retained even if that is not forthcoming.--agr (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the image fails NFCC1 (as it's replaceable by text) and NFCC8 (as its removal would not be detrimental to readers' undertanding of the topic; it's used for illustration only). Stifle (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This has already been contested and disproven. Many people have conceded that it does not convey the same message without the image. Duuude007 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Walter Inglis Anderson

I added an image of a painting by Walter Inglis Anderson to that page. I got a warning from an administrator that the image would be deleted if I did not follow the instructions for adding an image. I went back, and once again did my level best to follow all instructions, but evidently that wasn't good enough, because a bot deleted the image anyway. I followed all the instructions to the best of my ability. Either there is something wrong with my ability, or there is something wrong with the instructions. In either case, I think that to illustrate an article about an artist with art by that artist is certainly reasonable, and I would appreciate help in doing so. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Reflection in a Pool by Walter Anderson.jpg was deleted because there was no rationale indicating how it qualifies for fair use. You tagged that image as a book cover — normally pictures from book covers are only used on the article about the book, rather than the author or someone who happens to be in that book. Can you explain how the non-free content criteria are complied with in respect of this image?

For the record, I deleted the image and I'm not a bot :) Stifle (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The image you deteted was from an exhibition catelog, not from a book. The exhibition was a solo exhibition of the work of Walter Anderson. When you flagged the image for deletion, I went back and tried to explain this in more detail, but you deleted the image from the image file and then the bot deteted the link to the now deleted image from the Walter Anderson page. It seems reasonable to me that Wikipedia articles about an artist should be illustrated with an example of that artist's work. Unless a Wikipedian owns an original by that artist, the natural place to obtain such an image is an exhibition catelog. The image was a low resolution image from such a catalog. I'm sure this has come up in other articles about artists. Please let me know how I should go about illustrating this article with an example of the artist's work. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll restore the image so that you can add a full rationale to it. Note that the rationale must address how each of the non-free content criteria are addressed, include a link to the article where the image is used, and particularly explain how the image substantially increases readers' understanding of the article. See WP:NFURG for more information. Note that the image may be redeleted if you do not add a rationale or if the rationale is considered insufficient. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put the image back up, and added what I think is what is needed. If I've done it wrong, please let me know. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The image still needs a fair use rationale template added which you will find details of here. Add it to the image and fill in ALL the details, otherwise it is likely to be deleted again. A prose rationale is no longer acceptable; you must use the template. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have made another attempt, using the template. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good, but the resolution's too high. I've tagged it as {{fairusereduce}}. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll rescan it at a lower resolution. What resolution should I use? Rick Norwood (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the image by a much lower resolution image.Rick Norwood (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That resolution is fine, but could I trouble you to rescan it in the PNG format? Non-photographic raster images are best uploaded in PNG. You can then put the PNG version in the article with the same tags as are already on the JPG version, and tag the JPG version as {{db-author}}. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara

Per Talk:Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara, this is a song where people don't know who or when it was written. There was at one point a reference to a version being from 1942 but the source provided cited Wikipedia itself. I think we should err on the side of caution, especially since the same version people keep reverting to is involving wiping out the other reference, has a WP:BLP violation on a living band, and has a completely uncited translation which is controversial enough. If someone could comment at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#About_copyright_-_again to the numerous WP:SPAs who keep appearing that their interpretation of US copyright law is not a justification. If not, I'll just protect the page myself and block the whole lot of them. My patience is coming to an end with them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message there, but I've also protected the article because the edit war that led to its previous protection has started right back up again since its expiry. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Image use for photo of guitar

I took some art photos of some of my husband's personal guitar collection. No names/brands are showing in the photos. I emailed two of the manufacturers asking about copyright limitations but haven't received a response. Am I able to sell these prints? If so, can I state what kind of guitar they are? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.67.208 (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is for asking questions about image use on Wikipedia. You will need to ask a lawyer about your rights to sell those prints — I'd normally refer you to the reference desk, but they don't do legal opinions. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadian topographic maps

Is this a free license? Despite the requirement to place "© Department of Natural Resources Canada. All rights reserved." as the source, it appears that they do not in fact reserve all rights, and grant "a non-exclusive, fully paid, royalty-free right and licence to exercise all Intellectual Property Rights in the Data". --NE2 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is sufficiently free for Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenshot

