Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bekiroflaz (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 10 June 2010 (→Incorporating album covers into artist's page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Active editnotice

Skip to the bottom


    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    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

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)


    Musical Examples

    Hi there!

    I just have a quick question regarding the use of musical score examples.

    If I were to create my own sibelius files depicting thematic material from a work, how do I properly indicate the source?

    If the piece is over 100 years old, isn't the score public domain?

    Thanks!

    If the music was published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S. — Walloon (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But Sibelius files can't be uploaded here. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Visit Creation and usage of media files for details of format, restrictions, etc. of uploading sound files. BEst wishes --Haruth (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why can't Sibelius files be uploaded into any Wikimedia project? --84.62.209.203 (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sibelius' works might not be public domain in Finland, so it's not a good idea to upload them to Commons; however, anything that he composed and published before 1923 may be uploaded here at en:wp. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha ha. Referring to Sibelius, the music composition ("note processing") software, and not Sibelius, the Finnish composer, no doubt the questioner means using this to capture music onto a computer so as to display a suitable segment on screen and do a screen capture as a PNG file (Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Format Software screenshots should be in PNG format). Providing the music is more than a century old and is out of copyright anywhere, surely one of the tags is appropriate; the question that remains is simply: precisely which? Public domain would indeed appear to be the answer to that. I would suggest that uploading "Sibelius files", meaning the native files of that software, would be inappropriate unless there is a piece of free software that allows one to view files in that format. If it is necessary to purchase a copy of the (fairly expensive) Sibelius software package in order to get access to Sibelius files, I would suggest that it is indeed inappropriate for Wikipedia to allow uploading of files in that format. Iph (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry; I thought that the OP was asking about Jean Sibelius, not a computer program. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Images Uploaded without My Permission!!!

    Hi! To my horror, I have discovered that the following images created by me were uploaded without my express permission. I can provide proof of ownership by showing larger, uncropped, watermarked copies, but I need these images removed, as I never agreed to release them into the public domain!

    Please contact me at <redacted> for proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.95.193 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note this IP is claiming to be indef blocked user User:NeoThe1. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are in NeoThe1, then I'll note that at least some of those images were uploaded and licensed as they are by you, so as far as I'm aware they are out of your control now. I haven't looked at all of them, but that's my initial comment. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have completed my review and all of them were definitively uploaded and licensed for any use by NeoThe1, except possibly commons:File:Chuck Palahniuk Roses and Shit Tour 2006.jpg which I believe would require a Wikipedia admin to confirm. As I previously said, I believe the attribution license is non-revocable, but if you are not NeoThe1 and they did not have the right to release the images or if you otherwise believe there is a copyright issue which requires that the images be removed, you should send an email following the steps listed at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am an admin and an OTRS agent, and can help clear this matter up with you. I'm a little concerned because above you say, I have discovered that the following images created by me were uploaded without my express permission. but then you also say I am the original creator of the image (user NeoThe1). I own the copyright. I do not permit it to be used So what is the case? Were the images uploaded without your permission, or are you the original creatore User:NeoThe1? And have you just changed your mind a couple years after you uploaded them as User:NeoThe1? We need to get to the bottom of your conflicting statements. Then we can proceed confirming your identity as original copyright holder via e-mail. Thanks! -Andrew c [talk] 16:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI — on his now-deleted userpage, NeoThe1 stated that his name was "Michael G. Khmelnitsky"; consequently, please don't delete these under F4 simply because they're credited to Michael G. K. as a source. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. a) The images *were* created by me. I can prove it. b) The images were *not* uploaded by me, but by my girlfriend, who also used my account to edit Wikipedia years ago, before we separated. The images were cropped and resized incorrectly, and attributed incorrectly. For one thing, I *never* wanted my website to be referenced. c) I *do* own the copyright to the images, and I never signed it away. Please work with me to resolve this.204.50.113.43 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so now I'm curious for some input from other copyright gurus and/or OTRS people. Two questions.
    1. CC licenses are explicitly non-revocable. My gut feeling is that PD or other general licensing is non-revocable for the same general reasons (see also a court ruling from last year). Are there any other takes on licensing revocation?
    2. Even if he verifies that he's the owner of the account, there's no way to verify who used the account to upload the files. When it comes to vandalism/blocking it doesn't matter and the account is penalized regardless, but when it comes to copyrights it's possible that a different person used the account who actually didn't have the right to license these as they are (as appears to be the case here), but without proof how is this handled given that there are legal aspects involved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the exgirlfriend available to send in an affidavit that says that she "released" items that she did not have permission to do? (note she may want to talk to a lawyer herself before she signs such an affadavit!) Active Banana (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, at wikipedia, we may not offer legal help. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the proper copyright tag for a photo taken by myself? Austin3301 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just select one of the licenses. One of them is recommended, and it will tell you that on the upload form.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Photos that you have take yourself should be uploaded to Commons so that they are available to all Wikimedia projects. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Public Domain Maps

    The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife says images that are the work of ODFW employees accomplished during their official duties belong to the Public Domain. See ODFW image policy. My question is: Does "images" include digital maps available to the public in official reports and pamphlets? ODFW photos used in agency reports and pamphlets are clearly in Public Domain, but would like opinion on ODFW maps used in same way.--Orygun (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It depends, just because a digital map appears in an ODFW report or pamphlet doesn't mean that the map is entirely the work an ODFW employee -- it could have been created by a third party for ODFW, or it might have been created using copyrighted digital mapping data. You'd need to contact ODFW to confirm the permission (follow steps at WP:PERMISSIONS). For that matter, all of the photos used in ODFW reports and pamphlets are not necessarily the work of an ODFW employee, the ODFW could have hired a photographer to take one or more of the photos and thus either the photographer or the ODFW could hold copyright to the photos in question (since the ODFW can acquire copyrights). Without an explicit notice in the reports and pamphlets about the origin and/or status of the photos, you'll need to contact OFDW to confirm that they are the work of an ODFW employee. —RP88 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since most maps don't have attribution, I won't upload any ODFW maps. Here's another question. In releasing photos to Public Domain, ODFW says: "These images are the work of ODFW employees, taken during the course of the person's official duties and belong to the Public Domain." It appears to me that "These images" refer to photos in ODFW on-line photo gallery, where statement is made. When ODFW maintained its photo gallery within its our web-site, it was releatively easy to link photos with Public Domain release statement. Now, ODFW has put its photos on flickr. The ODFW gallery page says: "See our new flickr account for more public domain images" with hot-button link to the ODFW flickr page. However, all of the ODFW photos on that page have copyright logos--even photos that are by known ODFW photographers. I have sent e-mail to ODFW, but no one has answered. Can any of these ODFW photos be used in Wikipedia without special permission from ODFW?--Orygun (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's wierd. Some of them have a CC 2.0 Share Alike license, the others are copyright. Nope, don't understand. There are 3 email addresses here [1] I'd try emailing 'em all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "See our new flickr account for more public domain images" implies that all of the images in their flickr account are public domain. I understand it to mean that they have placed, or intend to place, one or more public domain images in their flickr account. As such, I don't think this declaration can be taken to mean that all of the images in their flickr account are public domain despite specific copyright declarations to the contrary on some of the images in their flickr account. If you want to resuse the images marked "all rights reserved" in ODFW's flickr account because you suspect that ODFW actually intends them to be in the public domain, I think you'll need to contact ODFW directly and follow steps at WP:PERMISSIONS. —RP88 (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just received following e-mail from ODFW:

    From: ODFW Web
    To: ....
    Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:22 AM
    Subject: RE: Copy Right Status of ODFW Photos
    Yes, this has been brought to our attention. New to Flickr we’ll have to figure out how to fix that! They are public domain. You may use them as you like.
    Thanks!

    So, looks like all ODFW photos are Public Domain. Hopefully, ODFW folks will fugure out how to correct their flickr uploads to reflect correct status.--Orygun (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of ""public domain" photos

    A user, Moc trojan, uploaded a lot of "Public Domain" photos to Wikipedia, and I am positive the user didn't take them. All of the photos in question deals with the East Carolina University campus. None of these houses or places are found on campus or in the city of the university. I already found one of his "public domain" photos from the actual source by TinEye, but the other ones are coming up empty. The user created a couple of articles, that were deleted, and these photos were on there. What is the proper procedure to get them deleted? The photos in question are:

    Thanks, PGPirate 16:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark the ones that are obvious copyvios (if you found the source) with {{db-filecopyvio}}, and perhaps take the rest to WP:PUI. -Andrew c [talk] 16:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't realize these files are hosted at the Commons. Perhaps talk to the user, then do a bulk deletion request at Commons (in lieu of PUI). -Andrew c [talk] 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This user just has this crazy delusion with all of this. I want it all correct and cleaned up on here. PGPirate 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)The user uploaded the photos twice? Once on en.wiki and once on the Commons? Or the images are showing through on en.wiki from the Commons? You can tell by seeing if there is a message that says "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below. " on the en.wiki page. If this is the case, then the images can ONLY be deleted on the Commons, based on their rules. -Andrew c [talk] 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they are all hosted now on the Commons site. It seems like one of the photos the Eames Building photo is of the Egyptian Building in Virginia. Is there a place on Commons that I can ask this question? I don't don't want to mess up anything. I used to have a program to do this for me, but not since wikipedia switched to a new layout, it doesn't work anymore. Thanks, PGPirate 19:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is the help desk <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/COM:HD>, also check out the links in the "Important discussion pages" sidebar on the right, next to the Table of Contents. "User problems" or the general admin noticeboard may also be good places to ask. -Andrew c [talk] 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!, PGPirate 22:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I vaguely remember reading somewhere about Texas releasing its government-produced works into the public domain. Is this correct, or am I getting it confused with Florida? Nyttend (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Copyright status of work by the U.S. government#State and Local Governments in Florida, California, and Minnesota is what you are looking for. Texas is not included. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I know of no Texas state laws that require Texas state agencies to release their works into the public domain, as such you should assume all such works are subject to copyright unless the agency issues a statement otherwise. —RP88 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. There is no Texas law that makes government works public record or domain. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks; I didn't remember that state laws were included in the article that you cite. While searching through the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source, I encountered one image that was a Texas government work, and that made me rather curious. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to ask User:Karanacs for help, she does a lot in the Texas history area.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Query from help desk

    User:Aristiderazu has an enormous amount of text with a note at the end "(translated by Andrei Radu Georgescu(Aristiderazu) from Constantin Kiritescu's work"Razboiul Pentru Intregirea Romaniei"(The War For Wholing Romania 1916-1919,published in 1921)". There is another copy of this text at WP:Help desk#General Aristide Razu and a third copy at User:89.114.127.23/General Aristide Razu. It was pointed out on the help desk (diff) that this might be a copyright violation.