I uploaded this screenshot for my talk page. It's been removed from my talk page by a bot because non-free images aren't allowed outside the article space. I'm pretty sure I should be able to re-tag this image, since it's a screenshot of wikipedia, which is GFDL, and I carefully didn't include the logo. Am I right about this? If so, what tag should I put on the image? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the text in Wikipedia, and most of the images and other content, is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Contributions remain the property of their creators, while the GFDL license ensures the content is freely distributable and reproducible. That is direct from Wikipedias' about article. I see nothing in that screen grab to warrant it being tagged as "non-free". However, the actual tag that has been placed on the image is because it is an orphan, which means it is not being used in any article. I would suggest moving the image to commons and using the appropriate tag there. (See Copyright by Wikimedia images for several screen grabs) Then you can use it in the article again. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the aptly-named {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} would be the one. ~ mazca ^t|c 11:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:) That's what it already has. My question is more about the copyright than the tag, really - I should have been clearer. Am I right in thinking that I should be able to tag this article as a free, rather than non-free image, since it's a screenshot of GFDL material and I carefully missed out the logo? If so, which tag do I use? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my bad :) - as far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with having that screenshot on your userpage. However, does it need that fair-use rationale template? Perhaps that's triggering the bot - as this is not a non-free image, a claim of fair use is not required. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

D'Oh! I hadn't noticed there were two templates on there. I thought the {{wikipedia-screenshot}} template was the one that was adding the non-free category. I must have ticked the wrong box somewhere when I uploaded the image. I've removed the fair-use template, and I'm no longer confused. Thanks for your help. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 12:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Still getting my head around image copyrights, etc.

Are these two ok? [1] and [2] - the first doesn't seem to give any indication of why it is free, and the second says 'own work', but that seems to be a claim that the editor is the artist, which I doubt. Sorry to ask dumb questions, but... Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The first one definitely needs some elaboration on why it's under the GFDL. My best guess is that somebody took a picture of the art and concluded that they had full copyright over the resulting image, which of course they don't, and then released it under the GFDL. I'm not familiar with the art portrayed, but I'd say that there's at least a reasonable chance that it's in the public domain by reason of its age, in which case so-to would the photograph be (photographs of two dimensional works are not generally copyrightable, so the photographer would be unlikely to have rights over the image at all). The same is true of the second work, actually - what's needed here is to ascertain the artist and date of the works themselves. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that is more or less what I was hoping someone would say. What's the next step then to sort them out? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What Sarcasticidealist said — we need to ascertain the artist and date of the works. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the first one, the Livius Picture Archive “You can download their pictures and use them for non-commercial purposes.” So it does not appear to be free. According to the caption at Ariobarzan, it is a “Modern Drawing of Ariobarzan” —teb728 t c 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, websites try to place restrictions on public domain works all the time, so that's really not conclusive. As to "modern", it certainly doesn't preclude being old enough for PD, especially not in the context of a modern depiction of an ancient figure. But yeah, unless we can figure out the artist, we'll have to be on the safe side and delete it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the second one, see Image:Ariobarzan.jpg, another upload by the same person. The uploader seems to have a peculiar notion of "own work." —teb728 t c 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry

Could people here who don't mind tackling a rather large job have a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry? There are questions about the images in List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry, which span a period of 100 years and various different copyright scenarios. If anyone could give specific advice on the individual pictures, either here, there, on on a suitable talk page (please link from here), that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, many of those images are on Commons, which is above our pay grade. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I hadn't realised there was a split in pay grade. :-) Would I have more success asking at Commons? What if I list here the ones that aren't on Commons? I'll ask at Commons anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For Commons images you can nominate them for deletion; they have a nice JavaScript link to the left of each image which does it all for you. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

'''''Details about FAA airman rules and regulations for Obtaining SPL to ATPL license'''''

I require the detailed notes of the FAA airman rules and regulations for Obtaining SPL to ATPL license. by Praveen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Praveen17791 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for copyright-related questions about media (usually images) uploaded to Wikipedia. For answers to your question try asking at the Reference Desk. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thailand government images

Does anyone know about the copyright status for the Thailand government? The only Thailand template (template:PD-Thailand) is for 50 years or older images. Image:Suchart Thadathamrongvej.jpg (and pretty much everything from that user) is from the Thailand government website. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Works uncopyrightable in Thailand are covered by the {{PD-TH-exempt}} tag, although they are limited to

1. News of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain
2. Constitution and legislations
3. Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units
4. Judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official [government] reports
5. Translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units

There is a tendency on the Thai Wikipedia to interpret government websites as falling under the clause, which I disagree with, although I am not actively involved in the project. Clause 14 of the Copyright Act specifically states that

The Ministries, Departments or other government or local units shall be the owners of copyright in works created in the course of employment, order or control unless otherwise agreed in writing.