    Can this text stay? Do we need extra information from User:Aristiderazu to resolve the issue? -- John of Reading (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Under U.S. copyright law which we follow anything published pre-1923 regardless of origin is public domain, so it is allowable here assuming he did the translation(as there would be a new copyright on the translation) and I see no indication that he did not do the translation. There could be issues with the reuse elsewhere, but that's for others to deal with. More details are available at Wikipedia:Public domain if you really want to dig in. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually an interesting case. Normally works first published outside the U.S. before 1923 are public domain in the U.S. due to copyright expiration. However, this text may not be in the public domain in the 9th Circuit if the work was only published in a foreign language outside of the United States and without a copyright notice, unless the author is known to have died in 1939 or earlier (more than 70 years ago). Fortunately, content in Wikipedia is subject to the laws (in particular copyright law) of Florida, which is not in the U.S. 9th circuit. To be completely aboveboard I suppose we'd like to know when and where Razboiul Pentru Intregirea Romaniei was first published, if it was published with a copyright notice, if it was subsequently ever published in the U.S. (and, if so, when), and if Constantin Kiritescu has died (and if so, when). Nonetheless, I believe using this text is OK, so long as its use is properly attributed so that reusers can verify that the text is in the public domain in their jurisdiction. To that end, a proper citation in the article is probably fine, but a mention of the issue and the relevant details on the talk page of any article that makes use of the content would be going the extra mile. —RP88 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that counts as really digging in to the details. Wow. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    lllustrating a biography

    Hello, I would like to use (under fair use) one of these pictures to illustrate the article Toni Musulin. What do you think? Is it ok under fair use? Laurent (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No. The issue is that with living people it is possible to get a free image - someone takes a picture and makes it available to Wikipedia under an acceptable license. See WP:NFCC item 1. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it fails WP:NFCC#1, so an image can't be used under fair use since it's possible for a free picture to be taken.
    That does bring up a tangential question though (for the other lurkers of this page), under what circumstances is it appropriate to use {{Non-free mugshot}} and presume that a free picture can not be taken for a living-but-incarcerated person? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the UK it is not permitted to photograph a jailed prisoner, so it would not be possible to obtain a photo while they were in jail. However, as our life sentences are anything but, that would not lead to a presumption that a photo could never be taken, even for a lifer. There is no absolute guarantee that even The Yorkshire Ripper might not be released one day - although I hope to G-d that he isn't!--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In Musulin's case the article says he will probably be released in 18 months, so the presumption is even less "presumable". – ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So if in largely all situations it's difficult but not unreasonable to expect that a free image can be made, even of prisoners, then shouldn't the use of the tag be restricted to deceased people or those who formerly had some particularly notable appearance per WP:NFC#UULP? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ex turpi causa non oritur actio

    Aldo Moro's picture taken in captivity is in the public domain due to the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Under the same logic this video footage should be in the public domain, though the inline captions are probably copyrighted. Is it safe to assume captionless screenshots from this videoclip, like File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG, are in the public domain? ליאור (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not at all an expert in the field, but since it's hotly debated whose fault it really was, claiming it under PD for that reason could open a can of worms regarding the Israel Palestine dispute. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC)I don't think so for two main reasons. First, the image you are comparing to specifically refers to Italian law. The image you want to claim is PD does not appear to be under the jurisdiction of Italy. What jurisdiction applies, and what laws specifically are comparable? Furthermore, I don't see what crime is being perpetrated by the image (this isn't a kidnapping). How specifically do you believe Ex turpi causa non oritur actio applies (assuming the jurisdiction governing this image has a comparable law). Excuse me if my ignorance of the situation doesn't let me see the significance of this image, so you'll have to spell it out for me.-Andrew c [talk] 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (or the related U.S. doctine of unclean hands) can be used as a justification to claim File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG is in the public domain. The pubic domain status of the image commons:File:Aldo_Moro_br.jpg relies on an Italian law that denies criminals certain rights (in this case copyright) if they are generated while committing a crime. Technically, ex turpi causa non oritur actio and unclean hands are defenses one might raise as a defendant in a lawsuit, much like one might claim fair use as defense in a copyright infringement lawsuit. The ability to raise a defense is not a good analogy to the case with the photo of Aldo Moro. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the photo of Aldo Moro was actually an instrumentality in a crime, in that it was used to extort the Italian government, while this footage is largely incidental to any crime that may have occurred. Even if we could untangle which country's copyright law applied to this footage (security camera footage captured in international waters from a Comoros-flagged ship owned by a Turkish NGO while confronting a maritime blockade of Gaza, argh!), and that country had a legal principle similar to the case in Italian law, the Wikimedia Foundation would have to be able to argue that the footage was taken by the ship's owners while they were committing a crime. I don't think we'd want to open that can of worms, even if we conceivably could. —RP88 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What about videos of captured soldiers?

    Thank you for your thoughtful clarifications regarding the legal mess concerning File:MarmaraBoarding0427.PNG. Wikimedia Israel is currently trying to ammend the Israeli Copyright law, releasing works of the Israeli Government to the public domain. If successful, this ammendment will enable us to upload plenty of valuable media, including that covering the flotilla incident.

    I now have another question regarding photos and videoclips of two captured Israeli soldiers, taken by militant organizations as a measure of extortion:

    1. Ron Arad - The second video from the left here was taken by Amal militants in Lebanon while holding him hostage.
    2. Gilad Shalit - This video was taken by Hamas militants in the Gaza strip while holding him hostage.

    What Copyright law is applicable for each of these videos? Could the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio be used to claim any of these videos is in the public domain? Thanks again, ליאור (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you know that that legal doctrine or a similar one applies to any of the countries/parties involved? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As to whether the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio can be used to claim that either of these videos is in the public domain, the answer is no. Even if it applies to these works, the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a defense that one might raise as a defendant, it doesn't deny copyright to the work's creator. However, It might be reasonable to refer to this doctrine if you use the image in accordance with WP:NFCC. For example, in your non-free use rationale you might allude to ex turpi causa non oritur actio as the reason that our use does not compete with the copyright holder's ability to use the work commercially (i.e. to enforce the copyright the copyright holder would first have to be willing to admit to conspiracy in a crime, and even if he did so, in jurisdictions where this doctrine applies a court would presumably be less likely to grant damages to the copyright holder for unauthorized use of his work).
    As to what copyright law is applicable to each of those videos, my opinion is that Lebanonese copyright law applies to the Ron Arad video, assuming the photographer is a permanent resident of Lebanon. As to the Gilad Shalit video, I think that is a more complicated case. Whose copyright law applies to the residents of the Gaza strip ultimately comes down to the legal status of Gaza, and since this status is still in dispute, I think its probably best to assume the Gilad Shalit is non-free content an use it in accordance with WP:NFCC. —RP88 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia use only

    Just out of interest this image File:Pat-Burrell.jpg has a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License but the permission text says Permission is granted by the author Scott Ableman to use this photo on Wikipedia under a CC-2.5. we have a few images uploaded from the same source. Can you restrict use to wikipedia but have a cc attribution licence? (the original source at flikr has a by-nc-nd licence) thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 and ...on Wikipedia... and Any other use requires permission from the author... are in conflict. The image has been tagged for deletion as having an incompatible license. – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Ukexpat, the licensing of this image looks to be in a confused state, the "on Wikipedia" restriction is inconsistent with the claimed CC-BY-2.5 license. Looking at the revision history of File:Pat-Burrell.jpg, it appears that earlier today Ww2censor tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#F3, then Nyttend deleted the file, restored it, and removed the CSD tag. I'll list it at WP:PUF where it can obtain a more considered review. —RP88 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The PUF listing is here for those who wish to discuss this. —RP88 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the uploader should be notified of the specifics of the problem so they can decide whether they want it to be deleted or correct the permission to simply be CC-BY-2.5 ? Per the logs they're the same person so they could go through the formal OTRS process this time if they want to leave the file up. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The uploader has been notified but has not been active recently. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As part of doing the PUF listing, I did notify the user, but ran into an edit conflict with Ww2censor's notification. I let his version stand. —RP88 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed I did because there is no good evidence that permission was ever received other than a say-so. The source licence is still different that on the file page and that needs to be clarified, otherwise we have to err on the side of caution and delete it. The PUF at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 June 4#File:Pat-Burrell.jpg is the best way to go. ww2censor (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A few more images with the same problem and also make the same claim:

    I have not checked all the users uploads, can the be added to the PUF or will they need some other action? MilborneOne (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We also have a dervied vesion at File:Pat-Burrell-crop.jpg. MilborneOne (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand the uploader is the flikr account so I have struck the ones where he has changed the license, the others still says wikipedia use only. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And "CC-2.5" isn't sufficient license anyway; there are several CC-2.5 licenses which we don't accept. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't we still need OTRS permission and not just an admin's word that they're the same person in order to accept even the struck-out images? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    add a new word

    I am the inventer of the FAR*LOG, how do i input this new word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.154.170 (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll need to register an account, but please bear in mind these three policies before you decide to start an article. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 16:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll go so far as to say you don't. Doing a search for it found only a reference to your Facebook page for the product, with a whopping 56 fans. This product is not notable. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, such an article would be quickly deleted per WP:NEOLOGISM and, even more appropriate, WP:MADEUP. – ukexpat (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    British Army

    Hi would British Army cap badges and other emblems fall under copyright ? The Special Air Service article is going through a [Article review] and it been mentioned that the image File:SASWings.png and the cap badge image File:SasclothBadge.jpg may not be released under GDFL. This would probably fall under PD-UK-Gov. They both date from 1941 when they were designed. Is their anyone able to clarify if they would fall under the PD-UK-Gov ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you, or one of the other editors familiar with the history of the Special Air Service, tell us who designed the logos visible in these images and when they were designed? —RP88 (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm betting this book could tell us. Jim, are any of the copies close to you or perhaps available through inter-library loan? Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [http://www.worldcat.org/title/allied-special-forces-insignia-1939-1948/oclc/43540741&referer=brief_results This one might also be pretty useful. Parsecboy (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - they were designed in 1941 by members of the regiment the cap badge by a Bob Tait the parachute wings, by a Lieutenant Jock Lewes, which were based on the stylised sacred Ibis wings of Isis of Egyptian iconography depicted in the décor of Shepheard's Hotel in Cairo. Both cited in the article here Special Air Service#Uniform distinctions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it safe to assume this done in the in the course of their official duties? If so, then all we need is evidence that the Crown published these logos before 1960 for the logo to be PD. Note that this is published, not merely displayed. If a pre-1960 published document contained these logos can be found, then these images can be tagged with the {{PD-BritishGov}} tag (along with a tag for photographer's license). Make sure the image description cites the sources for the identify of the logo creator, the date the logo was created, and the pre-1960 document in which they appear. —RP88 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I've uploaded File:Lothair article.jpg which, currently, has no license information. What I'd like to know is whether this image (a photograph showing a Wikipedia article and the Wikipedia logo displayed through a projector) would come under Commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia or under whatever license I'd like to release it? matt (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For content containing WikiMedia Foundation logos, use the {{Non-free Wikimedia logo}} tag. Normally with non-free images you have to also include a fair use rationale, however the WikiMedia Foundation has stated that there is no issue to using the WM logos in any manner on WMF websites, so a rationale is not necessary. A separate issue is the browser UI elements visible in the image. If that is a non-free browser, you'll need to also use {{Non-free software screenshot}} and a fair use rationale. You can avoid both of these issue if you crop the image prior to uploading to exclude the WikiMedia Foundation logos and the browser UI elements. —RP88 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it turns out that there is a specific image copyright tag for screen shots of Wikipedia pages, namely {{Wikipedia-screenshot|logo=yes}}. Use that along with a {{Non-free software screenshot|<appropriate screenshot category>}} and a fair use rationale. See File:Internet_Explorer_8.png for an example. —RP88 (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Would I be correct in thinking that the licenses given for File:Firefox 3.6 Screenshot.png would be fine for my image, as they cover both the software (interface) and the Wikipedia content (text and logo)? matt (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that one is not analogous to your image. In that image the author was careful to use an open source browser, on an open source OS, carefully scrolling the Wikipedia page down to hide the Wikipedia logo. —RP88 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've looked closely at your image and I think it consists of the Firefox browser, running on Mac OS X, showing a WIkipedia page with a visible WikiMedia Foundation logo. I've added image copyright tags to File:Lothair article.jpg based on that assumption. However, what I did is not complete. You still need to add a fair use rationale for whatever article page this image is going to be used on. Once you add the rationale, you can change the image has rationale parameter on the {{Non-free software screenshot}} tag to yes. —RP88 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, as an example I placed {{pd-self}} for the rights arising from your own artistic choices when taking the photo. Make sure you change this to the actual license you want to use for your own rights. —RP88 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you can remove the Mac OS X section of the license tags and eliminate the need for a fair-use rationale if you carefully examine your image and make sure it does not contain any copyrightable UI elements from Mac OS X (see commons:Commons:Screenshots#Web_browsers for details). —RP88 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Michael-Simms-(software-developer).png