There is also an issue with such images on Commons, mostly due to images being uploaded there from th: due to them having been tagged as free. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugg, great. So I'm guessing that the images from the ministry websites are copyrighted and we aren't going to have a great fairuse rationale for using images of living public government officials. Is that right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A Very Important Question:

I removed external links from other pages. They lead to web-sites that violate copyright laws, such as free song transcriptions without a license from the copyright owner. I know that many of these sites have been shut down, but some continue to operate. Can the Wikipedia webmasters do something about this? Can there be an automatic scanner set to block external links that violate copyright laws from being added to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.31 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup. The page you need is Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope that they keep cracking down on those sites. For one thing, they break the law, And other, they often have spyware embedded in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.31 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use of Screen Shot from 1905 movie?

Does wikipedia consider screenshots from a 1905 French movie, La Vie et la passion de Jésus Christ (http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/f-zecca-passion.html) as in the public domain, even if the movie has been reissued on DVD? Or would it at least be possible to use one of the two screenshots from the website I quoted under wikipedia's fair use policy in order to illustrate the en.wikipedia article on this movie, La Vie et la passion de Jésus Christ?Xiphophilos (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The law in the E.U. is as follows: "The rights of authors are protected within their lifetime and for seventy years after their death (Art. 1, D. 93/98/EEC): this includes the resale rights of artists (Art. 8, D. 2001/84/EC). For films and other audiovisual works, the seventy year period applies from the last death among the following people, whether or not they are considered to be authors of the work by the national law of the Member State: the principal director (who is always considered to be an author of the audiovisual work), the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work." So if you want to establish that it's in the public domain, you'll have to figure out the death dates of those four people (if all four of them exist for that film). The whole movie's on Google Video, which suggests that it is in the public domain, but it's not sufficient evidence in and of itself.

As for fair use, yes, I believe the use of one screenshot in the article would probably pass the non-free content criteria as presently interpreted. If at all possible, though, you should try to ascertain whether or not it's in the public domain first. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinand Zecca died in 1947, while Lucien Nonguet's date of death appears to be unknown. Based on that information, I would say that it's likely not PD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

1947 + 70 years = 2017, so it's still protected. Sorry pal. flaminglawyer^c 00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that depends on whether Zecca's the principal director. That said, I have no idea how we'd go about figuring that out, and we don't know when Nonguet died in any event, so, as I said, not likely PD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You could tag screenshots, stills or scans from the original film as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. The status of rereleased versions, which you linked to, might not be so simple, especially if they have been retouched at all. It's the status of the images in the United States that matters on Wikipedia. Things are different on Commons and there the EU position would be relevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

changing copyright things

Is it possible to change the licensing on an image? I uploaded an image a while back; it became pretty popular, ranking about 800 on most-linked to images, with over 2000 links. I want to change the license on it. flaminglawyer^c 23:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You could release it under less restrictive license, but not a more restrictive one. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a w'Pedia rule or a US of A rule? flaminglawyer^c 00:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a condition of the GFDL, which would presumably be enforced in any jurisdiction (though I'm not aware of this ever having been tested). A couple of other things, though:

• looking at the image, I'm not positive that it's copyright-eligible (simple text ordinarily isn't.
• the GFDL isn't a great license for images; at the very least, you might consider multi-licensing it under something Creative Commons. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... could you explain the difference between these, in a very small nutshell? I never considered myself good at reading contracts and the like. flaminglawyer^c 20:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And by "these," I mean the gdfl and creative commons. flaminglawyer^c 20:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be easier to explain what you are hoping to accomplish? There are many variants of the CC and other licenses, and so we could point you in the right direction. Dragons flight (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL requires its 3000+ words to be reprinted in full with every reproduction of the image. CC licenses don't. However, not all CC licenses are permitted on Wikipedia: the noncommercial and noderivatives options aren't allowed. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Breadmanpaul

Please could I ask someone with a bit of knowledge about these things to visit the above page and deal with the user's questions? Thanks Waggers (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Graphs produced by Carter Center & WHO

I'm confused about whether it would be fair use to upload the following,apparently freely available, images to Wikipedia for use in the Disease Eradication article (after formatting the former to JPEG, of course):

http://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/health/guinea_worm/gw_cases_07.pdf