    I tagged File:Michael-Simms-(software-developer).png as it was an non-free image of a living person. The uploader has now changed the copyright to GFDL as he/she says notice on the bottom that says that all web content from LinuxEXPRES is under the GFDL. I have re-tagged the image with no evidence of permission but if anybody who can read czech can work out if the image is release as GFDL [2] which is a translation of http://www.linuxexpres.cz/o-webu/podminky-pouziti , thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe you should ask one of the volunteer translators at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Czech-to-English and see if they can confirm the accuracy of the translation? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand GFDL is probably not acceptable now per Wikipedia:Licensing update. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually GFDL is still acceptable for media, just not for text (gotta scroll all the way down to Wikipedia:Licensing update#Media files). Nothing like a good dose of copyright confusion. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK thanks for that VW it is not the clearest document on wikipedia! MilborneOne (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Hot.jpg

    How is this image "released" into the public domain? Shouldn't there be proof of consent of the person photographed? This file isn't used anywhere, but I have no idea if I should speedily delete it or put it up for FfD or what... it's sort of a creepy thing to do. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proof of consent is not relevant for copyright. Besides, the image is upload on Commons. The image is not in use so it could be deleted or at least renamed. Garion96 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, (sort of) an edit conflict. You're right though, I should bring this up at the Commons, not here. Things are falling into place. And like I sort of mentioned below, but that you already answered above, a name change would be the best thing. Still, I gotta say, if I saw an image of me on Wikipedia, I'd be livid. Anyhoo, thanks for the response! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I managed to find Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people and I guess the image is a-ok to use. However, the image has been named "hot" and I think that would serve to be potentially demeaning. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When a photographer takes a picture they acquire copyright in the photo they took, and as such they are free to license that copyright as they wish (in this case the photographer is placing no copyright restrictions on use of his photo). In some jurisdictions, including some states in the US, identifiable subjects of a photo have personality rights which limit what can be done with a photo of the subject, irrespective of any copyright license. As regards to this image, we can't actually do anything about it here on Wikipedia, as it's actually hosted by Wikipedia's sister project Wikimedia Commons. I went over to Commons and stuck a caution about personality rights on the image. I've also requested the deletion of the image at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests since that image is outside the project scope of Wikimedia Commons (Commons requires images it hosts to be realistically useful for an educational purpose and be named in a manner that does not disparage the subject). —RP88 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay good, then at least there's some common sense involved. Otherwise, we'd have all sorts of images being uploaded that "happen" to fit copyright criteria. Thanks both of you for your replies. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, before I go and upload this picture to either Wikipedia or Commons, I'd like opinions on its status. The Armed Guard website claims copyright, but isn't the image PD-US as it's over 50 years old / or the work of the US Forces? Mjroots (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As this image was not published prior to 1923, we're going to need some more details to figure out its copyright status. The armed-guard.com site has a contact page. I recommend you e-mail the person listed there and ask him if he can tell you where he obtained that photo and if he knows who the photographer was and when and where the photo was taken. Get as many details as you can (i.e. if the source was a book ask which one, if from an image archive ask for the ID, etc.). Post back here with his reply, and we'll try to determine if it is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Uploading images of US stamps issued after 1978

    I was checking out the upload requirements for 1978+ postage images and found out that a "fair use" rationale form or template must be completed on the upload page. Am a bit in the dark here. Am not sure what to enter after the equal sign ie. 'low resolution =' and am not clear about 'replaceability =' Also, if I upload the 1978 Viking Mission postage stamp evidently it can only be used in a specific article, and am not sure whether or not the stamp can be discussed in a topographical capacity. Apparently I can talk about space stamps and use the Viking issue as an example, but can not discuss the Viking Satellite depicted on the stamp. GWillHickers (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can this image be covered under Fair use?