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/05.whostat2005graph_polio.jpg

Alternatively, would it be better to download the freely available data on reported Guinea Worm and Polio cases to draw my own graphs with? In addition to legal issues, there'd be an obvious advantage to this in that it would allow a more up-to-date Polio graph than the one linked above, alongside the disadvantage of the time it would take. Procrastinator supreme (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As the graph would be replaceable by a free image, it would not meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. Constructing your own graph from the data would be far preferable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Benin

Is anyone sure of the media copyright laws in Benin? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyrights expire fifty years after the death of the author. Is there something specific you need help with? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for a free image for Hubert Maga. I'm not sure when the author died or even when the photos were taken at the Google image search. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Illustration question

To better the article on Snufkin, a character from a Finnish book and TV series, I have drawn an SVG file of the character. (Don't worry; it's accurate.) But I'm concerned about the copyright. I'm not sure…can the character be copyright? Can I upload this file? Thanks! Goyston talk, contribs, play 03:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your drawing is derivative work, meaning essentially that you share the copyright with the whoever owns the copyright on the character (yes, they can be copyrighted). If you want to illustrate the article, I'd suggest simply uploading an actual drawing of the character, under fair use; make sure you add a fair use rationale to the image page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all the images I can find are of such low quality that it's not worthwhile to add them (120x80 pixels, for example). That's why I went and did this (hosted off-site to avoid issues while this is in discussion). Basically, is that safe to upload, and if so, what on earth do I tag it as? Goyston talk, contribs, play 04:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You can tag it as {{non-free fair use in}} with an appropriate fair use rationale, and note that that part of the work which you put into the drawing is released into the public domain. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your image and comparing it to some of the ones I've found on the net, I don't actually think you even own the copyright on that work, because there isn't any creative component (which isn't intended as a slight, since I gather you were intending to accurately reproduce their work - and you succeeded). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

COPY RIGHT. PRODUCING AN IMAGE IN A DIFFERENT MEDIUM THEN WHAT IT IS COPYRIGHTED AS.

I recently traced a photograph out of a magazine for a website project. I want the picture presented as a illustration. I want to use it on my website. Does this infringe on the copyright. I did change the image slightly by changing the fabric design on a pillow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.54.251 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is for questions about copyright and media on Wikipedia. Sorry, but we can't help you with queries about copyright on your own website. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Screen blurring (mobile devices)

I am not entirely sure what the requirements for blurring the screen on a photo of a mobile device are. For example, Image:SE P910i.jpg shows a completely clear screen, with Opera running. AFAIK Opera's interface is copyrighted, so how is this image different from Image:IPhone Release - Seattle (keyboard) cropped.jpg which shows a blurred image of the iPhone virtual keyboard? Both of these images are from Wikimedia Commons, and Image:SE P910i.jpg is locally used on around 50 pages. nneonneo ^talk 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Arguably it should be blurred, though we often have photographs with copyrighted logos and the like in the background (check our almost any of our free photographs of professional athletes, for example - most have team logos). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the Sony Ericsson image shows Opera's website and the user interface of Opera's browser, while the iPhone image shows the iPhone browser (Safari) and the keyboard. In both cases, there's potential copyright infringement (the website of Opera in the first, the keyboard UI of iPhone in the second). So, I am wondering why one is blurred and the other is not... nneonneo ^talk 21:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a judgment call as to how much prominence must be afforded to a copyright image for the image itself to be a truly derivative image. In one case the uploader (or somebody later) concluded that it was a concern, in the other case not. I'm not really in a position to say who's correct; arguably blurring is always the way to go, to be on the safe side, but I don't think we can say categorically that the P910i image is or isn't a copyright infringement. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

CC public domain

Image:Bonfire.jpg is Creative Commons public domain, found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/. I don't see it listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses or at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Deprecated#Non-free_Creative_Commons_licenses, so I don't want to do with it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

{{PD-link}} would be a good one. --Rat at WikiFur (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

oh look {{PD-PDphoto.org}} ViperSnake151 14:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rulers.org

At the bottom of http://rulers.org it says:

Data from this site may be queried and copied on a not-for-profit basis only if the source is accurately credited.

I take this to mean that we can use any of their images? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not according to our own policies, as commercial use is specifically excluded. Any images from there (except any that might be in the public domain) are going to be non-free, and will have to meet our non-free content criteria. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sound question

The author of this website says: "The audio files contained in this page are in PUBLIC DOMAIN and have been developed with the purpose to help enthusiasts, clubs, dealers and salespersons from Lamborghini brand to pronounce correctly the Lamborghini models based in Spanish words.

There is no copyright in these audio files. They have been done for free and donated to the worldwide Lamborghini community.

Webmasters can post these files in their Lamborghini pages, if they desire."

I would like to convert one to .ogg for the Lamborghini Murciélago page since many people have problems pronouncing it. Would that be permissible? If not, what kind of permission should I get? Thanks Madridrealy (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming they're telling the truth about them being in the public domain, you can do whatever you like with them. If your work includes a creative component (I don't know anything about audio conversion, but I'm assuming that what you're proposing doesn't) you'll need to release your work. Otherwise, the resulting work will be in the public domain, just like the source work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

uploading a photo of a gramophone record label

hi i want to upload a photo i took of a gramophone record label for use in an article about the performer. The gramophone record dates from the late 1920's, ie is about 80 years old. is the upload permissible? thanks Stuart1900 (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Likely not. If it was a few years older, it would be public domain in the United States, but it's probably still copyrighted - what country is it from? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed kaaba.jpg

Removed duplicate of question asked and answered at Wikipedia:Help desk#Mohammed kaaba.jpg. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Letter in reference to HRV

User:Breadmanpaul/Hebraic_Roots_Version image:HRV_Letter.JPG

What do I need to do to make the scanned image of this letter acceptable? If I make the logo fuzzy will that obviate the need to obtain/provide copyright information for the logo?

The letter itself doesn't contain any creative information and it doesn't seem copyrightable to me. If I'm wrong, please explain.

Regarding the encyclopedic value of the letter. The long and turbid history of the HRV will be excessively difficult to document through third-party sources. Essentially all of the history of the HRV was documented by email no longer in existence. This letter is probably the only piece of that history for which acceptable documentation exists. breadmanpaul (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Typing the letter is a creative process, so the text is copyrighted as well as the logo. It might be possible to make a fair use claim on this, but I wouldn't bet on it. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Although typing may be a creative process, the letter contains nothing more than a recitation of facts -- the content of the letter is not a creative work. As a precautionary measure, I have emailed isr requesting permission to use the letter (including the logo). breadmanpaul (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am currently in negotiations with ISR regarding using the letter. I believe I'll have permission to use it by either later today or possibly tomorrow. Funny what happens when you just ask. breadmanpaul (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COPYREQ for what permission is required and how to handle it. I am concerned about the comments you put on the image description page of the letter: You say that ISR wants to review the article before it is published. You and they should understand that the article can (and undoubtedly will) be changed after it is published without their permission or yours. Their permission to use the letter would be irrevokable, and it would grant anyone the right to use the letter including the logo for anything. —teb728 t c 21:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would phrase what TEB728 said the other way round: if they release the image of the letter with that stipulation, the licence isn't valid for use on wikipedia. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The two of you seem to be in total disagreement. breadmanpaul (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we gave the same answer to the same question. I just gave the answer from the opposite perspective in the hope that it would make it clear. TEB728 said that if the ISR release the letter under a free license, anyone will be free to do what they want with it. I said that if the ISR release the letter under a licence that reserves their right to vet its use, it's not a free licence. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

However, I think that breadmanpaul is correct on this point (and I think I may have said as much on his/her talk page): aside from the logo, the letter itself would not be considered a creative work under US law. As long as the logo is removed, or blurred out, the letter is public domain. -- Hux (talk) 04:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Two possibilities:

1 As I asked on the discussion page for this image before it was deleted, what language do you want to see from the copyright holder so as to accept the letter as is?

2 If you take the time to read the letter, now deleted, you'll see that nothing in it is copyrightable. It is a mere recitation of facts. It's not creative by any stretch of the imagination. I offered to blur the logo, but that suggestion was largely ignored (save Hux).

Can the group of you come to some consensus you can agree upon so that given whatever terms you can agree upon I can upload the letter? breadmanpaul (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies:

1. As I told you above (and on the image talk page before it was deleted), you need to read WP:COPYREQ for how to handle third party permission. Have you read it yet? It contains WP:CONSENT, a general sample release.

2. I read the letter, and I think the way that ISR recited the facts is somewhat creative—just as your recitation of facts in the draft article is creative—just as the recitation of facts in any work of non-fiction is creative. Apparently ISR thinks so too, considering their desire to vet the article before licensing the letter. —teb728 t c 07:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Supernanny logo under a free license?