    [3] has an image of an artist Mark Rothko who died in 1970. Is that an image that would be acceptable under Fair use in the info box for Mark Rothko with appropriate licensing info? Active Banana (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a quick search, but I was unable to find any freely licensed photos of Mark Rothko. Since Mark Rothko committed suicide more than 40 years ago, I don't expect any newly free licensed images to turn up and, naturally, one can't be created. However, to use a non-free photo you have to correctly source it, including relevent details such as the photographer or copyright holder. A much better, uncropped, verson of that photo is available at rothko_portrait.jpg (2100 × 2401) from Stampfli & Turci art dealers. The page that hosts that image "Mark Rothko. The Retrospective – Kunsthalle Hamburgturn" describes the photo as:
    Mark Rothko. Retrospektive – Kunsthalle Hamburg
    Mark Rothko, um 1961
    © 1998 Kate Rothko Prizel & Christopher Rothko / VG Bild Kunst, Bonn 2008
    If you upload the image, make sure you include that information in the image description. Please don't upload the full image (or if you do, edit the image description page with {{non-free reduce}} to ask someone else to reduce the size for you.) —RP88 (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, looking at the high-res image, is that one of Mark Rothko's painting in the background behind him? If so, can you identify it? If it is a work of art you want to include which one in the image description and make sure to include critical commentary on that work in the Mark Rothko article. Don't forget to include a fair-use rationale for this image on the image's description page. Tag the image with {{Non-free fair use in}} or, if that is a work of art behind him, {{Non-free_2D_art}}. —RP88 (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking for an image of Rothko himself to place in the info box of the article, rather than having one of his rectangle works represent him. I assume that the image in the background is one of Rothko's works, but as a black and white photo, I am not sure that we could identify which one if the hosting site doesnt. Active Banana (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is "No. 7, 1960", see [4]. Do you know someone or a library with a copy of Mark Rothko: the works on canvas : catalogue raisonné (OCLC 39257296? That is complete catalog of his works, with a detailed description of each. —RP88 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of liked the idea of having the artist in front of his work, but since we already have a similar work with commentary for use in the article, would it be less hassle to use one of the other images of Rothko without his painting in the background? Active Banana (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can find a non-free photo of Mark Rothko that doesn't also picture one of his works, and you can properly source it, then yes, it will probably be easier to justify the use of that photo with a fair-use rationale than this one. Whether tracking down an alternate image and sourcing it properly is less of a hassle then making the necessary article changes to justify this one, that is something I don't know. —RP88 (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The image discussed above is not permissible fair use under WP:NFC#UUI #6, as it comes from a press agency, Getty Images.[5] Ty 16:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent find, thanks for digging that up. —RP88 (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I'm curious, what search criteria did you use to find that photo at Getty Images? When I searched Getty for "Mark Rothko" (a few hours ago when thread started) I didn't uncover that photo. —RP88 (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched Google Images for "Mark Rothko" (with apostrophes). The Getty Images-watermarked image came up at the bottom of page 49. Ty 17:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, you clicked through 49 pages of image search results? -Andrew c [talk] 19:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, 52[6]—just in case something else interesting turned up! Ty 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've uploaded a fu image at File:Photo of Mark Rothko by James Scott in 1959.jpg. Ty 18:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How to add Obama nomination YouTube video to James R. Clapper article

    Hi: I would like to add the 5 June nomination YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzwE7VR1rcc) to the nomination section on the James R. Clapper page, but require assistance. In particular, I would like it to be an actual embedded video clip similar to this video on the Deewater Horizon oil spill page. Any help is appreciated. - WilsonjrWikipedia (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't appear to asking a question about copyright. However, since this is Whitehouse.gov video that has been uploaded to the the official Whitehouse YouTube account, and tagged as public domain by the Whitehouse, it would be better for this to be uploaded to Commons, not Wikipedia (the Deepwater video was uploaded to Commons at commons:File:Deepwater_Horizon_fire_seen_by_US_Coast_Guard_helicopter.ogv). Commons has a page of instructions on how to prepare and upload video at commons:Commons:Video. —RP88 (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This file (Ardipithecus) needs a copyright tag or it will be deleted, but I can't find one appropriate to the subject matter. The image is a non-free artist's rendering of what a fossil likely looked like when it was alive. As far as I can tell, there's no "scientific image" copyright tag, so what should I use? cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 00:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no specific image copyright tag for non-free scientific images, the one you've chosen, {{Non-free fair use in}} is appropriate. However, I have several concerns regarding the fair use rationale for this image. First, it's a bit larger than it probably should be for an image showing the entire drawing -- I've tagged it with {{Non-free reduce}}. This puts the image into a special category monitored by editors who are handy with an image editor and experienced in making judgements about the size of fair use images. Hopefully one of these editors will take a look at it shortly and adjust the size, if necessary. Second, one of the criteria that non-free content must meet to be used on Wikipedia is WP:NFCC#1, i.e. "No free equivalent." I don't think your current explanation as to why this non-free image can not be replaced with a free image is adequate. Is it really true that no artist could create a freely licensed image that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this non-free image? If so, you should explain why not in the "Replaceable" section of the non-free media use rationale. It's not enough to say that a free image doesn't currently exist, you have to explain why one can't exist or reasonably be expected to exist. —RP88 (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Use of photographic portrait taken in 1909