Hi. I discovered this image page, in which an editor uploaded the Supernanny logo with the GNU Free license. Is this right? The various licenses are not my forte, so could you look into it as far as what should be done? Let me know if this is okay with you. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. Supernanny's terms and conditions make it quite clear that no part of their website is released under the GFDL or anything like it. I've retagged the image as fair use. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Editor deleting my image?

Please explain, if someone would, why the apparent wikipedia editor "Ash" (Wiggin Tree) in the following message to me, is allowed to edit my page on Acker Bilk, then evaporate. Here is the message I was left:

Thanks for uploading Image:Acker Bilk03.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all. Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ash (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal to the non-existent "Ash"'s points are that I DID make considerable and multiple efforts to contact the copyright holder, which would be Mr. Bilk himself or the photog at his web site, and received NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER. That, and given the fair use justification I provided on the description page, should be sufficient per the definitions of Wikipedia policy. If they are not, I'm afraid that this is one of those deals where "you can't get there from here", and an image of Mr. Bilk cannot, under any achievable circumstances, be included in Wikipedia. At any rate, the image was there for months before the now non-existent "Ash" (Wiggin Tree) butted in and deleted it. Someone please explain "Ash" to me and help me figure out how to get an image of Mr. Bilk included with the article.--RogerR00 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that, as a living person who makes numerous public appearances, there'd be nothing stopping him from being photographed by somebody with the ensuing photograph released under a free license. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of non-free images of living people in all but certain extraordinary circumstances; this doesn't seem to have been one of them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Global Invasive Species Database

Can I put texts from Global Invasive Species Database to wikipedia (while properly cited and attributed)? disclaimer. Can I use all texts from Global Invasive Species Database or can i use only texts that are compiled by ISSG or can I use no texts? --Snek01 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not all together clear, but the phrase "...and the right to ensure that the original integrity of their contribution to the Commons is preserved." suggests that they may not allow derivative works, which would make this a no-no. It might be worth contacting them to clarify whether their license allows commercial use and derivative works. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an indication that they grant any reuse license at all--not even for non-commercial use. —teb728 t c 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Can somebody with experiences in copyright ask them for details of their license, please? --Snek01 (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Very old logos

I notice that Image:Wesleyan shield copyright.jpg is marked with a template that strongly suggests that it is copyrighted (and, indeed, it is named in a way that suggests that). I'm pretty sure this shield dates back to the 19th century (the school was founded in the 1840s), so any copyright should long since have expired.

Even in the event that I am not right about this particular emblem (I haven't researched systematically to find a pre-1923 usage): shouldn't we have a distinct template to mark logos whose copyrights are known to have expired? - Jmabel | Talk 20:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think {{PD-US}} is adequate - I don't see the benefit in further complicating our image tagging regime with a lot of new case-specific tags. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition to a PD tag, a PD logo should be tagged with {{trademark}}. Maybe that is what you mean. —teb728 t c 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, good solution. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

General knowledge question

who is the first president to travel abroad while in office —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irisr2 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask general knowledge questions a the Wikipedia:Reference desk. This forum is for media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 20:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Roll2 Frame28 QuincyJones.jpg

For Image:Roll2 Frame28 QuincyJones.jpg the uploader, 428CobraJet (talk · contribs), seems to want to have it both ways. There's a statement on the page, "All rights to this image are owned by the photographer, Keith Lubow, as of July 28, 2007." The page is also tagged as GFDL. It seems that after uploading he tried to reserve all rights diff but got chided by OrphanBot so he replaced the GFDL template and softened the disclaimer language to what's there now. In addition, the image's metadata contains the statement "Copyright holder: Copyright 2007 Keith Lubow". Despite the lack of an OTRS ticket, I assume that the uploader is the photographer due to his attempt to retain rights, but is that statement on the image description page and in the metadata kosher? The metadata issue also applies to Image:Roll2 Frame36 QuincyJones HerbieHancock Crop.jpg, also uploaded by 428CobraJet but since moved to Commons. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 09:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it as it is now. The photographer retains the copyright, and has released the image under the GFDL. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Caruso recording

[3] is a recording from 1917, which would be fine, copyright wise, except it's clearly been professionally restored. Has it gained a new copyright during that restoration? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

TNSrecords have said they're happy for these images to be on wikipedia

I'm not sure what I shoudl do to stop stuff being deleted?

I took this photo! Why copyright it?

I am unsure why there is a copyright issue with the following photo: Image:Martin_Luther.jpg Help!