    I wanted a photograph for George Henry Livens, his grandson is also a professor at Manchester and has sent me a scan of a photograph of Livens from 1909 which he owns and is happy for it to be used in any way that is helpful. The photographer is unknown, given the date and pose was probably professional and (long since dead). Can we assume the Livens family own the rights to the photo? If so what copyright tag can we use?. Billlion (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Has it been published (with notice, in those periods that required notice on publication)?
    If it's unpublished, or was not first-published prior to 2003, its copyright expired at the latest in 2002.
    If it was first-published between 1978 and 2002, it's under copyright through 2047.
    If it was first-published prior to 1978, its copyright will have been 28 (or, if renewed, 95) years from publication. You can't determine the date of expiration without knowing the year of first publication. TJRC (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    TJRC is right when he says we need to know if the photo has ever been previously published and the circumstance under which it was published to determine the copyright status of this photo. However I think he's wrong in some of his details, most particularly, the copyright term for this document if it's never been published and never registered with the copyright office. Unpublished and unregistered works when the death date of the author is not known have a copyright term of 120 years from date of creation. A work created in 1909 that meets these criteria will enter the public domain on January 1, 2030. The same term applies if was never published or registered and the author is anonymous. If you can track down the identify of the photographer, and this photo has never been been published and never registered, the copyright term is the life of the author plus 70 years, so if you can identify the photographer, and he died before 1940, this photo is in the public domain. —RP88 (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Public Domain Confirmation

    Have received confirmation from state agency that their images are in Public Domain. Read direction on WP:PERMISSIONS page that outlines how to submit confirmation for review. It says to send confirmation to: "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". Does that mean: "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org" or "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org" or something else.... In any case, I can't find live e-mail address. Have already spent lot of time getting confirmation, but now I'm lost. Really need some help!--Orygun (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    permissions-commons@wikimedia.org should be the one. You can contact me on commons if you need any further assistance regarding uploads to wikimedia commons (you are now on wikipedia). Deadstar (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Original source information needed for File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila.jpg

    The information at commons for File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila edit.jpg refers to an original file which is not available anymore. Can someone check the (licensing and any other) information for the now deleted original file and perhaps even restore/upload it to Commons so both files are available for use in the future. Thanks. Deadstar (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The text in the info is the text from the original file. The license is the same as well. That said, it isn't clear why the image was deleted on en.wiki. An admin uploaded it and then deleted it, saying "delete own photo" or something like that. Furthermore, there is no image in the deleted page history. So either it was an error upload, or the image was oversighted, or something is up with the server/my access. It's all a bit odd. -Andrew c [talk] 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin who uploaded and then a month later deleted the File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila.jpg image also switched the image on Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg to File:Rabbi Scheinberg at a Bris Mila edit.jpg just before deleting the old image, following the edit (whatever that may have been). It's likely he deleted it as obsolete, without thinking about preserving the licensing history. —RP88 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your help. I have updated the image with a little more info. I'll paste this into the discussion page in case there's any future queries. (I also just found User_talk:Crzrussian/Archive_9 which mentions that Fir002 did three possible edits of the disappeared file, so not sure what is going on.) Closing this anyway. Thanks again. Kind regards, Deadstar (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Australian Government copyright - official picture of Rear Admiral Nigel Coates, recently deceased serving office of the Royal Australian Navy

    Rear Admiral Nigel Coates of the Royal Australian Navy died on 2 June 2010; his funeral is on 9 June 2010.[1]

    An official image of him as Commander Australian Fleet, taken on 17 October 2008, is being used extensively for matters related to the funeral. It also features covering the front page of the edition of the RAN's newspaper. (Defence copyright statement)

    Can that image, or the image of the front page of the newspaper, or the mock-up of several images of him used on the RAN website and in the newspaper, now be used on his Wikipedia page? If so, which is preferable? What are the grounds, if not "fair use"?

    1. ^ Navy Mourns Tragic Loss of RADM Nigel Coates, Navy News, 7 June 2010, accessed 8 June 2010

    - Peter Ellis - Talk 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I do not think you can use that image. Unlike the works of the US government, this image is not in the public domain. Works of the Australian government are covered by Australian Commonwealth copyright. Commonwealth copyright expires 50 years from the date of creation (rounded up to the nearest year), as such, this image will be covered by copyright until January 1, 2059. You also can't use it as non-free content, as it fails WP:NFCC#1 "No free equivalent" due to the existence of this image on Commons. —RP88 (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential problems

    In a peer review, it was brought up that two of the photos could have copyright problems. Both have somewhat strange situations. Would a scale model in a museum be considered a work of art? I know that there was a previous discussion about a model in the UK and an exception was found for models of buildings in public places, but what about in the US? Also, what would the copyright of a photo that was taken in 1866 and whose author is unknown, but probably was not published (as it was kept in a museum archive) until 1972 in a book? ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Margaret Court photo status

    Just checking in with the status of File:Margaret Court.jpg. Since sending the email correspondence to wikipedia as required I have heard nothing and I wanted to make sure that when June 11 came along no deletion would happen. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an OTRS pending notice on the image and that is not always a speedy process, so just be patient, it may take 7-10 days. You won't hear anything if all is well and the file will have an OTRS ticket attached. ww2censor (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lost in traffic

    Kindly review my question posted above. Thanks, ליאור (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Image of the "TROJAN HORSE OF TROY"

    I surely hope that you can help me. I need to upload the image of the Trojan Horse of Troy to my FACEBOOK page to discuss this article with my internet friends. Can you help me do this? Many thanks

    Lewis W. Tilley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.166.26 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is for copyright questions, if you need assistance using Wikipedia you should ask your question at Wikipedia:Help_desk. You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content for some recommendations and guidelines on using Wikipedia content in your own work. —RP88 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What more is needed?

    I received this message about an image I uploaded - "Thank you for uploading Image:Talune.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status....etc etc etc"

    The page concerned states : 

    == Summary ==

This image was made in New Zealand more than fifty years ago - the copyright has expired and the image is now in the public domain.

== Licensing ==

{{PD-NZ}}

    This seems to me to be the relevant information. What else is needed here? Pinot (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears you are referring to a two year old notice. The licencing seems fine and was added by another user the same day you uploaded it. However a full information template should be filled in with better details. ww2censor (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    From the edit history of Image:Talune.jpg, it appears Polly edited the image description after the bot notified you of the problems with the file. I've added an {{Information}} template to the image description, please fill out the fields with any information you have as there is lots of missing information. I'm happy to help out, but we'll definitely need more information from you. First, where did you obtain this image? Second, do you know the date it was created and/or the identify of the photographer? There currently isn't a description of the photo, can you provide us with a description (I notice that on SS Talune the image is used with the caption "SS Talune in Port Chalmers graving dock, c. 1890s"). —RP88 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The original information template was broken and just needed to be fixed. ww2censor (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I've also fixed the text in the permissions field, as the old text was not correct. —RP88 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Author Photo

    Dear experts,

    I have a question about uploading a photo for an article about an author. I contacted the author, who told me that I could use the standard author photo that he provides to all websites or media that request it, as long as I credit the author and provide a web link back to the source from which it was obtained. Do I need the author to write to an authority at Wikipedia confirming his permission? Also, which tags do I use in the "summary" and which option do I select in the "licensing" menu when I am uploading the photo?

    Thanks so much for your help!

    Martinjonson (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You need them to follow the procedure at WP:PERMISSION so long as they release the image under a free licence. You may also want to read donating copyrighted materials. ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Two silly questions

    I searched the archives and only found this thread that is relevant, but I was wondering if anyone could more thoroughly answer two (admittedly asinine) questions:

    1. I take a picture on someone else's camera. I own the copyright of that image, but s/he has the file. Am I right in thinking that, technically, that individual cannot copy the image to his/her computer without my permission?
    2. A friend takes a picture of me, for me. Does this count as works for hire or does s/he own it until s/he says "No, it's yours?"

    The latter would seem to imply massive copyright violations on Facebook that, of course, don't matter one iota. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Puerto Rico NRHP photos

    I am refered to here, for assistance/logging to deal with copyright issues for a number of photos uploaded recently and previously in Puerto Rico NRHP list-articles and separate articles, indexed via List of RHPs in PR. These include the following nine (and more):

    I posted this first here, and was advised "If you know the sources and they clearly state all rights reserved (or are not on a government site), then they should be tagged for WP:CSD#F9, if you don't know the source, then they should be listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)", and the mention there at Copyright Problems was deleted this edit removing it. The photos are in fact presented in NPS Focus system as "All rights reserved". However, in discussion at User talk:Quazgaa#copyright violation for 1 or more NRHP photos, Quazgaa states he/she is now going to seek more info and/or release from the Puerto Rico SHPO office for these photos. I don't think that will be successful for all of them, but it could possibly yield public release of some of them. I could do exactly as VernoWhitney suggested, and tag each of these 9 files individually, but in fact it's a bigger problem, there are more files uploaded than listed so far.[reply]

    Can experts here possibly monitor, and chime in on, ongoing discussion at User talk:Quazgaa#copyright violation for 1 or more NRHP photos? I was wondering maybe this should be revisited in 10 days, but i see there is already some further comment there, a reported consultation with someone believed to be an authority. I replied that i think they don't have the correct info. Thanks in advance for your help. --doncram (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please can you tell me how can I add this...

    Hi, I uploaded a photo which was taken by me and therefore I own the copyright. Please can you tell me how can I add this as a detail to a photo I uploaded that has been flagged for copyright? Thankyou! David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudey cool240 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Elderbordercollie.JPG

    Please can you tell me how I can copyright reference as my own the above file? It has been listed as copyright unknown, however I took this photo and I own the copyright.

    Please can you tell me how to proceed, Thankyou! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudey cool240 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just like the notice on your talk page tells you, you need to add a copyright tag to the image indicating under what licence it is released. Because you state that it is your own work, you may want to add the {{PD-self}} template to the file as well as filling out the missing details in the information template I added to the file. ww2censor (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Benelli photos

    I want to use some of the images found here. Their usage page is here. It says "Please note that Benelli USA Corporation owns all copyrights to the images, but grants you the right to use the images for editorial or advertising purposes." Would this website count as "editorial"? If not, what would be an appropriate way to ask permission to use the images? I'm pretty sure they'd be happy to let us use them, but the our people are generally pretty anal about copyright and whatnot. Would an email to the representative be appropriate? How would I go about posting that here? I'm bad at the whole "fair use discussion" game and its formatting. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This question raises a number of issues. The first thing we need to know is which ones you want to use and for what purpose? "Editorial or advertising purposes" are not acceptable uses under wikipedia policy but generally when a logo is used in the infobox of a company's own article it is acceptable under fair-use, so long as the image complies with all 10 non-free content criteria. However some of these logos are composed of simple text and graphics that the {{PD-textlogo}} copyright tag may apply though such images may also still require a {{trademark}} template per this image. ww2censor (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't we just email them for permission? What would be a good way to word it? Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but they are unlikely to give you permission, however, if you want, you can follow the procedure found at WP:PERMISSION. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What copyright license applies to the pictures in [7]? Especially the monk in white, and guy with moustache [8]? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majuru (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Incorporating album covers into artist's page

    Hi. I want to incorporate non-free album covers into the discograpy section of this artist's page. Is it possible? Thank you. Bekiroflaz (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=367311416"